Sitting of 10 November 1988

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)
  YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)
  FALMOUTH CONTAINER TERMINAL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 17 November.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Housing (Relined Flues)
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many flues in houses owned by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive have been relined during the past five years; and what is the projection of numbers for the period up to 31 March 1990.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive tells me that records exist only for the last four years, during which 11,157 flues were relined in specific upgrading programmes. A further 4,285 are expected to be relined by the end of March 1990. Other relinings are carried out in comprehensive improvement programmes, but separate figures are not available.
    Mr. Walker: I thank the Minister for that reply, but he must be aware that many people have purchased their Housing Executive homes through Government encouragement. Is he aware that, unfortunately, many of those people have defective chimneys due to the flawed rubber sausage method which is used to repair defective flues? As many people are financially unable to have those defects remedied, I ask the Minister, especially in the interests of health, to agree to have those chimneys repaired, either by direct labour or by grant-aid.
    Mr. Needham: As much as I should like to help the hon. Gentleman's constituents with the problems caused by their flues, the fact is that they bought the houses from the Housing Executive. If they bought the houses under conditions which were not for any particular reason made clear to them, they can of course take legal action, as I believe some already have. However, the principle of
    468
    caveat emptor has to be maintained and, of course, it is really up to the purchaser to sort out the matter with the Housing Executive.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman keep in mind the great hardship that occurs when this alteration is carried out, as many people have had to leave their homes because of the state of their bedrooms and living-rooms? The workmanship has not been of the best standard in many instances. Will he urge the Housing Executive, when it alters the remaining flues, to ensure that proper facilities are provided while the alteration is carried out, and that compensation for the loss of furniture, carpets, curtains and facilities is paid quickly and properly?
    Mr. Needham: I shall, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's points before the chairman of the Housing Executive. I am sure he will agree that everything possible should be done to make certain that the tenants are adequately looked after while those operations are undertaken. I should say, perhaps, that the cost involved is £600 to £700. Although I realise that it is an imposition, it is still a fairly small amount of money in comparison with the value of the home.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was responsible for the original design of the flues installed in these houses? Are thousands of houses in my constituency having flues relined because there was an inherent design fault in the original system, and are people at risk for as long as those defective flues are not repaired?
    Mr. Needham: It is because the flues are defective that the Housing Executive is undertaking this programme throughout its stock—as quickly as possible. If, of course, the Housing Executive is at fault because of the design, the owners or tenants should take it up with the Housing Executive or go through the courts.

    Integrated Education
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress made in the development of integrated education and the education for mutual understanding project over the past six months.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Within the past six months three integrated schools have been granted maintained status and a new integrated school has been opened and provisionally registered as an independent school.
    The planned education reforms in Northern Ireland will include a range of significant new measures specifically designed to encourage the development of integrated education.
    On education for mutual understanding, a new guideline was published on 20 October and is being distributed to all schools. Under the education reforms, EMU will become a compulsory cross-curricular theme.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister outline how he supports and funds the community relations in schools programme and the provisions that he will make for the future funding and support, not only that programme, but of other reconciliation projects?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The budget for promoting cross-community contact in schools in a variety of ways, including the ones to which I have referred, and in the community; has risen sharply in the past couple of years. I hope and expect that that trend will continue.
    Mr. Favell: What has been the reaction of the churches to my hon. Friend's brave initiative? Do they recognise that the way to promote understanding and harmony is to bring the children of Northern Ireland together, rather than to promulgate a form of education apartheid?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It is not our wish to introduce measures that will offend against the theology or conscience of anyone in the Province, but we do not believe that such a charge could be laid against the plans for integrated education—provided that that is what the parents want for their children. So far we have been encouraged by the responses of the churches to this new and significant initiative.
    Mr. Kilfedder: No matter what opposition may come from the churches, and despite any stalling, will the Minister press ahead relentlessly to purge religious apartheid from the schools in Northern Ireland? I congratulate the Minister on what he has already announced, but he should not restrict himself to those measures. He should ensure that we also expunge sectarianism from the teacher training colleges in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his many years of strong support for integrated education in the Province. I assure him that his commitment to giving parents choice through integrated education is no greater than mine. We are determined to see that option made available to all parents in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister acknowledge that, prior to this initiative, there was already a high level of integrated education in certain sectors in Northern Ireland? Will he undertake to publish the extent to which children were already being educated together irrespective of their religious background? Will he also acknowledge that the state schools in Northern Ireland are already available to be used as centres for integrated education?
    Dr. Mawhinney: No, I do not accept that in the past there were strong integrated education facilities in the Province. Of course the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that, at a number of schools, pupils from both sides of the community are educated together, but he knows that such schools represent a small minority.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in law, all schools in Northern Ireland are open to any pupil of any or no religious faith. I look to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for support in giving parents the choice and the right to choose, which demonstrably so many parents in the Province want.

    Security
    Rev. William McCrea: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Molyneaux: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Since I last answered questions in the House on 28 July, 38 people have been killed in incidents in Northern Ireland arising from the security situation. This includes the eight off-duty soldiers brutally murdered near Omagh. Against this background I have recently been carrying out a detailed and comprehensive review of security measures in conjunction with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the General Officer Commanding the Army in Northern Ireland.
    The security forces have shown great skill and courage in their defence of the community. The House will be aware of their successes in recent days in preventing a number of serious attacks and making a number of arrests. So far this year 308 people have been charged with serious offences, including 16 with murder. Almost 500 weapons, some 89,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 9,000 lb of explosives have been recovered. In addition the Garda Siochana has recovered 290 weapons, about 140,000 rounds of ammunition and more than 1,100 lb of explosives.
    Rev. William McCrea: In the light of the Secretary of State's catalogue of atrocities in our Province, does he agree that it is far from peace, stability and reconciliation? Let us bear in mind the recent murder of a constituent of mine, Reserve Constable McCrone in county Fermanagh, and the massive find of bomb material. I congratulate the police officer who found it on his alertness, which has helped to save the Province from another onslaught by the IRA.
    What extra measures will be taken to stop the onslaught of the IRA, now that we are facing the long dark winter nights and people are filled with fear about the future?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as all other hon. Members from Northern Ireland the many steps that have been taken in recent months by the security forces, some of which have undoubtedly contributed to the recent successes. No one can be ignorant of the greatly enhanced activity. I told the House that we would be examining the number of measures that might be taken. The House approved one of them on Tuesday night. I have tried to help the security forces in such a way that if they bring people suspected of serious crimes to court, they will have a good chance of getting convictions. I am also concerned that the guilty should receive the proper punishment for their crimes.
    Mr. Molyneaux: With regard to last night's bomb attack on women and children in the Army homes complex near Londonderry, however desirable it may be to extend the protection accorded to such targets, is that not starting at the wrong end? Should not terrorists legally be taken out of circulation, and kept out of circulation?
    Mr. King: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is going further than the answer that I gave. If he is advocating selective detention, he knows that we have no plans to introduce it. But I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have made it clear that we rule nothing out and keep these matters under review.
    Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend understand that a significant factor in the continuing insecurity in Northern Ireland is uncertainty about its constitutional future? Why does he persist in denying Members of this House, including the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, the right to amend proposed legislation affecting Northern Ireland? Why does my right hon. Friend not follow the policy set out in the 1979 Conservative party manifesto and set up a regional council in Northern Ireland with widely devolved powers over local matters?
    Finally, does my right hon. Friend understand that his continued assertion that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom would be accepted more readily in Northern Ireland and elsewhere if we truly governed Northern Ireland like the rest of the kingdom?
    Mr. King: I always respect my hon. Friend's sincerity in these matters. There is no insecurity about the position of Northern Ireland, except that caused by many people who keep talking about uncertainty. The Government's position is clear, and so is that of the House, which has voted overwhelmingly for it. There will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom without the agreement of a majority in Northern Ireland. I have confidence in that majority and I often wish that more people who raise this point shared my confidence in it. That view, moreover, is overwhelmingly supported by successive Irish Governments. There is no question of insecurity.
    In response to my hon. Friend's second point, I hope that there will be legislation that Northern Ireland Members and hon. Members from elsewhere will have a chance to amend. Without anticipating the Queen's Speech, I suggest to my hon. Friend that he may find plenty of opportunities in the coming Session.
    Mr. Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend has said that Northern Ireland is presently recognised as part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the Anglo-Irish Agreement simply confirms Northern Irleland's existing constitutional status, but under Irish law the Province is part of the Irish Republic. My right hon. Friend has gained nothing from that exchange. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he wants to keep terrorists out of sight and out of the way during the emergency, he should institute a sentence of imprisonment for the duration of the emergency and not release any terrorists to go back on to the streets and commit terrorist crimes again.
    Mr. King: I note what my hon. Friend says and will not comment further on his last point. The first part of his question makes my point absolutely. Here is a lawyer arguing and sowing in the minds of Northern Ireland people doubt and insecurity that does not exist. Everybody knows that the reality of the agreement is quite clear. There will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of a majority. If my hon. Friend does not know the present status of Northern Ireland, everybody else does, and its status will remain as it is unless a majority want to change it.
    Mr. Winnick: Arising from the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), could the Secretary of State give us his views on whether the security and the political situation in Northern Ireland will be helped or hindered by the application from the North Down
    472
    Conservative Association to affiliate to the Conservative party, since the chairman of the Conservative party is very much against such affiliation?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must keep to the question on security.
    Mr. Winnick rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Whenever the hon. Gentleman gets up he strays from the question on the Order Paper. Please keep to it.
    Mr. McNamara: I congratulate the chairman of the Conservative party and the Secretary of State on yesterday's comments. May I raise with the Secretary of State the important matter of security at married quarters, about which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) spoke? There is concern that women and children should be properly protected. It is particularly nasty that within the anniversary of what happened at Enniskillen this attack should have been considered. Can the Secretary of State give confidence to the House that the necessary security measures will be taken to protect married quarters in Northern Ireland? The Opposition support what he said about the status of Northern Ireland, but, of course, we attach a particular political significance to article 1(c).
    Mr. King: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman has signed up to articles 1(a) and 1(b). I will settle for that. Those articles in the Anglo-Irish Agreement show the reality of the situation and I see no prospect of their changing. The hon. Gentleman's first point is a serious one. The House will share my disgust at last night's attack. It is further confirmation that, for the IRA, women and children are fair game. I continue to ask myself what sort of cause can be furthered, or what credit or ambition can be built up for the future, by trampling over the bodies of women and children. I hope that the House will treat, as I do, the statements by the IRA and the attack with the contempt that they deserve. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have already had discussions about security at married quarters and careful consideration is being given to taking the necessary security measures.
    Mr. Cormack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most people think that neither his resolve nor his sincerity should be called into question, and that doing so does no good to Northern Ireland or to the causes that we should all uphold.
    Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and second what he said.

    Harland and Wolff
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to privatise Harland and Wolff, in the light of the recent breakdown of negotiations with Mr. Ravi Tikkoo.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider reversing his decision to privatise Harland and Wolff, in the light of the breakdown of negotiations with Mr. Ravi Tikkoo and the implications for the company's ability to bid for military contracts of current uncertainty about its future status.
    Mr. Beggs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the privatisation of Harland and Wolff Ltd., Belfast.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The Government believe firmly that privatisation provides the best prospects for Harland and Wolff to achieve long-term viability and it is therefore our intention to return the company to the private sector. The breakdown in negotiations with Mr. Tikkoo was a disappointment, but discussions are continuing with other interested parties. The company chairman, John Parker, is also examining the feasibility of a management-employee buy out and this, too, will receive detailed consideration.
    With regard to Ministry of Defence work, I have made it clear that a privately-owned Harland and Wolff will be free to bid for future contracts. The eligibility of the company for such work would be assessed by the Ministry of Defence in the normal way.
    Mr. Marshall: I hope that the Minister will accept that Mr. Tikkoo is to be congratulated on discussing with the Government for so long the possible purchase of Harland and Wolff. However, he should remember that the only thing that Mr. Tikkoo wished to do in the first place was to have a ship built at Harland and Wolff. Why have the Government made it virtually impossible for a publicly-owned Harland and Wolff to do three things: first, to react in a positive fashion to the Tikkoo bid; secondly, to tender for Ministry of Defence work; and, thirdly, to react to the ban on the proposed building of the £8 million dredger, put forward by the south coast shipping company. Surely even the Minister recognises that a publicly-owned company which obtained at least two of the three orders would be far more attractive to the private sector than Harland and Wolff is at present.
    Mr. Viggers: We gave every possible support to Mr. Tikkoo in his approach to build the Ultimate Dream cruiseliner and to acquire the yard. That was the basis on which he was content to negotiate. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to sell short the Government's efforts. The Government are in close negotiation with prospective purchasers of Harland and Wolff. It is an integral part of our discussions that substantial orders will be placed with the yard forthwith. If successful, the negotiations will secure the future of the yard and its order book for many years. That is the goal towards which Ministers are working.
    Mr. Lloyd: The Minister has avoided the question of Ministry of Defence contracts. Will he tell the House why Harland and Wolff was prevented by his Department from tendering for the Ministry of Defence contract for the aviation support ship? Will he put it clearly on the record whether it was his Department that prevented Harland and Wolff from taking part in that process? Will Harland and Wolff be allowed to tender for Ministry of Defence work while it is still in the public sector?
    Mr. Viggers: I have made it clear that it is obviously not sensible at this critical stage to proceed with other prospective ship orders, as they could be inconsistent with the shipbuilding plans of a new owner.
    I confirm that Harland and Wolff, in the private sector, will, of course, be free to tender for Ministry of Defence orders and full intervention aid support will be available.
    Mr. Beggs: How many customers have been put off and how many potential orders has Harland and Wolff not been permitted to tender for because of this mailed fist, or even blackmail, policy that has been used to push through privatisation? Does the Minister recognise that, unless Harland and Wolff accepts some orders soon, thousands of men will be out of work and it will be impossible to find a new owner or work for those presently employed in Belfast?
    Mr. Viggers: I recognise that hon. Members are in some difficulty because they cannot be privy to the confidential discussions of Government, but the hon. Gentleman should not sell short the efforts of the Government and of the yard. I have had preliminary discussions today with another substantial company which has expressed interest in the future of the yard.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: When the Minister told The Guardian last week that he was fighting hard for Harland and Wolff, was he referring to its being closed out of the initial consultations regarding the aviation support ship? Was he referring to the refusal to give Harland and Wolff the contract for the Ultimate Dream, unless it was in the private sector, or to the scandal, which was announced yesterday, of the Minister turning down a further order of a dredger from Harland and Wolff, simply because it was not yet in the private sector? Will he please attempt to make my constituents understand how Harland and Wolff would be less attractive for privatisation if it had a full order book?
    Mr. Viggers: It is well known in Northern Ireland that my right hon. Friend fought long and hard to win the AOR order for Harland and Wolff. I would ask the hon. Gentleman where he was when the discussions were taking place. My right hon. Friend has not changed in his determination to do everything possible to secure the future of the yard.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us—not all on this side of the House—very much wish the best for Harland and Wolff, but nevertheless feel that it has had every bit the upper end of the playing field in the various competitions for military vessels? We wish Harland and Wolff good fortune, but at the same time we must be fair to British yards this side of the water. There is a limit to how much we can listen to complaints on this issue.
    Mr. Viggers: The Government have supported Harland and Wolff to the tune of £260 million in the past five years alone. That demonstrates their determination to support the yard. We are now convinced that the future of the yard lies not in the public sector but in the private sector, and we are determined to do our best to achieve that transition.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Minister has not explained to the House why he believes that Harland and Wolff would be more attractive with empty order books than with full ones. Is it not the case that Harland and Wolff was excluded from the early stages of the MOD contracts for the AOR vessels? Why does he now seek to ensure that Harland and Wolff will not win that £8 million order and the yard will be sacrificed on the Government's mad ideology on privatisation?
    Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the AOR with the ASS and the ASS with the dredger order. I

    475
    have answered the question. A prospective acquirer of the yard may well bring to the yard orders which would be inconsistent with other MOD or external orders.

    GOC (Meetings)
    Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met the Army GOC in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement about their discussions.
    Mr. Tom King: I last met the GOC on Monday 7 November, together with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to discuss certain aspects of the security situation. The substance must, of course, be confidential.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in the border brigade area, primacy of operational decision has passed, or been taken, from the police and given to the Army? Does he agree that that is a sinister and fundamental change of policy that has been forced upon him as Secretary of State and on the Chief Constable of the RUC by the faceless military people who are now the de facto rulers in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: If they are, they have not told me. The hon. Gentleman's ingenious question deviates considerably from the real situation. There is no change in the position on police primacy. The Chief Constable has responsibility for operational matters and the Army works in support of the civil power, but in certain respects in the border brigade, and in operations against terrorism, the Chief Constable has delegated certain operational responsibilities and authority to the Army. The Army acts under his authority. That is the position. It is quite clear, it has my full support, and I, the Chief Constable and the GOC keep it under close review.
    Mr. Marlow: Is it not the case that since three terrorists met a well-merited death at the hands of the security forces the level of violence and terrorist activity has reduced in the Province? Is this a coincidence, or does my right hon. Friend make some deductions from it?
    Mr. King: In terms of attempted terrorist incidents, that is not actually correct. However, I draw the attention of the House to the great energy and determination of the security forces. While there is a constant threat of attack, undoubtedly there have been a number of recent successes. A number of arrests have been made and the security forces certainly deserve every congratulation for that.
    Mr. Maginnis: When the Secretary of State talks to the GOC, does he recollect that each time he comes to the House to report on the security situation in Northern Ireland he produces a long and sad catalogue of deaths? He also produces a never-ending catalogue of arms and explosives found. Will he remind the GOC that if we could have continuity of frontier operations we would have a much greater chance of reducing the easy flow of arms and explosives from the Irish Republic into Northern Ireland? Since 92 per cent. of IRA murders are unresolved through the courts, does the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the GOC the need to dismantle the command and control structures of the IRA? Will he ask officers further down the line what they feel as they have to go out, week after week,
    476
    sacrificing life and limb to try to uphold the status quo with the limited resources made available to them by the Secretary of State?
    Mr. King: The answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) sought to explain certain ways in which I am seeking to ensure that the security forces receive the support they deserve in the important and dangerous work they do. I am seeking ways in which some of the objectives defined by the hon. Gentleman can be achieved. I am anxious to improve cross-border co-operation and make more effective the work of the Garda Siochana and the Irish Army working in support of it. Those are some measures that can help. I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to ensure that the security forces receive all the backing we can provide in the circumstances in which they operate.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that the statement issued a few days ago concerning the Loughgall incident was widely welcomed by all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, who are glad that those responsible for dealing with the IRA effectively will not be brought before the courts? Will he take it from me also that there is also a desire among all right-thinking people that any innocent person who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time should receive compensation as promptly as possible?
    Mr. King: Obviously, deaths of or injuries to any innocent people are deeply regretted. I do not think that there is any serious argument about the purpose of the terrorists killed in that attack. It was a miracle that there were no serious casualties among the security forces. We are often attacked by people who say that the procedures do not properly scrutinise the rule of law and the pursuit of the rule of law. It is worth remembering, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that what I reported on that occasion was the outcome of the scrutiny procedure. Every time a death is suffered by the security forces it is subject to close scrutiny and is the subject of a report to the Director of Public Prosecutions. That shows how we seek at all times to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

    Orders in Council
    Mr. Madden: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the relationship between the drafts of the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1988 and the Criminal Evidence Order 1988.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): The draft Police and Criminal Evidence Order substantially overhauls and rationalises the general criminal law in Northern Ireland and reflects provisions enacted for England and Wales in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The separate Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, which was debated and approved by the House on Tuesday, allows courts to draw an inference from the silence of the accused in certain circumstances.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister not believe that the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order seriously weakens the limited rights of the individual given in the proposed Police and Criminal Evidence Order? Does he not believe that the ability to detain suspects for 48 hours

    477
    without the right to legal advice, the requirement not to supply official statements to suspects before they enter police stations and the absence of any requirement to tape record interviews with suspects will undermine the credibility of the police and the judiciary in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Stewart: I do not believe that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman has referred to a number of aspects of the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Order, which, as he will know, has been out for consultation. We are currently considering the results of the responses that we have received. I do not believe that the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order is a diminution of rights. It makes it more likely that justice will be seen to be done. I do not think that the innocent have anything to fear from it. It will lead to a better system of justice in the Province, which is what we should all want.

    Health and Social Services
    Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to increase funding on health and social services in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: The hon. Member wil be aware that new public expenditure plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Autumn Statement included revised figures for the total of Northern Ireland public expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is considering how the totals announced should be allocated to functional programmes and he will make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Smith: I thank the Minister for his reply and take this opportunity to congratulate those working voluntarily and professionally in health and social services in Northern Ireland. On the recent Select Committee visit to Northern Ireland we saw the work that they are doing. They are dedicated to their jobs, which they often do under very difficult circumstances. Does the Minister welcome the degree of multi-party agreement shown by the call from representatives of the Ulster Unionists, SDLP and the alliance for the maintenance of per capita expenditure on health in Northern Ireland? How will the democratically elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland be involved in the allocation of the money that the Secretary of State will be announcing? Will the Government grasp this opportunity of building bridges between the communities in Northern Ireland by responding positively to that call?
    Mr. Needham: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the visit he paid to Northern Ireland, which we welcomed. We have a successful Health Service in Northern Ireland, on which we spend approximately 24 per cent. more per head than in the remainder of the United Kingdom. In the Autumn Statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned a 4·5 per cent. increase in real growth, which will apply also in Northern Ireland. It would be easy to involve politicians in any process in Northern Ireland if they were prepared to become involved and to begin discussing the way forward with the Government.
    Mr. Bellingham: I welcome what the Minister said about per capita expenditure in Northern Ireland being 24
    478
    per cent. more than on the mainland, but does that not illustrate that even if we spent another £5 billion or £6 billion on the Health Service here some would still say that it was not enough?
    Mr. Needham: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The difference in expenditure between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country arises entirely from the difference in need.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the scheduled review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    Mr. Tom King: The review of the working of the Intergovernmental Conference, prescribed by article 11 of the agreement, will begin three years after the agreement was signed on 15 November. I remain anxious to have all views that hon. Members and others may wish to put forward.
    Mrs. Clwyd: When will the Government take a more constructive approach to the agreement by pursuing the wide range of reforms that are necessary? When will they implement article 10 of the agreement, which commits the Irish and British Governments to co-operating to promote the economic and social development of both parts of Ireland?
    Mr. King: The table of progress, which I hope we shall publish shortly, will bring home how much progress has been made in the search for confidence in the administration of justice and some of the economic and social sectors. We have laid the foundations for co-operation, which could be valuable to people on both sides of the border.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, despite enormous difficulties and some reckless sabotage attempts from certain quarters, the agreement has been a great success? Will he reaffirm the Government's determination not only to continue this important agreement but to strengthen it?
    Mr. King: The agreement has considerable potential benefits for people throughout the island of Ireland, both in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This is not a matter—we are dealing with ancient hostilities and mistrusts that exist in the island of Ireland—in which immediate success can be achieved. The agreement provides an opportunity for close co-operation and, if handled sensibly, it could be of great benefit.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that we welcome his invitation to put forward our ideas on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and hope that all parties in the House and in Northern Ireland will take advantage of that? Would there not be an advantage in forthcoming years in having a regular calendar of meetings, with open agendas, at which parties throughout the country could make representations, with a full report-back afterwards, thus avoiding accusations of secrecy?
    Mr. King: I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman will be putting forward views, no doubt on behalf of his right hon. and hon. Friends, and I have no doubt also that those very genuine and sensible points will be included.

    Less-favoured Areas
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the recommendations in respect of the redesignation of the less-favoured areas in Northern Ireland has not been presented to the European Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Viggers: All the very detailed information needed to support a request to the Commission of the European Community for an extension of the less-favoured areas in all the United Kingdom regions has now been assembled. This means that we are in sight of being able to put a request to the Commission, but the request will be subject to detailed examination by the Commission. This might take some time and we cannot be certain of a favourable decision.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware that the inordinate delay in processing the extension of the less-favoured areas affects 4,600 farmers in Northern Ireland who cannot avail themselves of grant under the agricultural development programme? Will the hon. Gentleman do his utmost to expedite the claim in Brussels for an extension?
    Mr. Viggers: The matter is being considered in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman points out, 4,600 requests have been made from Northern Ireland alone. The number has also been very substantial throughout the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman has been assiduous in pursuing the matter, and I asssure him that the Government are equally assiduous in pursuing it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meeetings later today.
    Mr. Maclennan: In considering the responses to the Government's proposals on student loans, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the purpose of Government support for students should be to increase substantially the number of people in higher education in this country? As the proposals announced are based on a projection that there will be no increase in student numbers by 1996, will that not lay this country open to dangerous competition from other, better-educated industrialised democracies?
    The Prime Minister: The system of student grants and now of top-up loans is one of the most generous in the whole world. I am sure that most people appreciate that. Increasing numbers, and an increasing proportion of students, are going into higher education. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that. One of the purposes of yesterday's announcement is to help people who at present cannot go to university to take top-up loans so that they can take up places which might not otherwise be available to them.
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thurnham: In congratulating President-elect George Bush on his victory, will my right hon. Friend thank him for the part that America has played in helping to ensure a record 43 years of peace in Europe? Will she offer him her continued staunch support for the future strength of the Alliance?
    The Prime Minister: I gladly join my hon. Friend and most hon. Members in congratulating Vice-President George Bush on his splendid victory, which was a personal triumph for him. I also take the opportunity to thank the United States for being such a staunch ally in NATO and stationing some 330,000 troops in Europe. I hope that that contribution will continue, but I am the first to agree that Europe must be prepared to take a full part of the burden of the defence of Europe and to point out that this country does just that, as can be seen from the recent Autumn Statement.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us why members of the Cabinet are afraid to debate the conduct and plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What do they have to hide?
    The Prime Minister: There is no question of being afraid to debate it. Indeed, I have noticed that on the 17 days this year when the Opposition could have chosen to debate economics they chose to do so on only two, so they cannot relish facing my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much.
    Mr. Kinnock: It must be obvious, even to the Prime Minister, that the Chancellor has woven a tangled web around himself. Why will she riot give him an opportunity to clear his name in the House?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has built the best economy that this country has ever known, and everyone in the House has done very well out of it.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister will now tell us whether she agrees with the Chancellor that only "a tiny minority" of pensioners have problems in making ends meet.
    The Prime Minister: The simple fact is that only 18 per cent. of pensioners are on income support. That is quite clearly a minority.
    Sir George Young: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one thing at least is now clear following the Chancellor's briefing of the press last Friday—that the Government are considering additional ways to help the less well-off pensioner?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, that is absolutely correct.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minster if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister please explain to the House why, in most parts of Scotland, she is regarded as public enemy No. 1?
    The Prime Minister: If I might say so, Scotland has done very well by the policies that I have had the privilege to implement.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: As every Labour Government have operated a means test for all our citizens, is not the Leader of the Opposition talking total humbug—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions of the Prime Minister, not the Leader of the Opposition.
    Mr. Howell: Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to producing one form from which a decision can be made on whether tax should be paid or benefits given to top-up inadequate income?
    The Prime Minister: I would not be in favour of such a system, as it would lead to endless complexity. However, my hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the National Assistance Act started in 1948, having been introduced by a Labour Government, who followed it throughout all their time in Government. It is for means-tested benefits in addition to the fundamental basic state pension.
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cohen: What advice has the Prime Minister for President-elect Bush about tackling the US debt problem? Could it not spark off a serious international economic crisis? Would not one way to help be to spend less, not more, on armaments? Will the Prime Minister advise following that policy and not beat around the bush?
    The Prime Minister: In considering the budget deficit as a proportion of gross domestic product, I can only say that the American deficit is very much smaller than that which Labour had in this country during its time in office.
    Mr. Patnick: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to keep hooligans out of football grounds is through a national membership scheme? Will she call upon all football clubs to introduce and implement such a scheme as soon as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Minister with responsibility for sport introduced a report yesterday. It is right to have national identity cards for those who attend football matches—
    Mr. Home Robertson: In England.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, in England. We do not expect it to apply to Scotland.
    482
    We are anxious, as are most people, that families return to watching football as a recreation and a family outing. We believe that that is the way to separate hooliganism from football.
    Mr. Corbett: Has the Prime Minister seen today's reported remarks of the Secretary of State for Health, accusing nurses at Birmingham children's hospital of not doing the work for which they are paid? Will she share my offence at such remarks and ask the Secretary of State to withdraw them, on the grounds that those nurses are dedicated and professional, are doing their job in difficult circumstances, and are doing exactly what they are paid for? Does she agree that the argument is about their grading?
    The Prime Minister: I have not seen any such remarks by my right hon. and learned Friend. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the structure of the grading was agreed between management and nurses, and the regions have applied it to about 440,000 nurses. For that purpose, an extra amount has been given by the taxpayer, such that the total extra amount is about £928 million. If any nurse is aggrieved by her grading, she can go to appeal under procedures agreed by management and unions.
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hanley: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that it was announced yesterday that last year British companies, both large and small, gave over £1 billion to charity. Does that endorse her vision of a giving society and show that, if they are allowed greater control over a larger proportion of their money, people give wisely and generously?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Both companies and individuals are giving very generously, and much more generously than they were able to give several years ago. One should like to thank companies not only for giving to charities but for the excellent work they are doing in inner cities and for the way in which many of them are taking a much greater interest in local schools, thus giving children a far greater interest in the future and a far greater prospect of obtaining the right jobs.
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister is she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hoyle: Why is the Prime Minister in favour of sanctions on trade with Poland but not in favour of sanctions on trade with South Africa? Is her advice to the black people of South Africa that they should live in Poland?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are certain sanctions on South Africa, which are operated through the United Nations and which we honour, and there are other certain small sanctions which we have agreed through the Commonwealth, which we also honour. My purpose is to ensure that we do everything that we can to help Poland come to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund as to

    483
    how best to conduct her industrial and financial affairs in future. We in this country will be the first to help to reschedule Poland's debts and to give extra help—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might not like the long answer, but he does not like listening to sense.
    Mr. Wells: I am aware that the whole House will want to congratulate my right hon. Friend on digging her way through the rocks and quicksands that confronted her on her recent visit to Poland. Has her visit made it more possible for Polish people to choose a freer and better way of life?
    The Prime Minister: I made it quite clear that I was grateful to General Jaruzelski for ensuring that I was able to go wheresoever I chose in Poland to see whomsoever I chose to see, to have discussions and talks, not only with Solidarity, but with many independent people, who were able to put their views to me. I was extremely grateful for that. One problem with Solidarity is that there is no other expression of opposition on an organised basis in Poland. Things will be much better when there is a visible focus for people to make their own views known, which will be of great value to the Government. The round table is perhaps the first attempt to try to secure such a forum.
    Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 10 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fatchett: As the Prime Minister of Westland, does the Prime Minister feel that she is the best person to judge the integrity of the Chancellor?
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Westland's future was determined by its commercial future. That was absolutely the right decision. We have one of the best Chancellors that this country has ever had.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: As my right hon. Friend was unable to be in Paris yesterday to pay tribute to the memory of Monsieur Jean Monnet, will she take this opportunity to pay her tribute to the man of vision for his contributions to both the unity of Europe and the allied victory in the last war?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly pay tribute to Jean Monnet. I understand that there was a very moving ceremony yesterday in Paris. We were not able to go from here because, as my hon. Friend is aware, we had a state visit in this country.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business of the House for tomorrow and next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce the rearranged business for tomorrow at the same time as the business for next week:
FRIDAY 11 NOVEMBER—Timetable motion on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and the Housing Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the School Boards (Scotland) Bill and conclusion of consideration of Lords amendments to the Housing Bill.
MONDAY 14 NOVEMBER Remaining stages of the Road Traffic Bill [Lords], the Road Traffic (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] and the Road Traffic Offenders Bill [Lords], which are consolidation measures.
Afterwards there will be debates on motions to take note of EC documents on:
—safety in the workplace and personal protective equipment;
—on risks to workers from biological agents, the control of genetically modified organisms and the regulation of biotechnology;
—on tar yields of cigarettes and the labelling of tobacco products;
—on waste from the titanium dioxide industry; and
—on dimensions of articulated vehicles.
Details of the EC documents concerned will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER—Subject to the progress of business it will be proposed that the House will meet for prorogation at 9.30 am.
Mr. Speaker, the House may be asked to consider any Lords messages and other business as necessary.
The new Session will be opened on Tuesday 22 November.
[Monday 14 November 1988 ( 5 separate debates):
Relevant European Community Documents (a) 5211/88 Health and safety in the workplace (b) 5762/88 Personal protective equipment (c) 5836/88 Risks to workers from exposure to biological agents (d) 6397/88 Control of biotechnology (e) 10399/86 Community Regulation of biotechnology (f) 9444/87 Biotechnology Research (g) 4192/88 Labelling of tobacco products (h) 4193/88 Control of maximum tar yield of cigarettes (i) 6387/83 Titanium dioxide industry wastes (j) 7733/84 Titanium dioxide waste pollution (k) 6882/88 Dimensions of articulated vehicles.
Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee (a) HC 43–xxiv ( 1987–88) paragraph 3 (b) HC 43–xxxiv ( 1987–88) paragraph 2 (c) HC 43–xxx ( 1987–88) paragraph 2 (d) HC 43–xxxii (1987–88) paragraph 3 and HC 43–xxxix (1987–88) paragraph 3 (e) HC 22–vii (1987–88) paragraph 7 (f) HC 43–xii (1987–88) paragraph 3 (g) HC 43–xix (1987–88) paragraph 1 and HC 43–xxxix paragraph 1 (h) HC 43–xix (1987–88) paragraph 2 (i) HC 78–viii ( 1983–84) paragraph 6 (j) HC 78–xxxiv (1983–84) paragraph 3, HC 43–xxxiv (1987–88) paragraph 1 and HC 43–xxxv (1987–88) paragraph 1 (k) HC 43–xxxiv (1987–88) paragraph 3.]
Mr. Dobson: It would probably be kinder not to comment on the business shambles proposed for tomorrow—[Interruption.]—but as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is apparently prepared to defend himself on television and radio and to give partial information to newspapers about what he did or did not say last Friday, why have the Cabinet refused to provide time to debate the motion criticising the Chancellor which has been tabled in the names of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others? Is it that the Chancellor is afraid to come and face the music, or are the rest of the Cabinet afraid what he might let slip when trying to defend what he said he did not say? It is not unusual for the Opposition to call for a vote of no confidence in a Chancellor, but it is a rare event for a Cabinet to pass one, yet that is what we have seen today.
Will the Leader of the House therefore reconsider his decision, or try to get his Cabinet colleagues to reconsider their decision, so that we can debate this important motion, because this matter will not go away? Whatever happens before the Queen's Speech, this issue will not be allowed to rest by us. We believe that the Leader of the House owes it to the Chancellor, to the pensioners who are perturbed about the threat of means testing and to the journalists involved, whose integrity has been thrown into question by the Chancellor, to have that debate, and to have it soon.
Mr. Wakeham: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has answered a private notice question in the House and spoken about events outside the House, but I have considered the early-day motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. As Leader of the House I must have regard for the views of the whole House. The business that I have announced for Monday is important, and many hon. Members have an interest in it. If the Opposition wish to pursue the question of a debate on their early-day motion, there will be opportunities in the new Session for them to do so.
I do not accept for a moment what the hon. Gentleman said about the guillotine motion or the Government's legislative programme. As Leader of the House I have to take into account the views of all hon. Members, and it was clear last night that the arrangements between the Government and the official Opposition for dealing with the Housing Bill were not acceptable to the House as a whole. In those circumstances, I was doubtful whether the proposal to take the School Boards (Scotland) Bill would be generally acceptable. That is why I have arranged for the House to have an opportunity tomorrow to debate and reach a final decision on the future handling of both those Bills.
What the hon. Gentleman said about the Government's legislative programme is complete nonsense. Thirty-four pieces of Government legislation have already received Royal Assent this Session and another two have completed all their stages. The fact is that this Government have succeeded far better than the Labour Government ever did in bringing to completion an extensive and popular legislative programme, and Opposition Members do not like it.
Mr. Michael Jopling: When my right hon. Friend moves the timetable motion tomorrow and listens to the synthetic indignation from the Opposition, will he take care to remind the House that he

487
has never yet come within sight of breaking the record of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who as Leader of the House moved five guillotine motions in one day?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend is right. There have been many worse occasions than what will happen tomorrow. I regret that we have to debate a guillotine motion on a Friday, but we have the record of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) as a precedent, which we hope never to repeat.
Mr. Stanley Orme: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people consider that the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House by his statement last week? The only way to clear up that matter is by a debate in this House. Why have the Government shirked such a debate on Monday?
Mr. Wakeham: I have already dealt with that in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I am acting entirely in accordance with precedent.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, reported in The Independent today, that the only test of a Conservative is whether he supports the Anglo-Irish Agreement? If, as a result of our right hon. Friend's suggestion to the national union, the North Down Conservative Association is not allowed to join the national union, will my right hon. Friend confirm—for the Government are well known for their consistency—that he will recommend that all Conservative associations which do not support the Anglo-Irish Agreement are expelled and, what is more, that all Conservative Members of Parliament who do not support the Anglo-Irish Agreement have the Whip withdrawn?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend tempts me, but I shall restrict my remarks to Government business. The overwhelming bulk of hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is a worthwhile initiative and should produce substantial benefits to the people of Ireland, both in the North and in the Republic. I have long since learnt not to talk about Whipping matters, and I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to make any comment about the Conservative party from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Michael Foot: As the matter of previous guillotines has been raised, may I make a proposition to the Leader of the House which may help him out of some of his difficulties, although, particularly with a majority of well over 100, I have never seen such a legislative shambles as that which he presides over? May I make him a fair bargain to settle the matter once and for all? If I agree to a debate on the merits of my five guillotine motions in the next two or three days, will the right hon. Gentleman agree to find time to debate our motion on the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Let us have debates on both matters. Or is the right hon. Gentleman really going to run away from the challenge of a debate about the performance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House a few days ago?
Mr. Wakeham: Perhaps I was a little unfair to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, and that caused him to rise
488
to his feet. I should have explained to the House that the reason why he was forced to table five guillotine motions on one day was that there was no other way in which he could have got his business through the House by the necessary date.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As Hansard revealed on Tuesday, the EEC management committee, on which the Government are represented, is now selling substantial quantities of butter at 2½p per pound, compared with £1 a pound in this country. Will my right hon. Friend try to allow some time for us to discuss the implications for the British taxpayer and consumer of those developments? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the EEC is spending more money every three days on the dumping and destruction of food than the yearly amount that will be received from the charges for sight tests and dental tests?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about these matters. Debates on the European Community and its various activities are important, and I have announced a number of such debates for next week. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said, in the hope that there will be a more general debate in the not too distant future.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to consider reports in the press in the past two days that the emission of radio nuclides into the atmosphere over the weekend 28–29 October in the Greater Liverpool and Greater Manchester areas was the equivalent of three to nine times higher than the normal levels of background radiation? Does he agree that that justifies a Minister coming to the House to explain what led to those levels and why the local authorities were not notified of what had happened?
Mr. WakehamI have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the Department has not been notified of any release of radioactive material within the United Kingdom or of any overseas nuclear incident. I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Next Tuesday is the anniversary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which the majority of people in Northern Ireland regard as a great betrayal because their elected representatives were not consulted, although the elected representatives of the minority were consulted. May we have a debate next Tuesday so that the Government can put forward evidence to show that the agreement has achieved its aims of peace and reconciliation? As the Member of Parliament for North Down, a constituency that has been mentioned in the House, may I say that I do not mind what candidates come forward against me in the next election?
Mr. Wakeham: I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is as confident as ever.
I cannot arrange a debate next week on Northern Ireland, although I recognise that there is a demand for a debate in the House on that subject. The appropriate time to have such a debate is a matter for discussion. I shall bear my hon. Friend's suggestion in mind.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Leader of the House will recall that there has been growing

489
disquiet about private business. He will also recall that the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure, which was set up by this House and the House of Lords, has produced an excellent report. Will the Leader of the House give us some idea of how soon that report will be discussed in the House and an opportunity provided for us to vote on it? On Tuesday there were once again illustrations of the unsatisfactory problems of private business, and there may be problems again tonight.
Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a great interest in these matters and has great knowledge of them. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and to the other members of the Committee, who have produced a valuable report. Private business is a complex subject, in which there are many aspects to be addressed. I appreciate the considerable interest of hon. Members and I hope that, unusually, it will be possible to arrange a debate before the Government have responded to the Committee's recommendations in the normal way, so that we can hear the views of the House.
Mr. Roger Sims: The European Community documents that we shall be discussing on Monday cover several different subjects. Is it proposed that we should have an umbrella debate on all of them, or a separate debate on each? If the latter, will the debates be timed to ensure that each subject is adequately discussed?
Mr. Wakeham: As a result of representations that we have received, we have decided to proceed in the normal fashion. The debates will follow one after the other and the normal Standing Orders of the House will apply.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people were interested in the reports of eminent journalists last weekend and that, as a consequence, they now want a straight answer to a simple question? Will old-age pensioners be guaranteed free prescriptions while the Government are in office? Can the Leader of the House give us that guarantee, or a debate on the subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I am afraid that I was not present at that party. I have nothing to add to anything that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have said on the subject.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend note that important Scottish legislation, which the Scottish people are anxious should reach the statute book—the School Boards (Scotland) Bill—has once again been threatened and compromised by the activities of Left-wing London Members? Will he view with extreme scepticism any request by the Opposition for the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, in which they have no interest, given that the Scottish Office has given evidence to Select Committees of the House on 23 occasions?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that my hon. and learned Friend takes a great deal of interest in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I have indicated that we shall arrange a debate to discuss the matter, and I have nothing further to add until that debate.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Has the Leader of the House looked at the outstanding Lords amendments to the deeply resented School Boards (Scotland) Bill? Will he confirm that this is the first time in history that a Government have moved a guillotine motion on a handful of minor and technical amendments? Is it a sign of panic?
Mr. Wakeham: No. I know that the Opposition suggested that they would like the amendments to be taken formally, and I shall certainly take that into account when drawing up the timetable motion. I hope that it will be possible to arrange matters so that if the House does not wish to spend the time provided on the School Boards (Scotland) Bill, additional time can be spent on the Housing Bill, if that is what the House wishes.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that this week's business, as originally announced, was agreed through the usual channels? Does he know what went wrong with the Opposition last night?
Mr. Wakeham: If anything went wrong last night, I do not suppose that the Opposition would tell me about it. I do not think that discussions through the usual channels are best ventilated on the Floor of the House. We do our best.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: The Leader of the House has said umpteen times during business questions that he hopes to have a debate on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs by the end of the Session. We have reached the end of the Session, and we are not to have a debate. The continuing lack of discussion of the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is nothing short of an insult to Scottish politics. When in the next Session does the right hon. Gentleman propose to have a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I said quite what the hon. Gentleman suggests. I said that I had put certain proposals to the Opposition which were unfortunately unacceptable to them. If those proposals had been accepted, the Select Committee could have been set up a long time ago. I regret that that did not happen. I have said that we shall organise a debate, and the timing of that debate is best discussed through the usual channels. I had hoped to arrange it before now, but there has been substantial pressure on business, and I regret that it will now not be possible to have a debate before the end of this Session.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will recall that throughout this Session one matter has dominated press reports—the Cleveland child sex abuse issue which has not been debated in the Chamber. It is remiss of both the Government and the Opposition to fail to find time to debate the matter. Will my right hon. Friend give the need for such a debate urgent consideration in the new Session?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has been very forthright in expressing his views and calling for a debate. I am sorry that I have not been able to arrange one, and I hope that we will be able to make some progress in the new Session.
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an emergency debate on Monday

491
on the Hinkley Point C inquiry? The inquiry is proceeding with a great deal of haste, which is denying objectors their rights to submit proofs of evidence. The inspector has announced that the closure date for submitting proofs of evidence will be in the next week or so, yet objectors are expected to comment both on economic evaluations for nuclear power and fossil fuels and on the Government's proposed legislation for the privatisation of the electricity industry. There is great worry in the country, especially in the west country, about nuclear power. It seems appropriate that the Minister should make a statement that the inquiry will stand adjourned until after the Government have announced their proposals for the privatisation of electricity.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Lady. I realise that it is an important matter and that constituency interests are involved, but I cannot arrange such a debate. Instead of seeking to get a statement in the House when a public inquiry does not entirely meet her requirements, I suggest that in the week's recess the hon. Lady reads the report of the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and recognise that some of her arguments must be considered in the light of the way in which we proceed in the House.
Mr. Tim Smith: If we are to have a debate on a matter of historical interest, as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) suggested, would we not be better off having a debate on the winter of discontent, whose 10th anniversary is fast approaching, so that people can be reminded of just how unpleasant life was under a Labour Government'?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot believe that my hon. Friend is serious. This Parliament and this Government are about things for the future, not about harking back to unpleasant days.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: May I, through the right hon. Gentleman, extend my thanks to his secretary, who was kind enough to drop me at my flat in a somewhat exhausted condition at about 3.30 this morning? I might add that I was exhausted, not she. Is it not a pity that, because of the exhaustion—even more extreme than mine—and the emaciation of the Secretary of State for the Environment, we had to abandon last night's important business? Will the right hon. Gentleman give careful consideration to something that will happen on 21 November? Has he come clean with the House yet that there will be an exhibition—yet again—of the intrusion of cameras, sound equipment and lighting into the Chamber some time during 21 November? How many hon. Members have been told about this—[HON. MEMBERS: "None."]—so that we can watch the nonsense and pass our comments on it?
Mr. Wakeham: I have on a number of occasions expressed my concern about the hon. Gentleman's health and the fading of it, which I seem to notice from time to time.
I am delighted to hear that the story about last night's events ended happily and that my secretary did in fact leave the hon. Gentleman at his flat.
The Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House is making progress, and I do not believe that it is right for me to announce in the House exactly what it does from time to time.
Mr. Faulds: Hon. Members should know.
Mr. Wakeham: All the members of the Select Committee know perfectly well what meetings are being arranged.
Mr. Faulds: They are kept a secret.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not wish to keep secrets from the hon. Gentleman. We are taking the opportunity of the television cameras and the lighting coming into the House for the state opening to consider again the lighting of the House, which the hon. Gentleman was rather critical of last time. Therefore, I thought that he would congratulate us on trying to meet the requirements of all sections of the House.
Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely consistent with convention, practice and precedent for censure motions of the kind contemplated by the Opposition to be debated in Opposition time? Furthermore, if the Opposition reflect upon it, they will appreciate that that was a rule to which they strictly adhered when in government.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend studies these things closely and he is correct because, broadly speaking, that is the rule.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could inform one of the Ministers at the Department of the Environment about the massive escape of methane gas at. Arkwright Town in my constituency during the course of last evening and early this morning. Forty families had to be evacuated because the methane readings were more than 100 per cent.
Will the Leader of the House take account of the fact that British Coal was warned about this several months ago when it closed Arkwright pit? The contracting firm that did the job obviously failed to carry out the sealing in a proper manner. Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that a statement is made, that a public inquiry looks into this matter at all levels, that proper reimbursement is made to the local authority that had to evacuate those 40 families and that proper compensation is paid by British Coal and the contracting firm to those families who have suffered?
Mr. Wakeham: Any incident such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has described is significant and important. I am sorry to hear of the distress caused, but I cannot accept anything else that he said. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend and we shall decide how best to proceed. I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have an early debate on housing investment programme allocations, so that I can inform the House of the extreme anger of my constituents at Ealing council's apparent intention to abuse those allocations by putting the ownership of public housing under the control of itself, Brent, Hounslow and Fulham and Hammersmith Labour councils in turn for three years less a day, as a way of getting around the HIP allocations? My constituents are extremely angry about that. It is bad enough having Ealing council attempting to run public housing, let alone Brent and the rest.
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry, but I cannot see how I can fit in that debate, however interesting it might be, in the time before the House prorogues. I am sure that my hon. Friend will find an opportunity in the new Session to make the speech that he wants to make.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view of the increased and alarming number of incidents around the coast of Britain in the past two years and the apparent indifference of the Government to bringing in regulations that will deal with what has become an increasing activity around our coast, when will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate so that the necessary legislation to tighten up the regulations can be brought in by the Government?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry not to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, as I realise that it is a serious question,but he said, "incidents around the coast of Britain", but he did not say what sort of incident. If he would like to have a word with me afterwards, I shall certainly do my best to answer his question.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have an important statement after this and an equally important debate before opposed private business at Seven o'clock.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgent need for more low-cost housing in rural areas? Will he provide an opportunity for the debate that we were to have tomorrow morning at some future date, so that we can discuss this important issue?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry that we have lost tomorrow's debate. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken an initiative on rural housing and I hope that that will help in some way to deal with what I agree is an important and difficult problem.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When will there be an opportunity to debate the desirability or otherwise of the most senior Ministers telling the old-fashioned truth to the House of Commons?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the premise of the question, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer.
Ms. Joan Walley: The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that a computer error last year resulted in pensioners being paid an extra £8. Today, I ask him to tell the House whether he proposes to bring in a review order that will enable local government pensioners to be paid the extra sum that they are now owed. Their employers want to pay it to them, but cannot do so until the Government bring forward the necessary order.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question straight off, but I shall see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows about it. If it is appropriate for him to answer it, we shall get in touch with the hon. Lady.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: The public and the House know that there are at least three spare days next week. Does the Leader of the House realise that the
494
refusal to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell us whether he understands the difference between a pledged benefit, an unpledged benefit and a new benefit will result in his silence making him the Dan Quayle of the Cabinet?
Mr. Wakeham: I should not have thought that silence was the problem of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have nothing further to add to what has already been said.
Mr. David Winnick: Is it not true that the Cabinet had decided there would be a debate on Monday on the early-day motion tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, but that Ministers at today's meeting were notified that the Chancellor had failed a lie detector test?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is always more eloquent when talking fiction than when talking facts. I do not believe he has ever been at a Cabinet meeting, and I am fairly certain that he never will be. No doubt his works of fiction will continue to entertain the House.
Mr. Bernie Grant: What action has the right hon. Gentleman taken in the case raised during last week's business questions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who is the shadow Minister for the Disabled? I refer to the case of Marquita O'Garro, a five-year-old hole-in-the-heart victim from Montserrat who could not come to Britain for an operation. Has the right hon. Gentleman spoken to his right hon. Friend, and what progress has been made?
Mr. Wakeham: I understand that there has been some progress. I shall need to check, but I think that arrangements have been made for her to go to hospital in Southampton to have the necessary treatment.
Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Will the Leader of the House find time in the near future for a debate on the future of 16 to 18-year-olds? We were assured by the Ministers then responsible, when the social security regulations were introduced, that by this week all young people would be on YTS, in education or in a job. The bridging allowance finished this week; 636 youngsters in Cleveland have no financial assistance; and there are 32,000 in a similar situation throughout the country. That is obscene and should be discussed in the House soon.
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Lady knows, there are more vacancies than people to fill them countrywide. I understand that there are difficulties in one or two areas and that my right hon. Friend is doing everything that he can to resolve them as quickly as possible. There will be an opportunity early in the new Session to discuss this, and I have no doubt that with a little ingenuity the hon. Lady will be able to make her points.
Mr. Harry Barnes: An ambiguous two-part reply that I received yesterday during Scottish questions implied the electorate registers in Scotland declined by 1 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. As that is likely to be due to the poll tax and its effect on Scotland, should we not discuss that before deciding to pack up, as it is a serious problem for democracy?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has arrived at an extraordinary conclusion. I cannot find time for a debate on that subject next week.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 1572, which is supported by 100 Labour Members?
[That this House unreservedly condemns Jaguar management for the sacking of Transport and General Workers Union convenor Tommy Wheeler who, at 18 months from retirement, was dismissed on Friday 4th November for alleged 'gross industrial misconduct'; regards Jaguar bosses' excuse that his 'crime' was not to ask permission for use of a photocopier on union business, although they have accepted this had always been given in the past, as vindictive in the extreme; questions whether the management took their action because the item Mr. Wheeler was photocopying was the regular parliamentary report of the honourable Member for Coventry South East, which contained allegations that during a six week period towards the end of 1987, 17 shop floor workers at Browns Lane had died of strokes and stress-induced illnesses—or whether the company is trying to provoke strikes at the plant in order to ease their cash flow by loss of production and non-payment of wages; and fully supports the industrial action by Jaguar workers in defence of Mr. Wheeler, whose sacking is the latest in a list of victimisations of car industry convenors in Birmingham and Coventry.]
The motion is about the latest vindictive sacking of a car industry convener in the midlands—Tommy Wheeler of Jaguar in Coventry. Would not a debate on that allow us to examine Jaguar's real reasons for dismissing him? Was he really sacked for 20p worth of photocopying paper —albeit paper containing part of a report that I had done on the increase of stress-induced illnesses and deaths in Jaguar, which has lost £20 million of car production this week? Or was Jaguar trying to intimidate trade unions in order to ease its cash flow problems stemming from the declining dollar and to prevent discussion among trade unionists of this appalling increase in illness and deaths at the plant?
Mr. Wakeham: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes an interest in these matters. He knows perfectly well that the House is not the appropriate forum in which to consider such a complaint. If Mr. Wheeler believes that he was dismissed for reasons connected with trade union activity, he can take a complaint of unfair dismissal to an appropriate industrial tribunal.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary, who is in his place on the Front Bench, to make a statement today or tomorrow about the request by the city of York for the banning of political marches this coming Remembrance Sunday? Is he aware that the odious and Fascist British National party is planning a gathering and march on that day and that it would be a desecration of an occasion that is sacred to the memory of those who died fighting the very Nazism that that party espouses? Does he agree that this provocative march should be banned?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know the details, but I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take whatever action is appropriate. I have no knowledge of what that is and no notification that my right hon. Friend wishes to make a statement today or tomorrow.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I first record my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, at not having been called during Prime Minister's Question Time? I put this yellow tie on especially for that—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If that is a question to me, may I say that the hon. Gentleman was not alone.
Mr. Banks: I want to point out to the Leader of the House that there is a housing crisis in London and the country. Tomorrow we shall discuss a Bill that will do nothing about the problem of homelessness in the capital or the country, and a debate on housing and homelessness on a motion for the Adjournment is to be pushed off the business. That debate was promised by the Government, so will the right hon. Gentleman provide time for it next week, rather than prorogue on Tuesday?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman is considerably more responsible than I am for the fact that there is not to be a debate on homelessness. The problem was discussed at some length during last night's proceedings. I am sorry that the debate will not take place, as this is an important subject.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Leader of the House bring to the attention of his right hon. and hon. Friends early-day motion 1395?
[That this House believes that customs and immigration formalities on all Channel Tunnel international trains should be carried out on board the trains, and not at passenger terminals.]
The motion refers to the desirability of customs and immigration formalities being conducted on board Channel tunnel trains. If there is any difficulty about the Government's acceding to the wishes expressed in that early-day motion, will the right hon. Gentleman consider holding a debate on the matter at some time in the future?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that a debate is appropriate now, but I accept the hon. Gentleman's view that one might be convenient at some time in the future.
For Waterloo-terminating services, airport-type controls are the most practical and cost-effective. The vast majority of passengers will pass through the customs hall with no delay. For services going beyond London, the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 provides for checks to be done on board, subject to adequate facilities being provided by British Rail. Discussions about detailed arrangements are taking place with British Rail.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that two weeks ago I asked him if he would arrange for a statement to be made on the future of Girobank, in the light of the failure of the tendering procedures? He promised to have a word with the relevant Ministers. Did he, and, if so, what did they say?
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the statement will be made on the Floor of the House, not in a written answer this afternoon to pre-empt the Adjournment debate on Girobank? We should be able to ask questions, since this is a major piece of privatisation that does not require legislation.
Mr. Wakeham: I did have a word with my right hon. Friend. As a result of my representations on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be replying to the hon.

497
Gentleman's Adjournment debate tonight. I hope that will satisfy him. As far as I know, there are no plans to answer questions this afternoon.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House more fully address the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)? What is actually happening on 21 November? Is there to be a lighting experiment? If there is, at what time will it take place, and are Members of the House precluded from attending?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I have any power to stop Members coming into the Chamber, but I think that the Select Committee should be allowed to get on with its work.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take the statement first.

King's Cross Fire (Fennell Report)
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about the disastrous fire at King's Cross underground station on 18 November 1987. I am publishing today as a Command Paper the report by Mr. Desmond Fennell QC on his investigation under the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 into the causes and circumstances of this terrible disaster. The House will join me in renewing on this occasion our expressions of condolence to the bereaved and sympathy and best wishes to the injured.
The House will also join in paying tribute to the many people in the emergency services, the staff of London Underground, the public, and the doctors and nurses who showed courage and dedication and gave help in this disaster. I repeat in particular Mr. Fennell's words that a large number of members of the London fire brigade behaved with conspicuous courage and devotion to duty. He particularly mentions station officer Townsley, who died a hero's death, and also the great courage shown by police constable Hanson of the British Transport police, which must have enabled many people to escape with their lives.
Mr. Fennell has concluded that the fire was started by a discarded match falling into accumulated grease and debris on the track of the escalator, and that it accelerated up the trench of the escalator until it burst into the booking hall causing the deaths of 31 people.
Mr. Fennell has made 157 recommendations. He regards 33 of these as most important and a further 59 as important. Action is of course already under way on many of them. Many of the recommendations require specific action by London Underground Ltd. to prevent a recurrence. They do, of course, include the most urgent removal of wooden panelling from escalators. I have asked London Regional Transport to have all these recommendations dealt with promptly. Considerable amounts will have to be spent. The plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1 November already provide in full for all the proposals already put to me for spending on underground safety totalling £266 million over the next three years.
The investigation has shown major shortcomings requiring a new approach to safety management and fire prevention in the underground and specific safety audits by London Regional Transport. I am calling on both bodies to put urgently into effect new arrangements recommended by Mr. Fennell.
An enhanced approach is also required from the Railway Inspectorate and I have discussed Mr. Fennell's recommendations with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. I have every reason to expect that the present recruiting campaign will bring the inspectorate fully up to complement by the end of January. It will need to be further strengthened for the tasks that Mr. Fennell identifies, including the use of the powers of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to enforce measures needed for the safety of passengers on the Underground and, I must add, on other railways. The chief inspecting officer of railways is now organising a special investigation of London Underground with support from the Health

499
and Safety Executive. It will examine the safety management systems and monitor the implementation of planned safety measures, and will be completed in March.
The lessons of this report go wider than London Underground and London Regional Transport. I have today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board inviting the board to consider the lessons of Mr. Fennell's report for the management and audit of safety. Letters are also being sent to the chairman of the passenger transport authorities in Tyne and Wear and in Strathclyde.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will shortly bring forward regulations under section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to require specific measures at Underground stations. This is the speediest means to introduce enforceable standards without uncertainty. The railway operators and fire authorities will be consulted on them. My right hon. Friend is commissioning special studies of the best methods to control the spread of smoke. These present difficult technical problems.
There are also lessons for the emergency services. Copies of the report are being sent to the London fire brigade and London ambulance service. I shall be considering its implications for the British Transport police, and my right hon. Friends concerned will be considering its implications for the emergency services for which they have responsibilities.
I have to deal with two particular matters. As regards the costs of representation at the investigation, after taking into account the special circumstances of this case, I am accepting in full Mr. Fennell's recommendations.
Secondly, on the position of individuals, following the fire, Sir Keith Bright offered to resign as chairman and chief executive of London Regional Transport. I asked him to stay during a difficult period, and he did. He has asked me again to accept his resignation, and I have now done so. Dr. Tony Ridley is a member of the board of London Regional Transport, and the chairman and chief executive of London Underground Ltd. He also has given me his resignation, which I have accepted. I shall make fresh appointments in due course, and meanwhile Sir Neil Shields, who is a member of the board of London Regional Transport, has at my request agreed to take on the chairmanship.
I conclude by expressing to Mr. Fennell and his assessors my warm thanks for a very full and thorough investigation. We must all ensure that the lessons of this tragedy are fully learnt and fully applied. The Government will play their full part to ensure that they are followed up as quickly and as vigorously as possible.
Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, may I express our condolences to the bereaved and join in the tributes to the bravery shown by the people in our emergency services during this terrible tragedy. I congratulate Mr. Fennell on his report and recommendations. The inquiry was limited by the terms of reference laid down by the Secretary of State and that prevented a fuller examination of the real causes of this tragedy. Those causes included the climate created in London Underground Ltd. by the obsession with reducing costs through the continuous reduction of manpower and resources affecting safety, and the need for the responsibility for Underground safety to be transferred to the independent Health and Safety Commission.
Clearly one would like to have had the report for the three weeks that it has been available to the Secretary of
500
State. I hope that he will confirm that there will be an early opportunity to debate the report and its implications for the future. The report makes clear that the responsibility for the monumental failure to provide the adequate safety standards that the travelling public have a right to expect lies directly with the highest level of management which enthusiastically implemented such a disastrous policy. There will be few regrets among Opposition Members at the departure of that management.
Can the Secretary of State inform the House in more detail of his reasons for refusing Sir Keith's offer to resign immediately after the tragedy? Was that refusal based on the fact that Sir Keith and Dr. Ridley successfully achieved the policy objectives of increasing revenue and of reducing costs, staffing and subsidies spelt out in a letter of 20 July 1984 by the present Secretary of State for the Environment to the chairman, Sir Keith Bright? In that letter there is no mention of the importance of obtaining the high levels of safety that are necessary in a public transport undertaking. That letter is a disgrace and was a contributing factor to this terrible tragedy. Sir Keith Bright's success in agreeing to reach these objectives presumably influenced the Government to recommend him for his knighthood.
Does the Secretary of State accept that, as the inquiry report shows, there exists among London Underground management a feeling that the financial climate ruled out proposals to increase spending in certain areas? These clearly involve the vital areas of safety, equipment, maintenance and staffing which were subordinated to the overall objective of increasing revenue and reducing subsidy as required by the Government. Would it not have been better to use those subsidies for the investment in safety that the Secretary of State now proposes in his statement? Does he agree that that would have been better than saving money for the Treasury? If those subsidies had been used earlier, the tragedy might have been prevented.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, since this terrible tragedy, there have been four fires per week to which the London fire brigade has been called, and a serious fire every two weeks within the London underground system? What reassurance can he offer to the House that proper precautions are being taken to avoid such disasters? Is he aware of the growing safety fears of Underground passengers, as detailed in the Evening Standard poll last Friday?
Will the Secretary of State now accept that the institutional changes in the safety responsibilities that he has just mentioned will not be accepted as sufficient by Opposition Members? His promise to bring his Department's safety inspectors up to the proper level is an indictment of his Department's attitude to the enforcement of safety in this matter. Will he now seriously consider the possibility of transferring the responsibility for underground safety matters from his Department's Railway Inspectorate to the independent Health and Safety Commission?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, as Secretary of State for Transport, he and his predecessors bear a great deal of responsibility for this disaster? His predecessor—the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), now Secretary of State for the Environment—assured me in the House that, in transferring responsibility for London Transport from elected London representatives to himself, the Secretary of State for Transport would be directly responsible and accountable for safety matters. Will he now accept that

501
responsibility by following the example set by London Underground's most senior managers and tender his own resignation?
Mr. Channon: I endorse what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said in the first part of his remarks, but I disagree fundamentally with everything else that he has said to the House. In particular, he has misrepresented the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment when he was Secretary of State for Transport. He has misrepresented my right hon. Friend's letter, in which he set out the objectives of London Regional Transport. My right hon. Friend referred at the beginning of the letter to the Act setting out the framework of duties for the board and chairman of LRT. Safety is laid down as a paramount objective under section 2(2) of that Act.
Mr. Prescott: There is no safety in that.
Mr. Channon: The Act sets out the framework of duties. It is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he should misrepresent my right hon. Friend's attitude. If I am to be told that the Underground was better run when it was under the control of the Greater London council, I shall ask the House to bear in mind the level of investment at that time which led to great neglect of the Underground and which has taken a long time to remedy.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of other questions. He implied that the fire was the fault of the Government as they had reduced costs. The inspector stated:
"In my judgement there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards."
The House will have the chance to study that paragraph. [Interruption.] On the contrary, I have quoted the sentence and the paragraph. The inspector went on to say:
"I accept the evidence of the most senior management in London Regional Transport and London Underground that if funds were needed, funds were available."
[Interruption.] If I do, my case will become stronger, not weaker. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has taken that tone in this sad and difficult situation.
Mr. Tony Lloyd: Dishonesty.
Mr. Channon: The action that I have taken and the fact that Mr. Fennell's safety recommendations are now being carried out lead me to the view that the most energetic steps are being taken to remedy the deficiencies suggested in the report.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chairman of London Regional Transport was right to offer his resignation immediately after the tragic disaster, but that, equally, my right hon. Friend was right not to accept it when action was needed and the person concerned was familiar with the overall situation and no inquiry had taken place which gave any indication of the cause of the tragedy?
Mr. Channon: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. That was why I asked Sir Keith Bright to stay on. During the inquiry, it was essential to have Sir Keith at the helm. That was the right course at that time.
Mr. Frank Dobson: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in supplying me with a copy of the report earlier this afternoon.
I wish to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Act setting up London Regional Transport urges it to bear in mind economy, efficiency and safety? What were the senior management of London Transport to make of an 838-word letter from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), which talked only of economy and efficiency and said not a word about safety? Surely they were to conclude that economy and efficiency were more important than safety.
Does the Secretary of State accept responsibility for the shortcomings of his Department's Railway Inspectorate, which knowingly deployed only one health and safety officer to police the whole of the London Underground and British Rail southern region together? Were he or his Ministers aware that his railway inspectors were insisting on higher safety standards in Hong Kong and Singapore than they were demanding of London Underground?
Finally, it was accepted at the inquiry that Ministers were responsible for safety policy. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell us to which Ministers the chief inspector was referring on day 79 of the inquiry when he stated that Ministers had criticised the Railway Inspectorate for making too many safety demands on London Underground? Will he tell us, from the evidence in the review of the Railway Inspectorate, published in April 1987, who decided that the inspectorate should not check on the maintenance of operating equipment? If any of the Ministers concerned are still in post, surely they should follow the example set by Dr. Bright and Dr. Ridley—and, I hope, the other Ridley—and resign.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Minister of State gave the hon. Gentleman a full written answer on his last point only the other day. No such instruction as he describes was given.
As regards the letter written by my right hon. Friend, the House can see from written answers exactly what my right hon. Friend said. The London Regional Transport Act 1984 states that London Regional Transport should have due regard to
"efficiency, economy and safety of operation."
That is not qualified by anything later in the Act.
When my right hon. Friend wrote his letter of objectives to the chairman, at the beginning of the letter he said:
"The Act sets the framework of duties for you".
It is crystal clear that he meant that the organisation should pay attention to efficiency, economy and safety of operation.
Mr. Fennell made some remarks about and criticisms of the Railway Inspectorate. He said that there was not enough "creative tension" between the inspectorate and the Underground. I accept that fully. We must learn the lessons for the future. Four actions have been taken. First, the Railway Inspectorate is setting up a special team with help from the Health and Safety Executive and the London fire brigade to examine the Underground safety management systems and monitor the implementation of the necessary action. Secondly, I have asked the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission for his views on the report. Thirdly, I expect to fill all gaps in the complement

503
of the Railway Inspectorate by the end of January. Fourthly, I have asked the chief inspecting officer to review urgently whether the present complement is sufficient or needs to be increased in the light of Mr. Fennell's report.
Mr. John Wheeler: Will my right hon.Friend confirm that the tragedy is unique in 60 years of the operation of the London Underground? Will he also confirm that Mr. Fennell's report establishes that the cause was nothing to do with a lack of investment or personnel? Is it the case that LRT has failed to use all the money that it was allocated? How much higher is the investment compared with that of the former Greater London council management?
Mr. Channon: I am glad to say that the accident is unique in the history of the London Underground. Most people would consider that on the whole the London Underground had a very good safety record in many years of operation. The inspector has made specific points on the question whether the cuts—as they are described by the Opposition—in investment or staff led to the disaster. I have already quoted him on the financing of London Regional Transport. He also makes a specific reference to the numbers of staff when he states:
"I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at King's Cross."
I hope that that canard can be laid to rest.
As to the question of financing in the past few years, ever since the Government took over from the GLC the annual capital expenditure in real terms has been higher than it was in any of the last five years of the GLC. Today, in real terms, investment in the London Underground is running at double what it was in 1982.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that, on 26 October 1987, Sir Keith Bright met a number of London Members of Parliament and expressed deep concern at the directions he was then working under, expressed in a letter reported in Hansard for 20 July 1984 at column 373? Is the Secretary of State aware that that letter requires a reduction in costs of about £95 million a year while maintaining fares at a stable level? Is it not a fact that the budget of the lifts and escalators department of London Underground was cut from about £11 million to £6 million in three years? Whilst the Act to which he referred, the London Regional Transport Act 1984, required, in section 2(2)(b), London Regional Transport to have due regard to safety, does he agree that the cut in the escalators budget to which I have referred shows an undue regard to economy?
Mr. Channon: On that specific point, I can only refer the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to the conclusions of the inspector, who stated:
"In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy available to London Regional Transport was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending and maintain safety standards."
That must be conclusive. The matter has been assessed by the inspector. He made those remarks and I should have thought that that would be enough to satisfy any reasonable hon. Member.
Mr. Robert Adley: No one would deny that I do my best to seek investment in the railways and public transport, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the remarks that he has quoted from Mr. Fennell's report
504
seem totally to give the lie to the wild allegations made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was giggling when my right hon. Friend began his statement? The hon. Gentleman's attempts to make party political capital out of people's personal tragedies are absolutely nauseating. Can my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Please ask a question. Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Sir Keith Bright was appointed to his job by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who appears not to be here this afternoon? If that is the case, would it not be a good thing if the hon. Gentleman turned up—
Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in these matters, but a great number of hon. Members wish to take part and I think that two questions are enough.
Mr. Adley: Finally, can my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that two questions are enough.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend asks about the capital spending. I can refer him to another remark that the inspector makes which is extremely important when the House and the public judge this matter. I very much regret that this discussion has turned into a debate of this nature. As the inspector says:
"There has been a tendency in London Underground in the past for capital expenditure to be less than the budgeted figure."
Far from being restrained, London Underground did not spend money that the Government had authorised it to spend. That proves conclusively that, whatever dirt Opposition Members wish to dish out, their attempt to pretend that the Government are starving London Underground of investment is simply untrue and will not wash.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I point out to the House yet again that after these exchanges we have a very important debate on the immigration rules which is bound to end at 7 o'clock. I ask for brief questions and for hon. Members not to repeat what has already been said.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I regret that the Secretary of State did not do me the courtesy of letting me have an advance copy of the report.
Is it not the case that the most dangerous thing about the Fennell report is that it gives no precise explanation as to why the fire fireballed? We are offered a simple explanation or a hypothesis. Will he therefore guarantee that there will be further research into the cause of the fire to try to find a preventive cure? Does he accept that it is dangerous complacency to regard the disaster as a unique occasion and a freak fire? That is the way to slip into the slot of failing to take safety into proper account. Will he therefore guarantee that, whatever money is needed by London Underground over and above what is already estimated, that money will be found from the public purse and not through increased passenger fares?
Now that Sir Keith Bright and Dr. Ridley have done the honourable thing, will the Secretary of State tell us why

505
he has not followed the doctrine of ministerial responsibility and offered his resignation; or has that doctrine simply been cast aside in the same cavalier fashion as the Government cast aside their other responsibilities to the travelling public?
Mr. Channon: When the hon. Gentleman has a chance to read the Fennell report in full, I think that he will find that my resignation is not called for. I agree with him about the great importance of finding a precise explanation for the appalling fire. There are some detailed and scientific explanations for what was a unique fire. However, as the hon. Gentleman was quite right to point out, that does not remove the necessity for every step to be taken to ensure that a fire of such a serious nature does not occur again.
As for my not being able to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the report, under the rules of the House I cannot send every hon. Member a copy of the report. I only wish that I had been in a position to send the hon. Gentleman a copy rather than some other hon. Members.
Mr. Peter Fry: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members dismiss absolutely charges that he should tender his resignation? As those of us who were on the Select Committee on Transport are well aware, as early as the spring of this year his permanent secretary assured the Committee that money would be available to put into effect the recommendations of the report. Many of us feel that the Secretary of State has followed his duty absolutely correctly and should not be made the subject of political criticism by the Opposition.
Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous support.
Mr. Terry Fields: Set against the Secretary of State's arrogant attitude in presenting the report today, the staff shortages and the understanding of members of staff that conditions on the London Underground were dangerous to such an extent that staff were disciplined for handing out leaflets only days before the disaster, do not his messages of sympathy ring hollow? They will not bring back station officer Townsley or anyone else. He got away with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Why does he not resign over this disaster?
Mr. Channon: I have already made my position clear. On staff, the inspector said:
"I found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at King's Cross."
The hon. Gentleman is right about one issue. It is essential in the future to have better trained staff so that they can be more efficient and carry out their duties more effectively. One of the main recommendations of the report points to a lack of effective training in the past.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the paint used at King's Cross station was not responsible for the so-called flash-over effect? If so, can he explain to the House the reason for the rapid spread of the fire?
Mr. Channon: The inspector came to the conclusion that the paint was not responsible for the flash-over effect. Rather than summarise what the report says on that technical matter, I urge my hon. Friend to read the report in full. There is a chapter about the cause of the flash-over. It explains why the fire, which was caused by a match falling into grease and which spread up the escalators, had what, as far as we know, was a unique effect in the history of fires.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I associate myself and my colleagues with the condolences, tributes and thanks expressed by the Secretary of State. Can he confirm that the evidence of the Fennell inquiry is that the tragic deaths followed four years of negligence on safety at the highest levels of LRT management? Is he honestly saying that he and his colleagues bear no responsibility for what happened when LRT is Government instituted and Government run? Given that Mr. Fennell makes it clear in his report that safety was not given such a high priority as productivity and efficiency, what guarantee is there for the travelling public that the next four years will see safety any more highly regarded than it has been in the past?
Mr. Channon: The London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the report make it clear that the responsibility for safety on the railways, not only the Underground, has been and remains the responsibility of the operators. That is the only practical way in which it can be carried out. The hon. Gentleman will know that that is the position on British Rail.
Mr. Peter Snape: That is what worries us.
Mr. Channon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that. The safety record of British Rail has been extremely good.
The purpose of the report is to ensure that action will be taken on safety in the future. That is the purpose of the 157 recommendations, the majority of which have already been agreed, and the 104 action points in the London Underground programme. The report recommends a change in attitude towards safety, and I accept that.
Mr. Roger Sims: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the 157 recommendations will be implemented and that finance will be available to ensure that they are? Will he call for regular reports from LRT on the progress of the implementation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past year LRT has continued to erect barriers which allow people to go in only one direction and that there is some concern about their safety? Can he comment on that?
Mr. Channon: Mr. Fennell asks for a further review of the new Underground ticketing system to be carried out in conjunction with the London fire brigade and the Railway Inspectorate. I strongly support that and it will be carried out. There has already been one review of that type, and the preliminary view of the fire brigade and the inspectorate is that it is safe. The second review is being carried out.
I can assure my hon. Friend that finance will not be a barrier to any of the recommendations being implemented. The majority of them are already in train, and I shall wish to discuss with LRT all the recommendations in detail.
Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Secretary of State aware that the real tragedy of King's Cross is that for years hon. Members, especially London Members, have brought to the attention of successive Secretaries of State the ongoing problems of London Transport which were repeatedly brushed aside as being irrelevant? Does the right hon. Gentleman ever travel on London Underground? Does he ever travel on the Northern line and see the conditions under which thousands of people have to travel? Has he seen the deplorable stations, and is he aware that many escalators do not work? Where is the safety provision for those people? When will we hear from the Secretary of State that the people who run London Underground are committed to providing proper services coupled with safety and that the balance sheet is no longer the sole criterion for the way in which London Transport operates?
Mr. Channon: As a Member of Parliament for a constituency containing many thousands of commuters, I am experienced in travelling on British Rail and London Underground.
The hon. Gentleman asked about investment in London Underground. As I have said, about £230 million is being spent this year, which, in real terms, is double that spent six years ago. The programme continues to increase. I have announced recently an enormous project to modernise the Central line, which will cost more than £700 million. I have announced a programme for the elimination of the island platform and improvement at the Angel station. I have announced extra rolling stock and improvements at Liverpool Street. There are further announcements to come.
There is massive investment in London Underground and we shall press ahead as fast as we can, consistent with safety, to improve standards. The House, in its more sensible mood, will understand that it is one of the oldest systems in the world and that it is difficult to tackle the problems with the speed that most people would like. However, it will be done with vigour and energy.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the many users of the London Underground will welcome the thoroughness and detail of Mr. Fennell's report and will be reassured by the conclusions he reached and the recommendations made? Will he comment on the need for joint safety training between the staff of London Underground, the London fire service and the London ambulance service, which seemed to be one of the major problems involved in the tragedy turning into a disaster?
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend that the report is extremely thorough and makes a number of important recommendations, many of which have already received attention. When hon. Members have time to read the report they will agree that Mr. Fennell should be congratulated on his full report. My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of joint safety training for the emergency services. That is a point made by Mr. Fennell. I strongly support that and will ensure that it is carried out.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in his meetings with London Members of Parliament, Sir Keith Bright showed himself to be increasingly unhappy at the financial stringency being imposed upon him by the Government, particularly the elimination of Government grant? If the Secretary of
508
State disputes that, perhaps he will give us the figures for Government grant over recent years. London Underground has been starved of resources and that has led to the virtual elimination of uniformed staff under ground. If he thinks that that is a good thing, perhaps he will speak to the Transport police. There is no doubt that financial considerations were put before safety. Sir Keith Bright only followed orders. The guilty men are those who gave the orders and they can be seen on the Government Front Bench. It is the Secretary of State and his predecessors who should resign, not Sir Keith Bright.
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Hon. Members, when they get a chance, should read the report. Chapter 19 deals with the—
Mr. Leighton: What about Government grant?
Mr. Channon: I am dealing with that. Chapter 19 deals with the steady reduction in subsidy and points out that, while the subsidy was being reduced, investment expenditure increased by 48 per cent. in real terms. It goes on to say:
"In my judgment there is no evidence that the overall level of subsidy … was inadequate to finance necessary safety-related spending".
Opposition Members, who are seeking to turn this terrible tragedy into a party political issue, are misguided.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's prompt and effective response to this important report, but will he pay particular attention to the detailed points made about safety on the Underground, one of which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims)—ticket barriers? Will he consider whether further action can be taken to limit all smoking on the Underground? I know that that is the technical position, but it is important that it should be enforced.
Mr. Channon: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). I am strongly in favour of making the smoking ban more effective, but it is difficult to see how it can be done. Mr. Fennell makes two recommendations that may be helpful. First, he says that a byelaw should be passed to make it an offence to drop litter on the Underground. If such a measure were introduced, I am sure that the House would give it general approval. Secondly, he recommends that shops on the Underground should not be able to sell material that could later become flammable. That is a matter that LRT will wish to consider, and I have much sympathy with it.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that, at a meeting of London Labour Members of Parliament on 26 October 1987, Sir Keith Bright said that he believed that the Government would
"'push us down until something starts to happen', that is until LRT told the Government that there would be material deterioration of the transport service."?
Is it any wonder that Labour Members hold the Government's policies as much responsible for that fire as the match that caused it? If there were any honour left among Ministers, the Secretary of State would resign instead of acting like Pontius Pilate and blaming everyone except himself.
Mr. Channon: I am not blaming everyone else; I am merely reporting the conclusions made in Mr. Fennell's report, which I ask the House to read in full. I am content to be judged by those who read Mr. Fennell's report, who will take full account of the investigation that has taken place. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can make such remarks about the Underground when over the same period investment has increased by over 50 per cent. in real terms to improve safety and congestion from the pitiful levels of a few years ago.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of hon. Members served on the London Transport committee of the Greater London council? If any of those hon. Members, including myself, looked honestly at the figures for capital expenditure, they would have to conclude that the amounts allocated since the Government took control of London Transport have been generous to a point that would be surprising. Anyone who served on the committee during that time should be congratulated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the major lessons to be learnt is that contact and liaison between the London fire brigade and LRT must at all times be wide and deep? When a fire is reported, the fire brigade must always be called.
Mr. Channon: As the question of finance has been continually raised by hon. Members, the House might like to know that the cash investment figures for 1988–89 are budgeted to be £230 million. When the GLC was abolished, the figure was about £117 million. In real terms, it has increased by over 50 per cent., which gives the lie to those who criticise the Government's investment programme.
My hon. Friend is entirely right about the fire brigade. Until recently, it had not been the practice under any regime for the Underground to call the fire brigade unless there had been an interruption to train services of about 30 minutes. A fire had to be serious before the fire brigade was called. That has been changed completely and the fire brigade is called as a matter of routine, which is to be welcomed.
Mr. Ken Eastham: Will the Minister apply himself to the issue of the Health and Safety Executive? Is he concerned that it has little influence on safety on the Underground? Agency arrangements have been made whereby London Transport precepts money from the Health and Safety Executive, which has no influence although it provides the money. Is it not time that the arrangements were divorced so that London Transport does not inspect itself? An outside body with influence should make the inspections to replace the present cosy arrangement.
Mr. Channon: I have already had one meeting with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. I hope to discuss the report with him in detail, and I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend dismiss with contempt the crude attempts of the Opposition to make partisan capital out of this enormous human tragedy? During exchanges, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd), who is an Opposition spokesman on transport, accuse the Minister of dishonesty when quoting from the report. To provide further reassurance, after this exhaustive report, to the
510
millions of people who use London Transport, including myself—the Labour party does not have a monopoly of hon. Members who use London Transport over and under ground—will my right hon. Friend ensure that steps are taken as quickly as possible, within the normal definitions of fire safety and fire brigade certification, to inform the London travelling public that all escalators will be fireproof, within the reasonable definition of that word?
Mr. Channon: Panels will be replaced, as Mr. Fennell has recommended, by July next year, which London Transport says is possible. I am determined that they should be changed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his wholly justified remarks about finance.
Mr. Chris Smith: May I, on behalf of those of my constituents who were bereaved by the fire last November, add my appreciation for the detailed work that Mr. Fennell has done, albeit with severe limitations as to remit? I add my tribute to the emergency services which helped at the fire, many of which were based in my constituency.
The Secretary of State has made much of his decision to bring the Railway Inspectorate for the Underground up to complement in January. What is the currently accepted complement? Why was it not fully in place prior to November 1987? Why were emergency steps not taken in the aftermath of last November to ensure that it was immediately raised to complement?
Mr. Channon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks in the first half of his question, with which I agree.
The complement of the Railway Inspectorate is 24. I intend to have that fully in place by the end of January, and, as I have already told the House, I am considering whether the Railway Inspectorate needs strengthening in the light of Mr. Fennell's report. It has proved necessary, quite rightly, to have a special recruitment drive and to reconsider salaries. Budget has never been a constraint in the recruitment of railway inspectors, but there have been serious recruitment problems for a number of years.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Contrary to what the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) said, will my right hon. Friend remind the House that, apart from this one terrible disaster, Underground services must have improved because in the past six years the number of passengers carried has increased by 70 per cent.? That must surely reflect some credit on those concerned.
Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The number of passengers carried on the Underground has increased considerably. Until this terrible disaster, its safety record was extremely good. I am sure that the House looks forward to the improvements that I have announced, which I hope will reassure the travelling public that every effort is being made to improve safety.
Mr. David Young: The Minister said that if funds were needed they would be made available. I find it difficult to understand why 31 people had to die to provide recommendations for the future. Will the Department of Transport ensure that safety considerations and public transport are completely divorced from any financial constraints that the Government may choose to place on them?
Mr. Channon: Some £266 million has been given to the budget, which was announced earlier this month. I assure

511
the hon. Gentleman that I regard safety as a paramount consideration. The only remark made by the hon. Gentleman with which I disagree is that this disaster had to occur for these measures to be taken. As I have tried to show, the investment programme of London Underground Ltd. has been increased enormously over the past few years.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) included statistics showing that the number of passengers using London Underground had increased greatly in the past few years. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will agree that it is vital for the interests of London and Londoners that that increase should continue in the future because public transport is vital to all of us in London. Will my right hon. Friend therefore add to the confidence that many people already have in London Underground and London Buses by instituting a full safety audit?
Mr. Channon: Yes; I intend to have a special safety audit of London Underground which will report to me in March. I also intend to have a continuing audit, whereby I receive quarterly reports on safety matters on London Underground from now on. I think that that should reassure people about the improving safety record of London Underground.
Mr. Bernie Grant: The Minister has stated that London Transport did not spend enough money or as much as was available. Which Minister was responsible for monitoring London Transport spending? Does the Secretary of State accept that, when London Transport was run by the GLC, the GLC transport committee monitored both revenue and capital spending very closely? Is not the Minister who ought to have been monitoring London Transport spending in some way responsible for the tragedy?
Mr. Channon: When the GLC was responsible for investment it was not difficult to monitor as it was exceedingly small. In the early 1980s it was about half what it now is in real terms.
Mr. Tony Banks: It was cash limited by the Tory Government.
Mr. Channon: In recent years London Underground has shown a much better record of spending its capital budget than some years ago. As the report points out, over the years there was a tendency for capital expenditure to be less than the budgeted figure. I am glad to say that that has been rectified.
Mr. Martin Flannery: As one who has used King's Cross Underground station for many years and who went through it on the day in question, I put it to the Secretary of State that the cuts were obvious, even to the travelling public. For instance, ticket collectors were constantly missing and the exit from King's Cross was regularly closed so that everyone had to enter and leave the same way, which was highly dangerous. Is it not a fact that the number of cleaners at the station had been cut from more than a dozen to just two and that that played a role
512
in the fire? Is it not utterly futile for the Secretary of State to talk about how much money was there when we could see the cuts taking place all around us, the effects of which were and still are dangerous?
Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman's comments are not borne out by the report, which deals specifically with staffing levels. I have already quoted to the House the fact that the inspector found no evidence that the reduction in the number of operating or maintenance staff contributed directly to the disaster at King's Cross.
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the exits. Further instructions will have to be given to ensure that exits are open at the appropriate times.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In chapter 19 of the report, paragraph 3(i) states:
"There was also evidence that when the budget for escalator cleaning was reduced, the effects were not fully considered at an appropriate level."
Does that not come back to ministerial surveillance of the activities of the Underground? As this is not an isolated instance in terms of recent disasters, which have included Piper Alpha, Zeebrugge, Bradford—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us keep to the matter before us as time is getting on.
Mr. Barnes: My question in connection with transport disasters such as Zeebrugge and the King's Cross fire concerns the possibility of national disaster legislation. In view of our experiences, would it not be appropriate to introduce such legislation based on the United States, Canadian, French and Australian legislation?
Mr. Channon: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is considering the latter point, and I will bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to his attention. On the first point, I fear that this shows one matter for criticism by the inspector of the management of LRT.
Dr. John Marek: Will the Secretary of State reflect on the fact that it demeans his office to try to brazen out a disaster of this kind and, like Pontius Pilate, to blame anyone but himself and his colleagues in the Government by giving misleading quotations, not quoting the report fairly, and seeking to introduce the superfluous question of investment when 31 people died due to accumulated grease and debris which had nothing to do with capital investment? Does the Secretary of State accept that it was a matter of revenue expenditure and that those people died because of cuts in manning? I put this to him bluntly: has he asked, or will he ask, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consider his position? If not, is there no hole into which he will not crawl and no argument that he will not use to cling to office?
Mr. Channon: When the hon. Gentleman reflects on his remarks he will find that they demean himself and his conscience. He should read the report in full before making such a ridiculous series of remarks. They were intended to be offensive and wounding, and they were indeed offensive. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if he reads the report in full he will see that I have given a fair account of it to the House.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill
5.5 pm
Mr. Speaker: As I undertook to do yesterday, I have made further inquiries of the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means about the Division that took place at 9.51 on Tuesday evening. As will be seen from the Official Report, having collected the voices, the Deputy Speaker stated her opinion that the noes had it. As "Erskine May" states on page 400, if the declaration of the result by the Chair is challenged, a Division takes place.
The Deputy Speaker's declaration was challenged, by a shout of Aye, as the Official Report shows, and a Division followed.
What the Official Report does not show, since it was purely mechanical, is that, for the avoidance of any confusion, the Deputy Speaker collected the voices afresh, and then ordered the Lobbies to be cleared. Yesterday there were at least two occasions when the Chair took a similar course when Members did not appear to be totally clear what was happening.
In response to a point of order from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), the Deputy Speaker indicated that she was satisfied that there was no defect in the procedure by ruling that the Division was in progress. Nothing out of order occurred.
Mr. Stanley Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for that explanation. In my view, two matters arise from it.
The first concerns the conduct of private business and the Government's attitude to it, which has made this a highly contentious issue on the Floor of the House. Without putting words into your mouth, Mr. Speaker, I believe that you share some of the doubts about the way in which such business has been handled. When the Prime Minister comes to vote on a private Bill, although there is no Whip, that in itself makes the matter highly contentious.
Secondly, following what you have said, I believe that the matter of the voting procedure should perhaps be referred to the Select Committee on Procedure. There is great doubt, especially among the Opposition, about the developments that have taken place, and although I do not contradict your statement about the factual situation, the position is still highly unsatisfactory from our point of view and I must register that fact in the House.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I listened with interest to what the Leader of the House had to say about the Select Committee report on private business. I think that it would be wise for a debate to take place on this so that the House can pronounce judgment upon it.
Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday I raised a question about rules and procedures. While not wishing to cast any aspersions at all on the person who was in the Chair, I put it to you that the rules and procedures are clearly laid down and you are the custodian of them. I put it to you that if the rules are breached—I accept your statement that in this instance they were not—nothing that then follows can make that breach correct. I hope that in your ruling you will state clearly that if any such instance occurs in the
514
future the rules will be followed, and it will be hard lines for either side of the House if the procedures are not followed.
Mr. Speaker: I can assure the House that I have considered the matter in great detail. My view is that the rules were followed. It frequently happens in a Division that the occupant of the Chair states, "I think the Ayes have it" or, "I think the Noes have it". The Chair may repeat that twice before the shout of "Aye". Nothing different occurred on Tuesday.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is true that occupants of the Chair often say, "I think the Noes have it" or, "I think the Ayes have it." In fact, it is the sort of statement that is made quite regularly, as it was yesterday—not because there was any doubt, but because it was the phrase to use. It is not that the occupant of the Chair is not sure; it is just a statement. There were continuing votes yesterday right through until the early hours of the morning. The Chairman of Ways and Means used that phrase many times, not because there was any doubt, but because that is the way that things are done.
I asked you yesterday to listen to the tapes, Mr. Speaker. Some may say that "Erskine May" has nothing to do with tapes, but "Erskine May" is a very old instrument of our proceedings. We have tapes available, and anyone listening to a tape of that incident will realise that no Government Member, or any Member supporting the motion, said Aye. There was a distinct shout of "No" —[Interruption.] Listen to the tapes. There was a distinct shout of "No", with the result that the Chair said, "I think the Noes have it," in the traditional fashion, not in a doubtful manner. Members on the Conservative Benches recovered their senses, realised that they had lost the vote and shouted "Aye". I contend that at that point we had won the vote.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes that view, because he said so yesterday. As my predecessors in the Chair have frequently ruled, Hansard is the official record, not the tape. On this occasion there was no discrepancy. The fact that no hon. Member shouted "Aye" on the first time of asking is irrelevant. The Chair's opinion that the Noes had it was challenged. There was nothing different about that procedure—it is followed every day and, indeed, was followed last night.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take further points of order if the House is of the view that the immigration debate is of lesser importance. However, there is quite a demand from hon. Members to take part in that debate, which must end at 7 o'clock. The Front-Bench spokesmen are bound to take some time on it, and that will leave little time for Back Benchers.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance in the hope that we can finally put this matter to rest. Is it not correct that once the occupant of the Chair makes a correct ruling—as, in the eyes of my hon. Friends, Madam Deputy Speaker did the other evening—you have no power to review that decision? Is that not where the matter should rest? Once a decision has been made, it is final. It is the same for any referee involved in any activity.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and that is what I said to the House yesterday. However, I did undertake yesterday to have further discussions on the matter, and that is exactly what I have done.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is important that a wrong ruling is not put on the record. The House should remember that Mr. Harold Lever was credited with having voted when he was not within the precincts of the House. When the matter was raised on a point of order the next day, Mr. Speaker Lloyd, after taking advice—and it was I who suggested that he did so—ordered that a correction be made in the Journal. It is not correct to say that if an error has been made it is incapable of correction. It can be corrected.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is right in what he said about that incident; but it was not what occurred on Tuesday.
Mr. Frank Cook: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful for your ruling, which has cleared away much of the vagueness in my mind—a vagueness which, I admit, is not uncommon. Two aspects still concern me and I ask for your further help.
As a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I need to be able to speak with some clarity. My first point relates to the emphasis that has been placed on occupants of the Chair at other times and on other occasions. Great importance appears to be attached to the gathering of the voices. I have been directly involved on certain occasions and said "No" to a Government proposal. Business has continued and my "No" has been ruled out of order on the ground that I had not said it loudly enough. That appears to run counter to the ruling that you have just given.
Secondly, you said yesterday that you had no right to review the matter. Do we need your permission to take the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure? Would you be prepared to discuss it with that Select Committee?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not for me to do that. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee and the matter is certainly within its terms of reference. Therefore, he should raise it.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I take you back to the events of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill on 15 July 1986?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady's point of order on the same matter?
Mrs. Clwyd: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am genuinely concerned about the business today. I say again to the House that I hope that I shall not be the recipient of letters from hon. Members saying how sad it was that they were not called to speak in the debate. I shall take the hon. Lady's point of order, but it must be relevant.
Mrs. Clwyd: I hope that it is, Mr. Speaker, as it appears to be a mirror image of what happened on Tuesday. On 15 July 1986 you were in the Chair and we were debating the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. I moved a new clause on which a vote was called. Hansard records:
"Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it. The Question is, That the clause be added to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
Hon. Members: Aye.
Mr. Speaker: Of the contrary, No. I think the Ayes have it. The Ayes have it."
The problem was that the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths), did not shout "No". He then leapt up and said:
"On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was, of course, listening carefully to your calls from the Chair on new clause 2 to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Due to the noise in the Chamber I was unable to hear the motion that was put. Consequently—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I put the Question very slowly and I was looking at the hon. Gentleman when I put it. I did not hear any objection to it."—[Official Report, 15 July 1986; Vol. 101, c. 952.]
As a result of your ruling that evening, Mr. Speaker, the debate had to be reconvened on 28 October. It is a mirror image of what happened on Tuesday, so I wonder why the ruling is different.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present, but when the Question was put on Tuesday both "No" and "Aye" were shouted—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, they were not"] I ask hon. Members to read Hansard. The Deputy Speaker said:
"The Question is the motion on the Order Paper.
As many as are of that opinion say Aye.
To the contrary No.
Hon. Members: No.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the Noes have it.
Hon. Members: Aye.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Clear the Lobbies."—[Official Report, 9 November 1988; Vol. 140, c. 261–2.]
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At 1 o'clock today, in line with what I understand to be the convention of the House, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), an Opposition spokesman, was provided with a copy of the King's Cross inquiry report, which was embargoed. I understand that that embargo was broken by the hon. Gentleman, who held a press conference and quoted extensively from that embargoed report.
I ask for your protection, Mr. Speaker. I understand that you protect not only Back Benchers, but Labour Front Benchers. If they cannot be trusted to take embargoed information and treat it as such, the Government should not provide them with the information. We need your protection, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government. I cannot be held responsible for what individual hon. Members do outside this Chamber.
Mr. Peter Snape: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you and the House accept that when my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) met the press this afternoon, at no time did he make any reference to the embargoed report? Although the pledge from the Department of Transport was that the report would be available at 1.30, it was not available until considerably later, by which time my hon. Friend had written out the notes that he intended to impart to the press—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member complete his remarks?
Mr. Snape: Conservative Members are always too interested in scoring political points. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East rightly pointed out the discrepancies in the Government's stories of expenditure on London Underground Ltd., and the figures have been readily available for many years. Indeed, they were studied by many Conservative Members before they participated in the exchanges this afternoon. In view of what I have just said, I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw his remarks and refrain from making cheap party political points. He was not present, so, predictably, he does not know what he is talking about.
Mr. Speaker: Order. On that note, I think that we should move on.

Immigration Guidelines
5.10 pm
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will confirm that this debate is on a motion which states:
"That this House takes note of the draft revised guidelines for handling Members' representations in immigration cases."
I should be grateful if you would confirm that, if the House takes note of the draft revised guidelines, they carry absolutely no requirement for Members to observe them and are merely for the convenience of Ministers. Will you confirm also that if Ministers in the Home Office were to seek to impose sanctions on those of us who have absolutely no intention of observing the guidelines, we would be in order to call for your protection? I should be grateful if you would confirm the standing and status of the draft guidelines, because it is important that they should be clearly understood before the debate takes place.
Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to help the hon. Gentleman on that point. This is a take-note motion; it is not a motion to approve.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I ask the House, Mr. Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this a further point of order?
Mr. Bidwell: I am not accustomed to raising points of order, Mr. Speaker, but it is to do with these proceedings. As you know, I have a more-than-average interest in the matter. I went to the Vote Office and obtained the Foreign and Commonwealth Office draft guidelines. I assume that we are also discussing the guidelines that were issued on 18 July. Both documents were issued on 18 July. For that reason, I want to know whether we are to have the presence of a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, because we may wish to put direct questions to him as well as to the Minister with responsiblity for immigration.
Mr. Speaker: At this rate we shall not even have a reply from the Minister.
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to hon. Members that it is unfair to their colleagues. Every hon. Member would like to have his say, but he must bear in mind the legitimate rights of his colleagues in the Chamber. It is now getting on for half-past 5. This debate must end at 7 o'clock.
Mr. Barnes: My point of order relates to the correctness of the Hansard report on the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill. From what has been said about the matter, and from what you have said, it is clear that there is no mention of the second vote being called for by the Second Deputy Chairman, yet that is supposed to be part of what has occurred. If that is incorrect, what happened when the vote was challenged and the Ayes were called may also be incorrect. You have heard the tapes. Will you confirm that that is what occurred?
Mr. Speaker: I have made a careful and considered statement on that matter. Will the hon. Member please read it? I think that he will find the answer to his question.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Campbell-Savours.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not feel that it is necessary to address me with some contempt in the way that you use your voice, M r. Speaker. The point is that there is a sense —[Interruption.] It is the truth. There is a sense of grievance on this side of the House over the fact that, on that occasion, there was no call from the Government Benches during the course of a Division. The Bill has slipped through, against the wishes of a majority of Members of Parliament as expressed. The Division took place after the business was over. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) did not shout in the same way as he did on a previous occasion. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) also did not shout. In our view, the Bill should have fallen at that stage. Those who supported the Bill were given a second bite, and we believe that to be absolutely unfair.
There is a sense of grievance that remains on Opposition Benches, which is being talked about in the Tea Room, throughout the House, and throughout the Opposition. Even at this late stage, even though there is no precedent in "Erskine May", that Division should be overturned, and the majority view of the House as expressed before the Division was taken should be the one that holds.
Mr. Speaker: That is not the case. Hansard clearly shows exactly what happened. As I said in my statement, there were at least two occasions when I was in the Chair last night and I had to put the Question a second time for the convenience of the House in exactly similar circumstances. The Hansard record is absolutely clear. I have looked carefully at it again. I have further discussed it with the Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time, and I have ruled that it is in order.
Mr. Terry Patchett rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner rose—
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already raised a point of order on this matter. He may not care much about his colleagues, but I ask him to have some consideration for them. I shall take Mr. Terry Patchett first.
Mr. Patchett: I am worried that the reputation and the democratic procedures of the House were tainted on Wednesday evening. I accept that the two Bills involved were complementary to Government policy, but the official Government Whipping tainted the procedure for private Bills, which left a nasty taste in the mouth of anyone who believes in the democracy of this House. For some reason or other, a "No" Division turned out to be an "Aye" Division. I do not understand it. The ruling taints the reputation and democratic procedures of the House. A "No" vote turned out to be an "Aye" vote. We voted against the motion. Conservative Members may say that a vote was taken, but the House voted not to go through the Lobbies. It was quite clear that there were no Ayes, but there were plenty of Noes.
Mr. Speaker: The easiest thing for me to do is to send my considered statement to the hon. Member, and he will see exactly what happened.
Mr. Skinner: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. What has characterised the last few points of order is that some hon. Members who mentioned the matter did not play a part in yesterday's proceedings, but have read Hansard. They listened to the tapes, but they were not involved in the debate. Right across the whole length and breadth of the Opposition there are people who have taken the view that something is wrong with that vote.
You have heard representations from a Tory Member who is well known with regard to procedure, and who has pointed out that corrections have been made. You have also heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), who hitherto has not been involved and who told you about a mirror incident in relation to the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, which was also a private Bill.
We are now dealing with a Bill that will aid and abet that evil regime of South Africa, and some of us will never let this matter drop. It should be looked at further, so I ask you, once again, Mr. Speaker, to listen to those tapes and to come back with a further report before the Session ends.
Mr. Speaker: I have already looked at the matter and have been into it in great detail. I have given my ruling. I call Mr. Renton.
5.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the draft revised guidelines for handling Members' representations in immigration cases.
The draft revised guidelines were circulated to every hon. Member in July and copies were placed in the Library. I welcome this opportunity today—even at this late hour—first, to explain our reasons for the draft and, secondly, to outline what the effect of our proposals will be.
Across Government Departments there is a convention of long standing that hon. Members may make representations to the Minister concerned on behalf of a constituent. The House is understandably jealous of that convention. In immigration it played a particularly important role when no appeals system was available, but it has developed beyond that. Hon. Members' representations today are as likely to relate to outstanding applications as to unsuccessful ones. Equally impotant in immigration, an hon. Member's representation is no longer the only way in which an applicant is able to obtain redress. Since 1969 there has existed an appellate system. This is operated independently of the Home Office, as its transfer in April 1987 to the Lord Chancellor's Department has emphasised. It is an effective remedy; for example, in the last four years about 20 per cent. of appeals to adjudicators have been successful.
Because these two systems have developed separately, there are inherent contradictions in the way in which they operate. The current guidelines to hon. Members—which were introduced by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary in a previous existence in 1986—seek to lay down some ground rules for the inter-relationship between the two systems. I believe that most hon. Members have found these guidelines of considerable assistance.
The guidelines have been a significant document in establishing a clearer understanding of the respective roles of the Department, the independent appellate authorities and the Minister. However, my right hon. Friend the

521
Home Secretary and I are concerned to provide a more satisfactory service to hon. Members which, at the same time, enables Ministers to carry out their functions properly. We have looked, too, at the arrangements for hon. Members' "stops", particularly in the light of the new visa arrangements. That was the purpose of our review of the guidelines.
The present volume of hon. Members' representations is an important element. We received 18,000 letters from hon. Members in 1986 on immigration and related matters. Following the visa decision, there were some 13,000 letters in 1987, and the level of correspondence is likely to be the same this year. That means an average of some 250 letters received by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself each week. The implications of that are clear. Frankly, with that number of letters, Ministers cannot give detailed personal attention to every case. It is sometimes difficult to pick out the important case and give it the attention that it deserves.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Renton: No, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, I shall not give way because time is short and I think the House would like me to make progress so that as many as possible Back-Bench Members from all parties may speak. I hope that my hon. Friend will make his own remarks if he is able to catch the attention of the Chair.
Better arrangements are therefore needed. Our proposals relate, first, to correspondence and, secondly, to "stops". The draft revised guidelines make two changes in relation to correspondence: first, they make explicit for the first time what is our long-standing practice, that Ministers will not normally intervene to take the decision in outstanding entry clearance and after-entry applications.
There will obviously be exceptions to the normal rule. An hon. Member's letter may explain why an urgent decision on a case is needed, and I may be able to convey that decision in my reply. We shall, as at present, operate the system flexibly. But where there are no special considerations, my reply will simply indicate, as fully and helpfully as possible, where progress on the application now stands.
Secondly, the guidelines introduce arrangements to enable hon. Members to correspond direct with the immigration and nationality department on routine inquiries. This change addresses directly our concern to provide hon. Members and their constituents with the best possible service. I shall return to the arrangements for it in more detail shortly.
Our proposals for "stops" involve two changes. The first results from experience of the changes in permitted "stops" introduced in November 1986. At present, a "stop" in relation to a passenger refused entry because he did not have the entry clearance required under the immigration rules will be permitted only if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances. A "stop" for other passengers will be permitted where there is new and compelling evidence which was not available to the immigration officer. In both cases, the passenger has a full right of appeal from abroad.
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Mr. Renton: With respect to the hon. Lady, I should prefer to get on. I suggest that she makes her remarks during the debate and hope that she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Because this appeal right is available, the change we therefore propose is that for any passenger refused entry, whether or not the immigration rules require him to have an entry clearance, a "stop" will be permitted only if there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which the immigration officer has had an opportunity to consider but has not taken sufficiently into account.
The effect of this change is that, in all cases, hon. Members will first need to be satisfied that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances which merit special treatment and, secondly, that the immigration officer must be given an opportunity to consider these special circumstances. This reflects the position in law that the power to give or refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom is exercised by immigration officers. With the final version of the revised guidelines, we shall provide hon. Members with fuller details of contact points at the ports and airports; immigration service officers at senior grades will normally be available to discuss cases of difficulty with hon. Members. If an hon. Member is satisfied that the exceptional and compelling criterion is met and that the immigration officer was aware of it before refusing a request for deferment of removal, he or she may contact my private office direct, or out-of-hours the Home Office duty officer, to request a "stop". I should emphasise that in all cases where an hon. Member wishes to request a "stop", he should contact my private office or the duty officer, not the port or the immigration department.
The second change again reflects the existence of an appeals system. It affects deportation cases and illegal entry cases which have been reviewed by the courts. All cases leading to deportation have rights of appeal, which are exercised before removal. Similarly, no illegal entrant whose case is to be reviewed by the courts is removed before that review is complete. We have therefore decided that where an appeal has been dismissed and the removal arrangements put in hand, it is wrong to continue to allow "stops" which require the Minister to review again, on the same facts, a decision on which an independent review has already taken place. In future, a "stop" in such cases will be allowed only where there is new and compelling evidence which has not previously been taken into account. The position on "stops" for illegal entrants whose cases have not been reviewed by the courts remains unchanged. The procedure will be the same as I have described for port "stops". My private office or the duty officer should be contacted direct if a "stop" is to be requested.
We are also proposing a common time limit for the submission of representations in "stop" cases. The time limit in the current guidelines ranges between 12 and five days. Because under the new system the hon. Member will have available details of the particular circumstances behind the "stop" request, we have set a time limit of five working days for the receipt of representations. Where the Minister upholds a decision to remove, the delay of four working days between the date of the Minister's reply to the hon. Member and removal remains unchanged. As at present, hon. Members should continue to contact the port direct where the issue is whether a passenger under refusal

523
should continue to be detained or be granted temporary admission. That is not a matter in which I would normally expect to intervene.
I mentioned briefly earlier the new arrangements to enable hon. Members to communicate direct with the Department if they wish. That is not a totally new idea. Hon. Members already write direct to local tax offices, local social security offices and so on. Many also already write direct to regional passport offices and I hope that they will continue to do so. We have, therefore, devised new arrangements so that hon. Members may, if they wish, write directly to the immigration and nationality department. Details are contained in the annex to the draft guidelines and the relevant telephone contact point will of course, be included in the final version of the guidelines.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his observations in a speech during this short debate.
Much of hon. Members' routine correspondence may benefit from this approach. A random sample of one week's letters from hon. Members suggests that one third could well be routine inquiries. We envisage that it will provide a swifter and therefore better service for hon. Members on routine matters and, equally important, that it will free Ministers to deal with the difficult cases which merit careful scrutiny.
Hon. Members may also be aware that similar arrangements to those being set up at the Home Office will be introduced at the same time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), may I say that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who regrets that he cannot be present, wrote to all colleagues in July to give advance notice of these new arrangements. They will deal with routine inquiries from hon. Members about immigration applications made overseas. A special unit will be set up to handle these inquiries. It will, equally, remain open to hon. Members to make specific representations to FCO Ministers direct.
I should like to take this opportunity to announce an important proposal to improve the service that my Department provides to Members of Parliament and to members of the public.
Mr. Madden: The closure of Lunar house.
Mr. Renton: Not at all. Something rather different.
Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that the Government wish in principle to establish a regional public inquiry office in Birmingham. We have set in hand consultations with staff and their representatives with a view to recruiting and training personnel for the new office as soon as possible. I hope to be able to announce further details later in the year. I know that many hon. Members have in the past suggested a regional public inquiry office to help members of the public with their immigration problems. This announcement today will be welcomed by all who are anxious to see my Department provide an improved standard of service for those personal callers who wish to resolve their particular immigration problems over the counter.
524
In that context, I can tell the House that the benefits of the changes in the immigration rules, against which the Opposition foolishly voted earlier this year, are now beginning to show and that at Lunar house both the public inquiry office and the telephone inquiry bureau are offering a much improved performance. [Interruption.] We are taking active steps to recruit additional staff, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will be the first to join me in sending good wishes from the House to all those members of staff and management who have worked so hard to make these improvements possible. We are taking active steps to recruit additional staff, including part-timers, and have started a major recruitment advertising campaign. At the same time we are introducing, wherever possible, improved working procedures to ensure that applications are processed as promptly as possible.
Finally, it is a parliamentary convention that hon. Members deal with their own constituency matters and not, save in exceptional circumstances, with one another's. We attach particular importance to that principle in dealing with immigration matters.
Ms. Short: But it is only a convention.
Mr. Renton: I referred to it as a convention. I recognise that some hon. Members have a particular specialist interest in immigration and that some people first arriving in this country with no links will not have an evident constituency Member and so are likely to approach the Member for the constituency in which they first arrive or first find accommodation, but these are exceptions to the general rule. My office will continue its practice of normally accepting representations only from the constituency Member. The draft revised guidelines remind hon. Members of this convention, and we have taken this opportunity also to record our practice that the constituency is normally interpreted as the constituency in which a person lives, rather than works, although obviously in many cases these may be the same.
I emphasise that the revised guidelines are in draft form. If points are made during today's debate, or if hon. Members wish to write to me about them in the next few days and it seems to us sensible to include them in the final version of the guidelines, we shall do so. These are sensible and balanced proposals aimed at giving a better service to Members of Parliament, consistent with immigration procedures and the independent appeal system. I recommend them to the House.
5.46 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I cannot begin without saying how unsatisfactory it is that the House is left with an hour and a quarter to debate these matters. We had nine minutes of wholly legitimate points of order before we began. Had they not been put, we would have been left with one hour and 20 minutes. That is wholly unsatisfactory for debating a topic which concerns the rights and interests of hon. Members and, far more important, the welfare and perhaps the lives of men and women who seek entry to this country.
I shall be brief and not give examples to substantiate the general points that I shall make, but I assure the Minister that I, and no doubt my right hon. and hon. Friends, can

525
provide examples to substantiate every one of the fears and doubts that overcome us when we consider these proposals.
I welcome the announcement that an office is to be opened in Birmingham. That is long needed, much appreciated and absolutely essential. I take it for granted that interviews will be held in Birmingham and that families living in that area will not be required to travel to Felixstowe or to London. I take it from the Minister's silence that that obvious reform is what he has in mind.
This is an arbitrary extension of the powers of the Government and, like all such arbitrary extensions, it is dressed up with the pretence that it is done solely to improve efficiency. That is the traditional excuse for authoritarian action which may be and often is crucially damaging to the interests of men and women who are entitled, even under the present rules, to enter this country, but who are wrongly prevented from doing so by the present method of immigration screening.
For the three categories particularly affected—immigrants refused entry, temporary residents threatened with removal and applicants facing long delays—it is often only the intervention of Members of Parliament which prevents them from being subject to unchecked action by the Executive. The object of a parliamentary system is to allow the legislature to check the Executive in matters of general policy and specific application. The only check that exists on the behaviour of the Executive in the specific application of immigration rules is for Members of Parliament to intervene in specific cases of visitors, asylum seekers and alleged illegal entrants.
It is no good the Minister saying that there is a perfectly adequate system of appeals which does not involve Members of Parliament and therefore Members of Parliament can in part be detached from the entire process. Many of the people who come to this country to visit relations are entitled to do so. Others are asylum seekers, in fear and at risk of their lives if they stay in their home country.
Some are visitors who have not overstayed but who are suspected of doing so. Such people are not best equipped to deal with the complicated Home Office bureaucracy and, if they are able to deal with it, they do so under two adverse circumstances. First, there is the intolerable delay. One of the main jobs of an hon. Member in this area is to try to speed up the Home Secretary and his Department. We all have letters from a year or more ago that tell us that the Home Office will reply as soon as practically possible. That is often 14, 15, 16 or 17 months later. The hon. Member's job is to find justice in terms of time.
Ms. Short rose—
Mr. Hattersley: I shall finish my speech quickly as I do not want to stand in the way of my hon. Friends who also want to speak.
The second reason why the intervention of the Member of Parliament is essential is that the appeal system does not offer any real redress to the majority of people who are found to be unsuitable in their application to enter but who should have been allowed in in the first place. Let us suppose that a man from Islamabad comes to this country for a religious festival or a wedding in—I pick an example at random—the Sparkbrook constituency. If he is turned
526
away, it is no consolation to him to say that all he has to do is to return to Pakistan and appeal, and that he may be let in in a year and a half's time. The wedding will be over and it may be impossible to finance another trip after making an appeal. It is possible to appeal only after returning to the port from which the trip has been originally made. That is not an appeal in practical terms.
The Minister, in his circular and in his argument today, has failed to suggest that the general duty of Members of Parliament to intervene on behalf of constituents is in any way protected by the exceptions that are made in the circular. I shall not read them all, but we are told that Members of Parliament may have the opportunity to place a stop on immediate removal if he or she can demonstrate that there are exceptional and compelling circumstances or if there is new and compelling evidence, according to the different categories of intervention.
That is wrong in principle and unworkable in practice. It is the civil servant against whom we appeal who decides whether an appeal is possible. The matter goes to the Minister only by the good will and grace of the civil servant, so the idea that Members of Parliament have any rights in those matters is wrong.
I should like to give an example, which I think the Minister has heard about already. Two months ago, a professor of mathematics at a British university, whom I know only by reputation, was returning to London from a mathematics conference at McGill university in Canada. He discovered, to his delight, that he was sitting next to a professor of mathematics from an Indian university, who was renowned throughout the world as an expert in some branch of the subject. To the Indian professor's delight, the British professor said that he had four graduate students who would like to talk to him. He asked him to stay overnight and come to the university. The Indian professor agreed, but when he innocently got off the plane in London, he was arrested, incarcerated and told that, as he had no visa, he must return the following day.
I telephoned the Minister's private office and was told that it was not a matter for ministerial intervention. The Minister's private secretary said that the Minister was away for the weekend and could not be disturbed, but, after he had been disturbed, the message came back that it was not a suitable case for intervention by a Member of Parliament because there was nothing urgent about it— nobody was dying. I confess that I can think of compassionate cases, involving sickness or physical necessity, which are more urgent than that. However, the response from civil servants when we ask for ministerial intervention clearly makes nonsense of the idea that there are exceptions. We oppose the measures because the exceptions are vitiated by the fact that only the civil servant is allowed to decide whether an exception applies.
I want to speak briefly about correspondence with the Home Office. I intend to send all immigration letters to the Minister and I expect serious answers from him. I do not expect him to write to me saying that the matter has been passed to Lunar house. It is intolerable that Members of Parliament should be told that they are not entitled to receive the Minister's judgment. It is no good the Minister saying that the work is too much for him. The truth is that if we are dealing with any subject, other than ethnic minorities and the immigration of ethnic minorities, additional resources would be made available and there would be a Minister who was able to deal with the job as it went along.
Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wrote to him on 18 July and gave an undertaking that hon. Members will receive full replies directly from the Minister, if they specify that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. However, once the guidelines come into effect, we shall obviously not feel able to intervene in any case where the guidelines indicate to the contrary. We shall, of course, provide to any hon. Member who writes to us the information that is available about the application and the stage that it has reached. I hope that that sets the right hon. Gentleman's fears at rest.
Mr. Hattersley: The Minister has done the opposite. He has referred to my correspondence with the Home Secretary, so I shall remind him of its terms. After a meeting with some of my hon. Friends, I went to the Home Secretary and said that in future we would write to him and we expected him to reply to us. He was courteous enough to say that he would reply. I give notice that I intend to take up and persist in that offer. I shall expect him to give genuine consideration to the letters rather than to write a Lunar house letter in another guise. My hon. Friends and I are not prepared to see the interests of our constituents subject to the inadequacies and inefficiency of Lunar house. I gladly join the Minister in extending good wishes—and sympathy—to the people who work at Lunar house. The problem is not the people who work there but the burdens that the Minister has placed on them with unnecessary and arbitrary immigration regulations.
Ministers have an obligation to satisfy hon. Members that their constituents' interests are being properly respected and looked after. I do not accept that a Minister should determine what is a routine matter and what is a matter of principle. It is quite routine to send a letter saying that one expected a reply a month ago or was promised a reply two years ago if one is expecting furniture to be delivered, awaiting the availability of a new car or inquiring about the time that it will take to tarmacadam a road. In immigration cases, timing is essential. We are not in a mood to be told that Ministers will not co-operate with such routine.
The drift of the Minister's proposals is more important than the details. In the past eight years, hon. Members have become increasingly detached from arguments about imigration cases, as the Government wish. An attempt is being made to exclude us from defending the rights of constituents. That is parallel with the Government's consistent determination to keep out greater numbers of legitimate immigrants and visitors and to pursue the casual overstayer—the innocent overstayer—with a severity that the misdemeanour does not warrant.
5.59 pm
Mr. Timothy Raison: Having held the job that my hon. Friend the Minister of State holds, I should say that I greatly admire the patience, good sense and courtesy with which he carries out his ministerial responsibilities and that I believe that he is right to propose these changes.
It is absurd that literally thousands of cases should go to Ministers for their decision—especially visitors' cases in their present quantity. It is also absurd that Ministers should be regarded as a regular court of appeal against decisions made under the statutory appeal process. My hon. Friend is right to want to tackle the problem. It is like
528
the Home Secretary being asked to decide thousands of cases on appeal against decisions in the magistrates courts. Ministers should not have to tackle problems on that scale, but that is what is happening with immigration cases at the moment, and it is right to try to get to grips with the problem. Ministers should be able to concentrate on the really important questions that will have a decisive influence on the life of the immigrant concerned. The enormous burden of less important cases makes it remarkably hard for Ministers to concentrate on such issues.
The question has always been: what should we do about the problem? I have to confess that in my time we failed to do anything effective and merely operated the system. In theory there was always the attractive option —an option favoured in the Wilson report—of setting up an immediate court of appeal or adjudication system that could pick up cases virtually the next day and decide whether immigration officers had made the right decision. We have to acknowledge that the scale of visitor entrance and the multiplicity of ports of entry have made that a practical impossibility, and we therefore need the kind of approach contained in the draft guidelines.
At this stage—the stage between the publication of the draft guidelines and the appearance of the final guidelines —my hon. Friend should consider one or two matters carefully. First, I do not entirely agree with the wording of the draft guidelines as they affect the philosophy of how to approach constituency cases. There is a firm convention in the House that we do not pick up each other's cases— certainly not without permission—but that is based on respect among hon. Members, and Ministers should avoid putting themselves in a position in which they may be seen to be policing that convention. I hope that my hon. Friend will think again about the present wording, which seems to me to imply—to a greater extent than is wise—that Ministers will determine this issue. I have never heard of Ministers in other Departments saying that they will not pick up a case because it comes from outside the constituency of the hon. Member concerned, and it would not be right for the Home Office to take that view. I do not think that such a change would undermine what my hon. Friend seeks to do, and I hope that he will think about it carefully.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Raison: No. I shall follow the practice of not giving way.
Secondly, it should be made explicit in paragraphs 9 to 14 that, although the members of the Minister's private office will take certain actions' regarding removal or otherwise, they are at all times the servants of the Minister. The wording of that part of the guidelines seems to have a flavour of giving them a more free-standing role than is proper. It is only a matter of wording, but the Minister must always be responsible for the actions of his private office and there should be no doubt about that in the guidelines, although over the years successive Ministers, including myself, have been superbly served by those in their private offices.
I am not sure that I entirely agree with the statement in paragraph 10 that removal will be deferred only where there are
"exceptional and compelling circumstances … which the immigration officer has had an opportunity to consider but has not sufficiently taken into account."

529
It is right that the guidelines should contain such a provision, but if there is to be further consideration at all we should at least be prepared to consider factors that have not been considered by the immigration officer. The guidelines circumscribe too narrowly the conditions in which matters should be reconsidered. After all, the point of going to the Minister is to bring before him new factors not necessarily considered by the immigration officer.
Let me come to what is in many ways my most important point. The quid pro quo of a speeded-up system that rightly imposes fewer burdens on Ministers is that there must be an acceleration of the rate of handling of appeal cases. We all know that in many cases it takes far too long to deal with appeals. I know that my hon. Friend is very keen to improve the administrative machinery. He has taken a number of effective steps, and we were glad to hear his announcement today. Nevertheless, I hope that he will do all that he possibly can to ensure that the appeal process is speeded up. I know that much of the responsibility for that lies with the Lord Chancellor, but it is a matter for the Government, and it is a matter of great importance.
My hon. Friend did not touch on one aspect of the process which has concerned the House. Perhaps he can report on whether the new guidelines on asylum cases, which were very much improved after a good deal of discussion, are working satisfactorily.
Having said that, I believe that my hon. Friend is right to introduce procedures. I hope that he will think about the points that I have made but I shall certainly support him if there is a Division tonight.
6.6 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was surprised to hear the Minister say that he proposed to introduce the guidelines with the intention of improving the service to Members of Parliament. I am not aware that hon. Members have shown any sign that they are dissatisfied with the service that they have had—in the sense in which the Minister has interpreted it. I should be interested to hear whether any of the proposals arise from recommendations made by hon. Members who have had occasion to deal with him frequently on immigration matters. The House feels that the changes in the guidelines have more to do with administrative convenience than with the strengthening of hon. Members' democratic effectiveness.
Immigration cases obviously are exceedingly difficult for officials to handle, and it can bring Governments into disrepute with foreign Governments if they are not properly handled. It is wrong to treat hon. Members as though they are in some sort of adversarial relationship with the Home Office and its Ministers and officials when they are seeking by their intervention to make the handling of a case more sensitive and to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice.
The fact that rules are being tightened to reduce hon. Members' effectiveness and limit the circumstances in which hon. Members can intervene will transfer to hon. Members a considerable amount of work that should properly be handled by officials and Ministers. They are to be expected to make difficult judgments about whether exceptional and compelling circumstances exist which
530
have or have not been taken into account in the quasi-judicial procedures. I believe that hon. Members' duties are properly discharged if they make a prima facie judgment, but what is now proposed is that hon. Members should establish—as though they were a court with the ability to sift and evaluate evidence—whether certain factors have been sufficiently taken into account. That is especially true in respect of visitors, those seeking asylum and illegal entrants. They are asked to judge whether there is new and compelling evidence.
I admit that the Minister did not have much time to explain the matter to us, but it appeared that he proposed to issue detailed information about what had happened in the judicial review, so that it would be possible for Members of Parliament to consider whether what they had been told was in fact a new point that should be taken into consideration. If that is the case, an extraordinary complexity has been added to the procedure, which, far from simplifying the process, will greatly complicate it.
I do not wish to repeat the points that have been well made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who speaks with more personal familiarity of these cases than me and many other hon. Members, but I wish to raise one or two points that he did not touch on.
In the case of a person seeking asylum, the Minister apparently will not agree automatically to defer removal where there is a safe third country to which that person may go. How is it to be determined what is a safe country? Is the Minister proposing to issue a list of safe countries? Is it to be countries that are subscribers to international conventions which show that they are suitable places for people to go to? I believe that, if it is a purely subjective judgment being operated by the official, it would be appropriate for Members of Parliament to intervene and give their appraisal. The Minister should not bind himself in advance, but should consider each case on its merits.
On the question of deportation and illegal entry, the Minister's prior decision to intervene only if there is new and compelling evidence appears to be unacceptably binding his hands.
The proposal that the procedures on stops should be exercised within five working days is impossible to present as one which is in the interests of Members of Parliament or those whom they are seeking to serve. In the light of the new heavier responsibility that the Minister is putting on Members to evaluate evidence, it will be much more difficult for them to do so if it has to be packed into that confined time. Speaking as one whose post and communications with Lunar house are perhaps more difficult than those of other hon. Members, I believe that the Minister should look very hard at that proposed reduction from 12 to five days. I cannot see what advantage there is in that.
With regard to the constituency Member and his role, it is a generally correct principle that hon. Members should not take up each other's cases, but exceptions to that should be recognised by the Minister. There are some hon. Members who almost as a point of principle will not take up immigration cases. It is bad for our race relations policy and for our relations with other countries if an individual is deprived of a right by finding himself in such a constituency. I hope that the Minister will take that point into account when interpreting his guidelines on constituency Members.
On the question of a direct approach to the

531
immigration and nationality department, I have no quarrel whatever with a facility being made available which hon. Members in some cases may feel is appropriate. If that reduces the burden of work on Ministers' Departments, that must be welcomed and justified. However, it must not take away the Member of Parliament's judgment whether that facility is the appropriate one to use in the circumstances. The Member of Parliament has a constitutionally important right to be able to call to account the Government through the Minister, and not for the action to be taken in his name by some junior departmental officials.
I recognise that the scale and volume of these cases is such that it is appropriate for the Minister to review the effectiveness of the existing rules, but the size of the problem is to some extent being diminished—partly through substantive changes in the law—and therefore it is not the appropriate time to change the guidelines in the manner recommended by the Minister. I was unhappy about the changes, and especially about section 5 of the Immigration Act 1988, which I believe is doing a number of people grave injustice in removing effective judicial review.
The Member of Parliament's stop is the only safeguard which exists to give an effective remedy to those whose right of appeal can be exercised only once they have left the country, which represents a substantial number of cases. That cannot be satisfactory, and the Minister must reconsider that.
6.16 pm
Mr. Patrick Ground: I believe that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and I are two of the most frequent correspondents with the Home Office on this subject. That has been confirmed informally, if not exactly statistically. I pay tribute to the Minister's private staff for the way in which they deal with these problems and the courtesy that they extend to hon. Members.
On the last occasion that the guidelines were discussed in the House, my principal anxiety was the large number of visitors with modest means who were arriving in Britain and being turned back at the airport, having been told that they could not afford to come for a holiday. That caused distress to many people. I am happy to say that, by and large, the introduction of the visa system has eliminated that misery at the airport, at least for those who come from the countries about which I am concerned.
My principal anxiety now is about marriages and fiancées joining their husbands-to-be. Undoubtedly there are bogus marriages between people who go off after the formalities have been approved by the Home Office; plainly they never intended to have a genuine marriage. However, I believe that there are substantial numbers of genuine relationships which are not getting through the system. If a marriage was proved to be genuine, either immediately or over a period, I would like it to be made possible for that couple to be able to surmount the hurdles presented by the Act.
It is absurd to say that Members of Parliament cannot get satisfaction from local offices and from individual departments. We receive many thoroughly satisfactory letters from DHSS offices and from inspectors of taxes,
532
and I am prepared to try to get a satisfactory answer from the immigration and nationality department. If I do not, I shall be on to the Minister very quickly.
The matter which concerns me about the guidelines is the time limits, and especially the five-day time limit. Will the Minister ensure that the same conventions for time limits, which were agreed in the previous guidelines, are observed so that there is no change of administrative practice by his Department? It was only the willingness of his Department to accept a holding letter, when one could not get the full representations in within the five days agreed by his predecessor, that actually made the existing system in some cases tolerable. I hope that there will be no administrative changes. I associate myself with the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), and I hope that consideration of them will continue.
6.19 pm
Mr. James Lamond: When the Minister introduced the revised guidelines today he presented them as though they were just and reasonable and were intended to assist hon. Members and perhaps, as a by-product, to assist himself because a burden will be lifted from his shoulders. I do not believe that that will happen. He should ask himself why he receives so many thousands of letters every year from hon. Members. It is because reality is much more stark than he would have us believe.
I want to use this opportunity to express my concern and the concern of many of my constituents who originated in the Indian sub-continent about the long delays that occur when dealing with applications for the entry clearance of their relatives.
I am sure that everyone would accept that someone legally settled in this country is entitled to have his wife and children, below a certain age, to join him here. Many of my constituents, however, face delays of months and even years on receiving decisions on applications they have made for their families to join them in Oldham.
Over the years those delays have built up to such an extent that I took one case to the ombudsman to see if he could investigate exactly what had happened. Some considerable time later the ombudsman prepared a report and submitted it to me. It informed me that the wife of Mr. Ali, the constituent concerned, was interviewed at the British High Commission in Dhaka on 23 April 1986— after the application had been made on 27 March. She was told that her husband would have to be interviewed in the United Kingdom before the matter could be dealt with properly. I received a letter from my constituent complaining about this on 27 March 1987, because, nearly a year later, no further action has been taken. In other words, his wife was interviewed and told that her husband would have to be interviewed here and yet, a year later, that had not happened.
I asked the ombudsman to consider the case, which he examined carefully. He outlined a catalogue of disastrous actions, which I would love to read out to the House, but I know that hon. Members would not want me to delay them. I hope that the Minister will consider the case. One of the examples given by the ombudsman was that the application had been placed on the wrong pile and did not reach the top of that pile as was expected at a certain time. He added:

533
"unfortunately at about that time the entry clearance officer had suffered serious family problems which had necessitated his absence from the office from July to September during which time no action had been taken on … the application. The Principal Officer said that the ECO's outstanding cases should have been taken over by another officer during the ECO's absence, but this seemed not to have happened."
It is all extremely loose and unfortunate, especially for my constituent. I have every sympathy for the entry clearance officer, who was facing some difficulties of his own, but I have just as much sympathy for my constituent. He had to wait a year between when his wife was interviewed and when he was interviewed to see whether she could join him with their children. That placed his marriage under some strain and caused him problems.
Although the Minister may have sympathy for my constituent, he may suggest, as was suggested to the ombudsman, that it was an unusual case. The ombudsman reported:
"The Principal Officer said that the Head of Immigration Section in Dhaka had every reason to believe that this had been an isolated case"
It is not an isolated case. I asked the Oldham council for racial equality to find some similar examples and I could give details of the cases it gave me, but time is short. They include people who were interviewed in Dhaka in the middle of 1986. The second interview of the relatives, to be held in Liverpool, was delayed for eight months. A further interview was required, but that suffered an 11-month delay. Between the three interviews, 20 months had elapsed. After two years had passed no decision had yet been reached. That is not the isolated case of which the ombudsman spoke; it is just one of many cases that can be substantiated.
When the Minister speaks about trying to help us and helping himself, he should think about the people we should help—those people who wait months, even years, for their wives and children to join them. Let us do something to expedite their cases. To suggest that the best thing to do is to write to Lunar house is nonsense.
6.27 pm
Sir Dudley Smith: The proposals are sound and sensible, and I believe that they should have been implemented long ago because the system was becoming increasingly unsatisfactory and often abused. Few hon. Members would not agree.
I have been as guilty as anyone in seeking stop notices on arrivals, often without being in possession of the full facts. I did it because it was expected of me. Any hon. Member who was approached in those circumstances had to give good justification for not asking the Minster or his office to intervene. It was well known that a stop notice was practically automatic—that is what happened if an hon. Member was co-operative. Because of the weight of correspondence to which my hon. Friend the Minister has referred, people were coming in illegally and staying five or six months before the Home Office dealt with their case.
I am amazed by the dedication that has been shown by my hon. Friend, by his predecessor—the Government Chief Whip—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) who all spent hours and hours on the cases. Given the weight of correspondence imposed
534
upon them, it was impossible for any human being to reach the right judgment in every case. Therefore, the guidelines are right.
The Minister is correct to talk about the need for exeptional and compelling circumstances because we must be able to make representations on those cases which we genuinely believe to be worthwhile. I have had two or three cases recently when my hon. Friend has taken into account those circumstances. They have not all been coloured immigration cases.
Ms. Diane Abbott: What colour were they?
Sir Dudley Smith: I can talk about this because I represent an area of high immigration. I want to see justice for those who genuinely want to bring in people who have a right to enter. This issue cuts right across the world. My hon. Friend frequently brings his judgment to bear on compassionate cases, and we are grateful for that.
I wish to sound a note of dissent. I am not sure about this business of writing to Lunar house, except in highly technical cases. People outside this place have a touching faith in Ministers' ability to get things done. As a Member of Parliament of some experience, I have found that if I go to what they regard as second best they will ask me why I did not approach the Minister if they are turned down. So I might have to go to the Minister in the end, anyway. We must certainly reserve the right to approach him if we have any doubts about a case.
In other respects these guidelines are sensible and I hope that they will be ratified. I think they will work smoothly.
6.31 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: The Minister comes before the House as living proof of the Government's incompetent handling of immigration policy during the past 10 years.
On 16 November 1987 the Home Secretary came before the House to tell us that the Immigration Bill, which became the Immigration Act 1988, would provide a better customer service. Let us quickly examine the record: it is a catalogue of incompetence.
At Lunar house, 267,000 letters lie unopened. That has earned the condemnation of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which described events at Lunar house as scandalous. There are delays in dealing with applications for naturalisation of up to two years. It takes nine months for a person wanting to join a spouse here to be interviewed in posts abroad. This year 77,000 passports were at Lunar house until the Minister discovered them, started to photocopy them—not in person—and sent them back to applicants. People have to wait for up to a year for applications for dependants to be considered.
The Immigration Act 1988 came into force on 1 August this year, further restricting the rights of appeal of citizens of this country and of those seeking to come here, and breaking promises made by successive Labour and Conservative Governments. Yet, in his letter of 18 July to hon. Members, the Minister said, in paragraphs two and four, that he intended to provide a better service for hon. Members. We did not believe the Home Secretary last year and we do not believe him now.
A fundamental shift in the rights of Members to intervene in immigration cases is being proposed. Since my

535
election last year as the Member for Leicester, East, I have taken up more than 4,500 immigration cases. I give a third of my parliamentary salary to employ an extra person in my office just to deal with those cases. Each week I send on average 25 letters to the Minister's private office. They do not inquire after his good health; they are inquiries about applications for leave to remain and about delays in cases. Every letter is vital to the people who come to my surgeries and who live in my constituency and in those of other hon. Members. These people have an absolute right to go to see their Members of Parliament, and Members have an absolute right to contact the Minister and expect a reply.
The Minister is trying to transfer the correspondence from his office to Lunar house, which has often been affectionately called Loony house by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). And what is happening at Lunar house? Two hundred and sixty seven thousand letters lie unopened, the morale of members of staff is low, there are delays, and there is chaos. Apparently, the ability of the immigration service to hold on to staff at Lunar house is so limited that they are losing them daily to the insurance companies in Croydon.
I join in the tributes paid to the Minister's private office, which I have found extremely helpful. When I ring the office, Colette, Sharon, or Trixie or Dixie, or whoever works there, are helpful, and we come to know the people we are dealing with. When we visit the Minister's office we know that his private office lies just outside his door and that members of staff are present to consult him on matters of importance. I do not want to write to Lunar house. I shall join my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in continuing to write to the Minister.
I welcome the establishment of an office in Birmingham. It would be nice to have a local immigration and nationality office in Leicester, Bradford or Manchester. On the analogy with local tax and DHSS offices, it would be useful to have these offices in our constituencies.
I do not think that the Minister understands the hardship and distress that people undergo queuing at Lunar house or going to the passport office and waiting for a response. I, too, deprecate the idea of removing our right to intervene and stop the removal of people who enter this country. Under these guidelines, anyone who enters the country, visa national or non-visa national, cannot have a Member of Parliament intervene on his behalf unless he can demonstrate exceptional and compelling circumstances. That is a matter of grave importance.
The Minister tells us that we can always contact the out-of-hours telephone number, which I have done several times. When I ring it, I do not speak to the Minister. I get a civil servant who then contacts another civil servant at the airport—and they make the decision.
I have tried to get in touch with the Minister about matters of importance during the summer recess and at times in the parliamentary Session when he is globe trotting in his other guise as the Minister with responsibility for broadcasting. When attempts have been made to contact him, he has not been able to give us a reply. In one particular case, the Minister had gone on holiday to an island in the Outer Hebrides and was not contactable. His private secretary informed me that there was no way in which I could contact the Minister but that they would send a helicopter to drop his box. Apparently, there was no one else on the island and there were no
536
telephone communications with it. The Minister failed to read a document that was dropped in the box, so the person concerned spent an extra week in custody at Heathrow.
I do not intend to honour the guidelines telling us not to intervene in the cases of people who live in other constituencies but come to us because their Members are not sympathetic. I have given notice to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that I am raising this matter about him this evening. It concerns a case of a month ago and a person who lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northampton, North. This person went to see the hon. Gentleman to ask him to put a stop on the departure of another person. The hon. Gentleman refused, so this person went to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, who put a stop on the departure. The person then came to me, and I did, too.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North was so furious that he rang the Minister's private office and said that he refused to accept any other stops and that the person would have to leave the country. These guidelines mean that people who live in constituencies with unsympathetic Members become the prisoners of the prejudices of those Members. People should not he put in that position.
I am not prepared to accept the time limit of five days. It is utterly impossible to process representations within that time. If a stop is put on, for example, on a Sunday evening, I come to Parliament on a Monday and my first opportunity to see my constituent would be on the Friday of the week following the stop, by which time five working days would have been completed. These are complex matters; people may require the intervention of linguists who speak, for example, Punjabi or Gujurati. We must ensure that they get more advice—
Ms. Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that five working days are particularly problematic in the cases of people who seek asylum as refugees? I have often had to make inquiries abroad about people who are fleeing and five working days are not enough time in which to do that. The risk then is that people may be sent back to death or torture.
Mr. Vaz: I agree. These cases are complex and cannot be dealt with quickly—that is what the Minister tells us in his replies. He says that there must be investigations, meetings and interviews. That cannot be done in five days. I shall not honour this time limit; I shall stick to the original limit of 12 days and supply my representations in that time—
Mr. Madden: The Minister laid great emphasis on setting time limits within which hon. Members must make their representations. My hon. Friend has illustrated the long delays that our constituents suffer, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond). Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now imperative that the Home Office sets time limits on its own considerations, and the Foreign Office does likewise?
We and our constituents are suffering from the unacceptable delays to which my hon. Friend has referred. Time limits are to be set on Members. Time limits on Ministers are long overdue.
Mr. Vaz: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister may find that the guidelines are challengeable in the courts

537
and that they will result in the abrogation of his responsibility as the Minister responsible for immigration. In my view, it is open to people to challenge the guidelines on the ground that they fetter the Minister's discretion to intervene. Much could have been done to improve the service. The recruitment of more staff, the allocation of more resources and assurances that immigration officers would act quickly in dealing with cases would be more helpful than restricting the rights of hon. Members to intervene.
How many people did the Minister consult before he came to his decision about the guidelines? How many law centres, Members of Parliament and people associated with immigration matters did he consult? He came to Leicester recently and attended a luncheon given by Leicester Inner City Conservative Association. In a letter dated 24 August the association said:
"We are extremely fortunate to obtain the services of Mr. Timothy Renton, M.P.".
The association proposed to charge £8 per head for the luncheon, but nobody wanted to go to see the Minister and the association had to offer free meals.
The right of hon. Members to intervene in immigration cases is a lifeline to many of my constituents. Hundreds of thousands of people in this country and abroad look to their Members of Parliament to intervene in this way. I do not know whether the House realises it, but yesterday in all parts of Britain we celebrated the festival of Diwali, the festival of light. It is a very important Hindu festival, but many people could not take part in celebrating it because they are anxiously waiting for husbands, wives, children or other dependants who are locked into the bureaucracy of the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Today the Government say that the time limit will be five days. Next week they will say it is to be 24 hours and then they will abolish it completely. I hope that hon. Members from all parties will join us in refusing to allow our rights to be abrogated in this way and will help us to ensure that this lifeline is retained for our constituents.
6.42 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I shall be brief because we look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
I welcome the guidelines. It is essential that the Minister should have time to give proper consideration to exceptional cases, which require his discretion or which contain anomalies that need to be properly examined. He cannot be expected to do that if at the same time he is expected to give his individual and personal attention to routine inquiries.
If the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) carries out his stated intention of continuing to send anything and everything to the Minister, cases that require time, ministerial intervention and careful consideration will suffer. I do not understand why hon. Members handling immigration cases should think that they should be able to handle them in a way that is different from the handling of other cases. If a constituent comes to see me or telephones about a tax problem, I do not rush off to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. If a constituent telephones about a social security problem, I do not go to my right hon. Friend the
538
Secretary of State for Social Security. I go to my right hon. Friends only when I am fully satisfied that I cannot get the matter resolved expeditiously and satisfactorily at a different level. I expect to have to react in the same way to immigration cases.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Miss Widdecombe: I am sorry, but there is not enough time.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said that this was an authoritarian measure. I can imagine few things more authoritarian than an hon. Member being able to intervene arbitrarily in the procedures and course of justice and put on a stop, even though that hon. Member has very little information. It is right that hon. Members should take the responsibility that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) felt they should not have to take. Hon. Members must satisfy themselves that they are intervening with just cause, and not merely for the sake of it and automatically. If the guidelines encourage a greater sense of responsibility on the part of hon. Members and greater efficiency and discrimination in the Minister's office, they will be most welcome. I support them.
6.45 pm
Ms. Diane Abbott: Conservative Members have asked why hon. Members should have more rights in immigration matters than in matters affecting taxation or whatever. I shall enlighten them. Immigration matters are nearly always matters of life and death and of extraordinary personal significance. We intervene on behalf of people who fear that if they are deported they will face death. We intervene on behalf of children and grandparents coming to visit their families, sometimes because of sickness or because a member of the family may be dying.
Immigration matters require greater powers of intervention by hon. Members because the personal issues involved are of such serious moment and, increasingly, because the decisions by immigration officers at ports of entry are arbitrary and unfair. In such cases we are the only recourse. Week in, week out, I have to deal with people who have been stopped at the airport because the immigration officer thinks that they are not coming here for a holiday. The immigration officer does not have to prove his case, and people are just sent back.
If Conservative Members did the work on immigration cases that my hon. Friends and I do they would understand the seriousness of the issue. The only substantive reason given by the Minister for altering the guidelines is that hon. Members are putting on too many stops. He said that there was too great a weight of correspondence. I and my hon. Friends argue that if the only problem is too great a weight of correspondence, why does the Minister not make more staff available to deal with the correspondence? It is no part of the job of a responsible Minister to curtail human rights on the basis that too many people are exercising those rights. It is wholly illiberal to curtail people's rights on the basis that too many are seeking to exercise them.
Many times in his speech the Minister said that the Government wished to provide a better service. The guidelines will not provide a better service; they will simply mean that many more people will be turned away at the

539
ports. We would not have to exercise the right of stop so often and at such an increasing rate if it were not for the increasing number of apparently arbitrary decisions by immigration officers at the ports.
The Minister claims that he wants to provide a better service for our constituents and for people seeking to visit their families. If the Minister is anxious to improve the service and human rights, especially in the case of refugees who had their right of appeal curtailed in legislation presented earlier this year, then, even at this last minute, he should withdraw these rules which thoroughly interfere with the rights of hon. Members and provide the staff to answer our queries.
6.49 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate briefly in this debate. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the courtesy and speed with which his Department has handled difficult asylum cases involving citizens from Romania and the Communist bloc and north African workers in my constituency.
I wish to focus on one point that has arisen from the debate. We want people to come to this country from abroad and we are keen to encourage the tourist industry, but we must bear in mind that entry into this country is a privilege, not a right.
As Members of Parliament, we should consider our role in examining the cases of people who wish to come to this country and remember that we are not the final arbiters. We can merely plead one side of the case.
I have often received touching accounts of difficult situations, which I have put to Ministers, and argued cases in court, but that is not the whole of the matter. There is often another side to the case. It is for those people charged with the arbitration of those matters to decide such cases. This country has one of the fairest systems in the world. Nowhere else in the world is one allowed an appeal against a refusal of a visa and an appeal against a refusal of right of entry. We must consider our role in that light.
Members of Parliament can play an important role. I am glad to have played that role and been of help to some of my constituents who have found themselves in difficult circumstances because they have been refused entry to this country. However, if some of us refuse to co-operate with the system, it will break down to an even greater extent than has been suggested by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). It will create chaos and give some people a privilege. The Home Office's operations will come to a stop while a person's case is taken out of the file and submitted to my hon. Friend the Minister, who will then write a letter. The case will then go back in the file, but, in the meantime, progress on all other cases will be halted. Cases will not, therefore, be handled fairly.
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Hind: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will tell the House, "I do not care what the Government decide or what system is put forward. I have no intention of co-operating with it." I say shame on him. It is grossly unfair to constituents of both Conservative and Opposition Members.
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Hind: This is a fair system. I welcome it and hope that it will work. I am sure that we shall do everything to make it work, but I cannot say the same for Opposition Members.
6.53 pm
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I must, of necessity, be brief, but I wish to give one example of an inhuman attitude by an immigration officer in Delhi. The Foreign Office reconsidered the case—a chap who wanted to come to his brother's wedding—but said that he could not come because he had a farm 170 miles from Delhi and only a 16-year-old son to leave in charge of it and he did not know the name of the bride in Britain. That was given as sufficient reason to refuse him entry for a visit.
The appeal process is a farce because the purpose of the visit has long passed by the time the appeal is heard. We have heard a great deal about these matters from Conservative Members and even more from Opposition Members who are deeply involved. The right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), a former Minister who dealt with immigration matters, showed that all is not right. The immigration system is inhumane. It is subject to considerable delays and needs a thorough overhaul. Hon. Members are right to protest. Those who apply for entry to this country, whether black, brown or white, should be treated by hon. Members in the same way as they treat their constituents.
6.55 pm
Mr. Renton: This has been a short but worthwhile debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for the sensible points that they have made regarding a matter that relates directly to hon. Members' conventions and privileges. I appreciate the realistic view that some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, have expressed about representations and what they can achieve, and I shall reflect upon all the comments that have been made. We shall shortly publish the guidelines in their final form, with a view to implementation on 3 January 1989, and we shall ensure that all hon. Members receive clear advance notice of that.
I wish particularly to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), who has great knowledge of this subject, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) for their support of the draft guidelines and for the messages that they asked me to pass on to my private office, which I shall certainly do.
I wish to deal with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury about the UKIAS referral system for dealing with asylum applications in this country. I am pleased to be able to tell him that the revised system, which came into operation on 1 September, is running smoothly and in a good co-operative spirit. As he will know, we consulted carefully and at great length about this with both UKIAS and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
There is no guarantee that any individual case will be referred to UKIAS, but it is expected that referral will be the norm. So far, only a handful of cases have been referred to me, as the Minister involved, where UKIAS and our immigration service have not been able to agree on the appropriate treatment of the refugee applicant. So far,

541
that is working well. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who raised that matter with me, will take comfort from that answer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury raised the difficult question of receiving representations only from constituency Members. We should not have hard and fast rules about that.
Mr. Bernie Grant: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
When my right hon. and learned Friend the Patronage Secretary introduced his guidelines, there were no hard and fast rules on the subject. If my right hon. Friend reads the new draft carefully, he will see that there are no hard and fast rules now, but it is a difficult matter. He will realise that a constituency Member finds it extremely irritating to discover that another Member has taken up a case involving one of his constituents in which he has declined to intervene because he did not think the case was good enough, after having looked into it and discussed it with the immigration service.
Mr. Grant: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Renton: No. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way.
The constituency Member finds that another hon. Member has taken up the case, is in touch with my private office and is requesting that the removal be deferred. We shall continue to operate tactfully and carefully in this matter.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) raised a difficult point, which worries many people, about delays in immigration service interviews. Priority is given to entry clearance interviews, but some delays may occur during peak periods. With improved working procedures, we are trying to shorten those delays.
We heard nothing tonight from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about what he would do to improve immigration procedures. However, that is typical of his attitude to those problems —all words, all opposition and no constructive suggestions.
Meanwhile, we will continue to improve procedures at Lunar house and services to Members of Parliament. That is why I recommend the draft guidelines to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 165.

Division No. 486]

[7 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Aitken, Jonathan

Batiste, Spencer

Alexander, Richard

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bellingham, Henry

Allason, Rupert

Bendall, Vivian

Amess, David

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Amos, Alan

Benyon, W.

Arbuthnot, James

Bevan, David Gilroy

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Ashby, David

Body, Sir Richard

Atkins, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Atkinson, David

Boswell, Tim

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Bottomley, Peter

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Baldry, Tony

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

542

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Bowis, John

Kirkhope, Timothy

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Knapman, Roger

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Bright, Graham

Knowles, Michael

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Knox, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Lawrence, Ivan

Buck, Sir Antony

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Budgen, Nicholas

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Burns, Simon

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Butler, Chris

Lilley, Peter

Butterfill, John

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Carrington, Matthew

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Carttiss, Michael

Lord, Michael

Cash, William

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Chope, Christopher

McCrindle, Robert

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

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Colvin, Michael

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Maclean, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cope, Rt Hon John

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Cran, James

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Critchley, Julian

Malins, Humfrey

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Mans, Keith

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

Maples, John

Day, Stephen

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Devlin, Tim

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Maude, Hon Francis

Dorrell, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dover, Den

Mills, Iain

Durant, Tony

Miscampbell, Norman

Dykes, Hugh

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Emery, Sir Peter

Monro, Sir Hector

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Evennett, David

Moore, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Favell, Tony

Morrison, Sir Charles

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Moss, Malcolm

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Mudd, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Nelson, Anthony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Neubert, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Franks, Cecil

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Freeman, Roger

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

French, Douglas

Page, Richard

Fry, Peter

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Gale, Roger

Patnick, Irvine

Gardiner, George

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Gill, Christopher

Pawsey, James

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Glyn, Dr Alan

Porter, David (Waveney)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Portillo, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Powell, William (Corby)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Price, Sir David

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Raffan, Keith

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Gregory, Conal

Redwood, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Renton, Tim

Hanley, Jeremy

Riddick, Graham

Hannam, John

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Harris, David

Roe, Mrs Marion

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Rowe, Andrew

Heddle, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Hind, Kenneth

Shaw, David (Dover)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Irvine, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Jack, Michael

Shersby, Michael

Janman, Tim

Sims, Roger

Kilfedder, James

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

543

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Speller, Tony

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Viggers, Peter

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Squire, Robin

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walden, George

Stanley, Rt Hon John

Waller, Gary

Steen, Anthony

Walters, Sir Dennis

Stern, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Stevens, Lewis

Warren, Kenneth

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Watts, John

Sumberg, David

Wells, Bowen

Summerson, Hugo

Wheeler, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Ray

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wiggin, Jerry

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wilshire, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wood, Timothy

Thornton, Malcolm

Woodcock, Mike

Thurnham, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Trippier, David

Mr. Alan Howarth and

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clay, Bob

Allen, Graham

Clelland, David

Alton, David

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Anderson, Donald

Cohen, Harry

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Armstrong, Hilary

Corbett, Robin

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Cox, Tom

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Crowther, Stan

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cryer, Bob

Barron, Kevin

Cummings, John

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Dr John

Beith, A. J.

Darling, Alistair

Bell, Stuart

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

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

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

Bermingham, Gerald

Dixon, Don

Bidwell, Sydney

Doran, Frank

Blair, Tony

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Blunkett, David

Eastham, Ken

Boateng, Paul

Fatchett, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Faulds, Andrew

Bradley, Keith

Fearn, Ronald

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Buchan, Norman

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

Buckley, George J.

Fisher, Mark

Caborn, Richard

Flannery, Martin

Callaghan, Jim

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Foster, Derek

Clark. Dr David (S Shields)

Fraser, John

544

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mullin, Chris

Golding, Mrs Llin

Murphy, Paul

Gordon, Mildred

Nellist, Dave

Gould, Bryan

O'Brien, William

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Patchett, Terry

Grocott, Bruce

Pendry, Tom

Hardy, Peter

Pike, Peter L.

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Haynes, Frank

Prescott, John

Heffer, Eric S.

Primarolo, Dawn

Hinchliffe, David

Quin, Ms Joyce

Holland, Stuart

Radice, Giles

Home Robertson, John

Redmond, Martin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Richardson, Jo

Howells, Geraint

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Hoyle, Doug

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Rogers, Allan

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Rooker, Jeff

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Sedgemore, Brian

Illsley, Eric

Sheerman, Barry

Janner, Greville

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

John, Brynmor

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Johnston, Sir Russell

Short, Clare

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

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

Lamond, James

Snape, Peter

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Leighton, Ron

Steinberg, Gerry

Lewis, Terry

Stott, Roger

Litherland, Robert

Straw, Jack

Livingstone, Ken

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Livsey, Richard

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Turner, Dennis

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Vaz, Keith

Loyden, Eddie

Wall, Pat

McCartney, Ian

Walley, Joan

Madden, Max

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Marek, Dr John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

Meacher, Michael

Winnick, David

Meale, Alan

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Michael, Alun

Worthington, Tony

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Morgan, Rhodri

Tellers for the Noes:

Morley, Elliott

Mr. Frank Cook and

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the draft revised guidelines for handling Members' representations in immigration cases.

Points of Order
7.13 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is, as you know, a convention that if hon. Members are to be referred to in a debate, they are told in advance that that will happen. I understand that I was referred to in the previous debate. I also understand that it was said that I had been told that I would be referred to. That is not the case.
I tried to find out what had been said about me and, from what I understand, it was basically total nonsense. My position is the same as that of any right hon. or hon. Member. If I am approached by a constituent, I will look into the matter carefully and take great pains to do what I should for him. As you are aware, the guidelines say that if there are new, exceptional and compelling circumstances—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now seek to make the speech that he might have made had he been here for the previous debate. The House is aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The Chair regrets any lapse in the normal courtesies of the House.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I informed the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that I intended to mention him in the debate. I wrote the note myself and, because I was participating in the debate and could not leave the Chamber, the note was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) and she put the note in the hon. Gentleman's pigeon hole. If he does not clear his pigeon hole or look at his correspondence, I am not responsible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should not be discussing pigeon holes.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have one point of order at a time. That matter has now been adequately explained.
Mr. Alfred Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are you aware of the difficulties that right hon. and hon. Members have had in obtaining information about the allocation of time for the numerous outstanding amendments to the Housing Bill, which we are to debate tomorrow? The Clerk of the House and his colleagues were most helpful in dealing with inquiries. I have just been told that a copy of the allocation of time motion will be made available to me. Whether it was known that I would be raising a point of order, I cannot say. Is it not a serious inconvenience to right hon. and hon. Members, and a discourtesy to the House, that the motion on the allocation of time was not made available earlier? Is there anything that you can do to assist us?
Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I and people in my office have been making inquiries about that matter during the day in order to find out about the Government motion, which may now have been laid in the Table Office. As the Leader of the House is present, it would be helpful if he could tell us whether the Government motion has now been laid in the Table Office, or, if not, when that is likely to happen. As the debate is occurring on a Friday, the allocation of our own time needs to be planned in advance. A statement would be helpful.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion has either been tabled or will shortly be tabled. If hon. Members want to know the terms of it within the next few minutes, they can obtain the information from my office.
Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am only trying to be helpful to the Chair. I do not often raise points of order, but the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) causes trouble in the Chamber by shouting and yawping from his seat and often has to be pulled up by the Chair. There are times when I mention him and do not inform him, because he breaks the rules of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is helpfulness from the hon. Gentleman, I shudder to think what I will hear when he is not being helpful.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Further to the brief statement made by the Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Hon. Members who served on the Housing Bill Committee are wondering how we will deal with the 240 Lords amendments that remain to be dealt with tomorrow. I press the Leader of the House to make a firmer statement to the House on what the timetable will be, or to make it available immediately.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the Leader of the House can do that. He was responding to a point of order, which has now been met. The hon. Gentleman is asking the Leader of the House to make a statement, for which there is no provision.
Mr. Ian McCartney: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear that it was not a point of order.
Mr. McCartney: I do not agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Many hon. Members disagree with the Chair, but the Chair must make the rulings and decisions.

Northampton Bill [Lords]
Order for Third Reading read.
7.20 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill is promoted by Northampton borough council and has the unanimous support of the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Social and Liberal Democratic party. It covers a number of miscellaneous matters of local interest. One of the main parts of the Bill responds to public demand in Northampton to continue for a period rights of burial in a cemetery where loved ones have booked a place. Those rights are about to expire. Unless the Bill is passed, many bereaved families will be unable to bury their loved ones properly.
The Bill rationalises certain local charities and modernises the law relating to local freemen. It also repeals certain spent enactments. The Bill has completed its passage through the House of Lords and has completed all its stages here, except Third Reading. No objection was taken to it during previous stages, and the Bill went to an unopposed Bills Committee. The promoters respectfully submit that the Bill should be given its Third Reading.
7.22 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My name appears on a blocking motion to the Bill, so perhaps I should say a few words about it.
I and several of my hon. Friends have been blocking private business for the past few days to draw attention once again to the need to reform the private business procedure. A Joint Select Committee reported on the private business procedure and made some sensible proposals. It is important that the House should be given an early opportunity to discuss that report. We hope that the Government will provide an early opportunity to amend the Standing Orders for private business. My intention in tabling the blocking motion is to persuade the Government that we should have a debate on this subject at an early stage.
Having tabled the blocking motion, I received a letter about the Bill which illustrated the need to reform the private business procedure. I suspect that, with the exception of the hon. Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), the majority of hon. Members know little about the detailed circumstances of Northampton. Therefore, we are not best placed to pass legislation dealing with Northampton. Local provision should be made in Northampton, without recourse to a Bill in the House. The private Bill procedure does not allow the people of Northampton to influence this legislation. Matters are quickly taken out of their hands and put into those of hon. Members.
I had assumed that the Bill was not opposed, because it went into an unopposed Committee. I had assumed that it was a measure that everyone in Northampton wanted. However, I received a letter from the secretary of the Kingsthorpe Grove Allotment Association, D. F. Randall, who said that the Bill was advertised last year for presentation to Parliament in the 1987–88 Session and, as is required under the private Bill legislation, a notice appeared in the Chronicle and Echo in Northampton on 10 December. It stated that any local people who objected to the Bill should make representations about it. He said that
548
objections had to be made over Christmas, which was not convenient for many people. It was felt that local residents did not have a good opportunity to make representations about the Bill before it came to Parliament.
The writer says that the association had contacted the chief executive of Northampton council asking for explanations about clauses of the Bill, but did not receive a satisfactory reply, which is deplorable. I have no way of checking whether that is accurate, but the writer says that, despite requests for information, the chief executive was unwilling to meet the association to discuss the matter.
The association has experienced considerable difficulty in discovering what is contained in the statutes that are to he repealed. I am not in a position to judge whether the secretary of the association or the chief executive is right in these matters, but I should like an assurance from the hon. Member for Northampton, South that the repeal of 11 local Acts will not lead to a loss of local footpaths or rights in the area. That is the burden of the letter from the secretary of the association ane from two other people in Northampton.
Those local Acts go back to the fourth Bill of the reign of Henry VII and An Act for the Convent of Saint Andrew in Northampton. Most of them conferred a right of way and access to commons in Northampton. It has been suggested to me that by passing this legislation those rights and footpaths will be removed. If I am wrong, I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Northampton, South and accept his assurance and that of the promoters that not one footpath will be lost.
Mr. Michael Morris: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has received such a letter, because the interested parties made representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), myself and the chief executive, and meetings were held to consider the Bill. I have corresponded with the chief executive, following at least two requests from my constituents. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wants, first, because it is not in my constituency and, secondly, because although he has had time to raise this point with me he has not done so. If he had done so this afternoon, I could have made a telephone call. If he had given me notice, I should have been delighted to give him the assurance that he wants. All the people of Northampton, the elected representatives of the Labour party, the Conservative party and the minority parties take footpath rights extremely seriously, and I cannot believe that any action would be taken that would undermine those rights.
Mr. Bennett: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman cannot give me the assurance I want. While I continue my speech, perhaps he will have a word with the agents of the promoters to see whether they can give that assurance. As I understand it, they are normally in a position to brief hon. Members who are sponsoring a Bill. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman accepted responsibility for sponsoring the Bill without understanding what it would do. That illustrates my original point. If the hon. Gentleman introducing the Bill does not understand it sufficiently to be able to give assurances about footpaths, we are in a difficult position.
Mr. Michael Morris: The hon. Gentleman seeks to bowl a fast ball at 7.29 pm with a letter that I have not seen, but which is presumably genuine. He had plenty of

549
time to tell me about it earlier. The main emphasis of the Bill is on a cemetery. The other elements are subsidiary matters flowing from a perfectly normal tidying-up process. I accept that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has a deep and genuine interest in the Ramblers Association, and it is perfectly justifiable for him to pursue that interest in the House. Nevertheless, it would have been courteous to warn me that he would seek reassurance on that matter. I shall, however, do my best to double-check the situation in the next few moments.
Mr. Bennett: I apologise if I did not give the hon. Gentleman sufficient notice. I assumed that he would be able to answer questions of that kind. That is precisely the problem with private business. I objected to the Bill, not because I had taken the trouble to consider its merits, but as a means of pressing for time to debate the private business procedure, which I regard as entirely unsatisfactory.
Having put down the blocking motion last week, I received a phone call on Monday from an individual asking me to raise certain objections to the Bill. I explained that I could not deal with the matter on the telephone, but that if I received a written submission I would consider it. The documents arrived in this morning's post. Had I not been on a Statutory Instruments Committee, I might have had time to pursue the matter this morning. The hon. Member for Northampton, South will appreciate that Members of Parliament have many responsibilities.
I have a feeling that people come to me about matters relating to private business because I understand the procedure, so I tend to get dragged into situations of this kind. All that I am doing today is suggesting to the House that it is high time we reformed the procedure so that we do not end up with debates of this kind in which I have to raise questions about footpaths in Northampton, when I have very little time in which to consider the Bill.
Mr. Michael Morris: Such is the speed of modern communications that I can now give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Bennett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the assurance that now there will be no blocking of footpaths or of access to commons.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I simply wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris), that the most important aspect of the Bill, and the reason why it is being presented, is to allow certain burials to take place in the graveyard in future. It is probable that such burials would need to go ahead at the rate of about one per month, so if the Bill is delayed many people who have lost their loved ones will be deprived of the right to bury them according to their wishes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), as a caring and compassionate Member of the House, will take that into account and do what he can to facilitate the progress of the Bill now that he has received the undertaking that he sought.
Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that point. It illustrates the faults in the private legislation procedure. Had Northampton council produced legislation simply to deal with cemeteries, I should not have received a letter
550
requiring me to seek assurances about footpaths. In fact, someone in the council offices pointed out that a local Bill of this kind cannot be promoted very often because of the pressures on parliamentary time and the pressures of promoting such a Bill, and a whole host of other little bits are then put into the Bill, making it far more complicated for local people to consider. That is where the procedure starts to go wrong. We end up with a Bill, the primary purpose of which is to ensure that a cemetery remains open and burials can continue to take place—I appreciate all the reasons for that—but which has all kinds of other pieces of legislation tacked on to it.
Mr. Martin Redmond: An assurance has been given, but how do we know that it will come into effect if it is not in the Bill? Perhaps my hon. Friend can reassure me, as I am somewhat sceptical.
Mr. Bennett: It is the custom of the House, and one that has been reinforced over the years by promoters of private legislation, that any assurance given in the House by the Member dealing with a Bill on behalf of its promoters is always honoured.
Mr. Michael Morris indicated assent.
Mr. Bennett: The assurance about footpaths and commons is thus as good as one written into the Bill and I do not query it. I merely stress that this is not the right way to proceed in legislating either for the cemeteries in Northampton or for the footpaths there. The best people to make those decisions are the people of Northampton, who have the necessary detailed knowledge.
As I shall make clear on one of the carry-over motions, it is extremely important that the new procedures recommended for private business should be introduced at the earliest possible moment. We should then not need to have what I regard as a series of thoroughly unsatisfactory debates. Looking around the Chamber, I see several hon. Members who were here on Tuesday night. I cannot believe that many of them found that debate satisfactory. Having obtained the necessary assurances about the Bill before us, I merely seek to impress upon the House the need to reform the procedures for private business as soon as possible.
7.36 pm
Dr. John Marek: I was not here on Tuesday night when two other Bills and carry-over motions were debated, so I come new to the subject, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) that it is unsatisfactory to have a debate on what is simply a carry-over motion.
Mr. Michael Morris rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can put the hon. Gentleman right. This is not a carry-over motion. It is a Third Reading.
Dr. Marek: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The others were carry-over motions, but this is a Third Reading, so it may be better if I keep my comments on carry-over motions for the next debate.
It is extremely difficult for hon. Members to know exactly what is going on with all the various private Bills. I find no difficulty in coming new to this Bill and listening to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, who expressed genuine concern

551
about the possible blocking of footpaths and access to commons. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) give what I understood to be a categorical guarantee that nothing of the kind would happen, but that should have been made clear in the Bill much earlier. If there is any fault in the procedure for private Bills on Third Reading, it is perhaps that insufficient time has been left for my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish to allay the worries of ramblers and others about access to footpaths. Matters of that kind should have been made clear well before Third Reading. We could then stick to the real purpose of the Third Reading debate—whether to take the Bill and like it, with all the various powers that it includes, or not to like it and not to take it. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wish to intervene?
Mr. Simon Hughes: No. I will follow the hon. Gentleman.
Dr. Marek: The other problem with the private Bill procedure is that it tends not to be honest. I will explain what I mean by that. People tend to make speeches for reasons connected not so much with the Bill before the House as with others that may follow. I do not suggest that any such thing is happening today, but that it a perfectly honest procedure with a clear purpose and one that has doubtless been used in the House for many years. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish can give me an immediate answer, as he has already spoken once and would need the leave of the House to speak again, but can he encapsulate in two or three sentences why he thinks that the private Bill procedure is unsatisfactory?
If a Bill commands general support, by and large the Bill is passed. Sometimes people want to delay a Bill because they want to block debate on a later Bill. However, I do not believe that any Bill that should be passed has not been passed reasonably quickly. If such a Bill has been delayed, it has been only for a few days or weeks at most. However, some Bills do not receive the general support of the House. It might be that a particular group feels that there is something nasty about the Bill and they do not want it to be passed. If such an opinion is represented by only a small group, that group does not have its way. However, it has a little power because it can delay the Bill for more than a few days or a few weeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has probably tabled more blocking motions than any other Member. He knows more about such tactics than the rest of us put together. However, at the end of the day hon. Members cannot stop a Bill unless a majority vote for that. They simply have the power to delay it. Because the promoters wish the Bills to be dealt with speedily, they tend to see sense. Opposition concentrates their minds. That is a positive aspect of the procedure on private Bills. If I had a well-founded objection to a Bill, and I shouted "Object" to block the Bill, the promoters and their colleagues would soon ask me why I objected and whether there was any way in which they could overcome my objection. Such a practice is not followed by the Government—certainly not a Government with such a large majority. They do not take any notice of anybody.
If the promoters of a Bill believe that an hon. Member has serious worries about it, they will try to discover the
552
reasons. If they feel that an hon. Member is merely deploying certain tactics to block another Bill, they will put up with that, provided that their Bill is passed at the end of the day. If an hon. Member seriously feels that there is something wrong with the Bill, the promoters will ask whether they can help to alleviate the concerns and attempt to discover whether there is any common meeting ground between the parties. It is good that we are having a short debate on this Bill. Already the promoter has given a categorical assurance that no footpaths will be blocked and ramblers can continue to use them.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: My hon. Friend asked whether, in a few words, I could explain what was wrong with the private Bill procedure. I cannot. The Joint Committee on Private Business has published a report, and anyone who reads it will see the recommendations for reform of the procedure. When we reach the carry-over motion for the next Bill, I shall say more about that and illustrate why the report argues that we should not regularly give permission for Bills to be carried over. I do not wish to say anything more about the Bill now before us.
Dr. Marek: I, too, will not say a great deal more. We occasionally have to deal with carry-over motions and I shall refer further to those in our later debates. There appears to be general assent for Third Reading of this Bill. I await with interest to hear whether the sponsor and other hon. Members think we should give it a Third Reading.
7.45 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I shall be brief. I have visited Northampton on several occasions, but I do not intend specifically to comment on the details of the Bill, although I welcome the concessions made by the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris).
The wider issue of how we deal with private Bills will come before us later, but I think it appropriate at this time to make one or two comments. We are in the last days of this Session of Parliament, and I feel it appropriate to say that this House sits longer, by the hour, than any other legislature in the world. We are miles ahead, and the other place is second only to us. One reason that we sit for so long is that we must deal with a great deal of business that, quite honestly, would be better dealt with elsewhere. Because we do not have a devolved system of legislation, as do many other countries, it cannot be dealt with elsewhere. Because there is no forum for debate in Scotland, Wales the regions and the counties, it must be dealt with here. I am sure that a more informed debate would take place if a Bill such as this, dealing exclusively with Northampton matters—or, indeed, any of the others listed for debate tonight—were debated in places other than the House.
Of course, if we were debating the Channel tunnel—the Bill was hybrid, being part private and part public—the House would be the proper forum because the matter would be of national importance. However, in general, private legislation is specific to the area in question, as are the Bills before us tonight.
I admit that I have not read the report in detail, although I understand its general tenor. I hope that we will soon consider the inter-relationship of our procedures, which certainly need reforming, with the constitutional structures within which we force ourselves to debate

553
matters that would more appropriately be debated elsewhere. We should consider what to do about our constitution so that we do not have to deal with matters that would he better dealt with in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
Whatever we do, and for as long as we have a procedure that ensures that legislation goes through this and another place, there should be a proper way in which representatives—either through interest or as constituency Members—of those affected by the Bill can make their views felt and, if necessary, delay specific legislation so that their concerns may be partially met. The opportunity for a Bill to be challenged by local representatives of the area affected is appropriate for debate, whatever the Bill. Whatever new procedures might be devised in the new Session of Parliament, I hope that that aspect will be retained.
7.48 pm
Mr. Michael Morris: I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions, especially the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) who demonstrated his understanding of the predicament in which we found ourselves by the questions that he raised. I hope that the assurances that I gave fully met his wishes.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 36.

Division No. 487]

[7.48 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

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

Alexander, Richard

Dorrell, Stephen

Amos, Alan

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Arbuthnot, James

Durant, Tony

Atkins, Robert

Fearn, Ronald

Atkinson, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Forman, Nigel

Benyon, W.

Forth, Eric

Bevan, David Gilroy

Franks, Cecil

Bowis, John

French, Douglas

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fry, Peter

Bright, Graham

Gale, Roger

Budgen, Nicholas

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gill, Christopher

Carrington, Matthew

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Cash, William

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Gregory, Conal

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hanley, Jeremy

554

Harris, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hind, Kenneth

Redwood, John

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

Renton, Tim

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Riddick, Graham

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rowe, Andrew

Irvine, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Janman, Tim

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Kilfedder, James

Sims, Roger

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knapman, Roger

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Knowles, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Stern, Michael

Lawrence, Ivan

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Summerson, Hugo

Lilley, Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lord, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Maclean, David

Thornton, Malcolm

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thurnham, Peter

Malins, Humfrey

Tredinnick, David

Mans, Keith

Trippier, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Trotter, Neville

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mills, Iain

Waller, Gary

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Watts, John

Moss, Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Neubert, Michael

Wilshire, David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Wood, Timothy

Nicholls, Patrick

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Tellers for the Ayes:

Patnick, Irvine

Mr. Michael Morris and

Pawsey, James

Mr. Tony Marlow.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Bermingham, Gerald

Meale, Alan

Blunkett, David

Mullin, Chris

Boyes, Roland

Nellist, Dave

Buckley, George J.

Patchett, Terry

Callaghan, Jim

Primarolo, Dawn

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Quin, Ms Joyce

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ruddock, Joan

Cohen, Harry

Sheerman, Barry

Cryer, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Cummings, John

Spearing, Nigel

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Eastham, Ken

Wall, Pat

Flannery, Martin

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Gordon, Mildred

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Hinchliffe, David

Tellers for the Noes:

Lamond, James

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Lewis, Terry

Dr. John Marek.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

Port of Tyne Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Port of Tyne Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—
[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
7.59 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I should like to speak briefly and suggest that we should consider carefully whether to consent to the carry-over motion. We should consider this issue carefully because the Select Committee on Procedure stated that it did not feel that carry-over motions were a satisfactory device and that if we are to continue to have private legislation, in normal circumstances attempts should be made to ensure that the private legislation completes its passage through the House in one Session or in two at the most. As the House knows, we have just had a longer than normal Session, so there should have been more opportunity for the promoters to get their legislation through than would be the case in a normal Session.
It is a good parliamentary rule that public business has to be completed in one Session and that if it is not completed in one Session it must start all over again. That means that we can proceed with business in an orderly way. If certain business is not completed by the end of the Session, it is cleared away and people will have second thoughts.
However, that procedure does not apply with private business. The argument is that the promoters will have gone to considerable expense. In some cases, the petitioners also will have gone to considerable expense in, for example, briefing counsel and possibly in appearing before the Committee. It would be unfair if at that stage the Bill were then thrown out because of lack of time and a new Bill had to be introduced.
I am sure that anyone who has read the report on private business will agree that there is clear evidence that
556
a lot of legislation has gone through the House under the guise of private business, although it could have been dealt with in other ways. It is high time that the House adopted the recommendations in the report and made it clear that it does not see private business as a cheap way of getting round our planning legislation or as a cheap way of promoting something that the promoters consider desirable or as a way in which local arguments can be sidelined with people who do not know the local details making the decisions. At the moment the procedure is a farce in that any hon. Member who serves on a private Bill Committee must have no knowledge of what is going on, yet that person has to sit in an almost quasi-judicial capacity.
Therefore, the House should consider carry-over motions carefully. I hope that my hon. Friends will make it clear that, if this carry-over motion is carried, they will not expect any more carry-over motions for the Port of Tyne Bill [Lords]; they will expect the legislation to be completed within the next few months. Indeed, by this time next year we expect private business to be so reformed that carry-over motions will be brought before the House only rarely, if at all.
I want undertakings from the Government that they will facilitate the opportunity for a debate on the report and that they will bring forward amendments to the Standing Orders so that we can introduce a new procedure at an early stage. I am disappointed that the Leader of the House is not in his place because I had hoped that he would give that undertaking. I raised this matter with him at business questions today and he said that he thought that he would be able to find time for an early debate before the Government had produced their response to the Select Committee. However, he did not give any further undertakings about how soon the debate would take place. I understand that there are rumours that it might be in January or in early February.
I am not sure whether the Chairman of Ways and Means is in a position to intervene in the debate and to give us some sign of how he, as Chairman of Ways and Means, feels about whether the new procedure will be debated and introduced. I am well aware that he has taken a great deal of interest in the setting up of the special Committee to investigate procedures. Indeed, he gave evidence to the Committee. I am also well aware that you, Mr. Speaker, have in the past taken a great deal of interest in private business and that you are aware of many of its problems.
I hope that there will be an early opportunity for a debate. I should have preferred the Government to give us that assurance, because I put it to the Whips that if such a Government assurance had been forthcoming, I should not have had to press very much more tonight in regard to the other carry-over motions and the Government might be able to get back to their business at an early stage. However, it does not look as though anyone will offer me those assurances.
Although the Government have had time to consider the private Bill procedure, one is left with the slight suspicion that they still have an enthusiasm for private business because they sometimes seem almost to resort to it. The county council "jumbo" Bills are an example of the Government seeming to implement their legislation through private business. I am sure that anyone who listened to the debates on Tuesday night would have been left with the suspicion, especially if they looked at the

557
voting figures, that those two Bills relating to the import of coal were being promoted with clear Government support. Those Bills should not have been considered as private legislation. They should have been dealt with through planning applications in the locality and if it was necessary, for the country, to take a policy decision to import coal, that should be done through public rather than private legislation.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman knows far more about procedure generally than I do. My question relates exactly to the matter that he has raised.
Has it traditionally been the policy and the procedure of the House that the Government should take a Government line on private Bill matters when there is an alternative way of dealing with the issue by normal resolution at county or other level? I remind the hon. Gentleman of the example of the Hampshire (Lyndhurst) Bypass Bill which interfered with the legislation on the New Forest. That issue could have been dealt with by amendment of statute, but a private Bill was enacted. Although it has since died, the Government intervened to ensure that the Bill was given a Second Reading with Government votes. That Bill was very much a breach of the policy of protecting the New Forest. We have seen other examples. As a matter of history, is there a pattern to suggest that the Government should not intervene in that way and seek to impose their policies?
Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Gentleman is tempted to go too far down that line, we must concentrate on the reason why this particular Bill should or should not be subject to a carry-over motion and not other Bills.
Mr. Bennett: I appreciate that point, Mr. Speaker. The Port of Tyne Bill illustrates the problem of private legislation because in so far as the port is being extended as a result of legislation that should be covered by local planning procedures. However, as far as certain harbour works and alterations to the coastline are concerned, such as the placing of buoys, such matters have traditionally been dealt with by private legislation. I am not convinced that it is necessary to use private legislation for such matters. The planning aspects should be done through planning procedures and it would be perfectly reasonable to have special orders to deal with the harbour works. That is investigated in the report on the reform of private business procedure.
For most of last century and before, the House spent a great deal of time on private legislation, but since the introduction of local government planning legislation in 1947 the need for private business seems greatly diminished. Now it is almost a historic carry over. Last century there was a great deal of wheeling and dealing on private legislation. A Bill was introduced for a railway from London to Birmingham and a bribe had to be offered to the people of Northampton that the railway would not go through Northampton so that the then Member for Northampton would not cause a fuss in Parliament and stop the legislation. The people of Northampton wanted to keep the railway as far from the town as possible and certain noble interests wanted to keep the railway off their land. On the other hand, certain private landowners managed to get their own private railway station through
558
private business. But throughout that wheeling and dealing the Government were supposed, at least officially, to remain neutral. In private business the Government did not whip or organise.
I have been in the House since 1974 and the firm tradition has been that private business was the business of Members, and not a matter on which the Government or Opposition issued Whips, although there were occasions when individual Members issued Whips. In answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), it is only recently that the Government have adopted an attitude on private Bills. The best example of whipping on private business is the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, and we saw the same process on some coal measures. The Government have an opportunity to express their view in Committee and it is then that they should do so.
It is high time that we got round to introducing this legislation. I am disappointed that tonight the Government cannot assure us that they will get on with the reform of private business and that carry-over motions will be a thing of the past. We have before us a whole series of carry-over motions, and I appeal to the Government Front Bench to have a word with the Leader of the House and suggest that the sooner he gives assurances that we shall have an early opportunity to debate the report on private procedure, the less need there will be for my hon. Friends and me to chivvy the Government and complain about this procedure.
I hope that tonight we can at last give an indication to the promoters and the Government that we are not satisfied with carry-over motions, and issue a warning to anyone thinking about presenting private business next Session that we shall expect them to complete it in one Session, and not to plan for a carry-over motion. If the matter is non-controversial, why has it taken nine months to get the Bill so far? If, on the other hand, it is controversial, should we be dealing with it? We should not.
I hope that at an early stage the Government will give us better assurances that these procedures will be reformed.
8.14 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: The Bill has passed unopposed through the House of Lords. It redefines in up-to-date terms the duties and powers of the authority. It provides for the authority to issue general directions for ensuring the safety of vessels and persons using the dock, and it enables the harbour master to give special directions to particular vessels where necessary. The Bill contains provisions which enable the authority to regulate the placing and other related matters of lights which might interfere with the safe navigation of the channels by vessels. It seeks to increase the safety of those who use dock roads by enabling certain provisions of the general road traffic legislation to apply to those roads. It also effects an uprating of certain penalties and modernises the procedure for confirming port bye-laws. It empowers the authority to bring about the development of land within the port which is no longer needed for port purposes.
The House will know that I have no direct connection with the River Tyne. My constituency is on the Tees. I have been asked to make it clear that the two blocking motions tabled by my hon. Friends the Member for Yarrow (Mr. Dixon) and for South Shields (Dr. Clark)

559
were intended to enable my hon. Friends to speak with the promoters and have certain questions answered. I do not need to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, how one can get caught up with business in this House. I am having to make this statement on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarrow because he is the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip and his presence is required elsewhere. That is why he has to put up with a second-rate right-handed lieutenant.
I make this statement so that the House understands that my two hon. Friends who wish to block the Bill are happy to agree with the carry-over motion so that in some weeks' time they can clear up matters with the promoters. To seek to block a carry-over motion now would be grotesquely unfair on those who did not expect the Standing Orders of the House to be changed so suddenly.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Port of Tyne Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
Ordered,
That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
8.18 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I do not intend to speak at any length on this motion. I tried to persuade the Government to assure us of an early debate on the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I extended my sympathy to you, Mr. Speaker, as you have many years' experience of the problems of private legislation, and hoped that perhaps the Chairman of Ways and Means would catch your eye and intervene to show that he felt strongly that we must have an early debate on the reform of private business procedure. I should be grateful for an opportunity to hear him place those views on the record.
8.20 pm
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): It is only for convenience that I choose this location from which to address you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, and not because of any kind of partiality. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said in the earlier debate. I understand, and largely share, his concern that we should now ensure that the labours of the Joint Committee bear fruit, but we must ensure that we do that properly.
Mr. Martin Redmond: I wonder whether the Chairman of Ways and Means agrees that planning matters are far better dealt with by the relevant local authorities or, if they are of major importance, that a public inquiry should take place. That would be a far better system than messing about, taking an unholy

561
number of hours and putting Mr. Speaker in an invidious position. It would be far better for the House to ensure that all planning requirements are dealt with by local authorities.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: You would reproach me, Mr. Speaker, if, in replying, I were to turn the debate on the motion into a debate on procedure. I suggest to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) that he reads the report and my submission to the Committee. In my submission, I touched on the point that he has raised. I assure the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish and other hon. Members that there is a widespread concern that we should ensure that we respond to the recommendations in the report. We must respond to them having taken account of the local authority associations, Government Departments, agents and others who are directly affected. We must proceed in a thorough way. It makes sense to get those views.
I have said already to the Leader of the House, who has a sympathetic ear, that there should be a motion to take note of the Committee's report when hon. Members could put forward their views. Subsequently, recommendations could be put to the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I know that the Chairman of Ways and Means has followed these matters carefully and has been involved in helping to draw up the report, which will change the procedure and prevent backlogs such as this.
I wonder whether the Chairman will consider the following case, which may occur this year or next. Let us suppose that a carry-over motion is put forward this time next year on behalf of the promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill and the North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill. Let us suppose also that we manage to hold up those Bills for another 12 months, so that they fall within the new system. Would they have to start from afresh, rather than be carried over? There will always be Bills in the pipeline, whenever the new procedure is introduced. What will happen to those Bills when the new procedure is evolved? Will they wait continually? Each year there will be Bills waiting for carry-over motions. Unless the House accepts the argument for stopping a Bill in its tracks, the new procedure will never be implemented.
The Chairman of Ways and Means: I doubted the wisdom of being lured into taking part in the debate. I begin to feel that my reservations were right.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will not expect me to comment on Bills that are not before the House tonight. I do not want to mislead him about the speed with which the recommendations made by the Joint Committee can be implemented. Some will require legislation and that, plainly, will take time. When he said that any changes that are made will impinge on some Bills that may be before the House, he was in the realm of hypothesis and it would be unwise to speculate on a particular situation.
We have been given the chance to listen to the views of hon. Members on this important matter, and I am pleased that there is so much interest in it. I am determined that the Joint Committee, having worked so hard and for so long, will see its labours bear fruit. We must not allow the report
562
to gather dust, and I know that the Leader of the House shares that view. I hope that at some time we will debate the views of the House more fully.
If you will forgive me for having intervened, Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have helped us to make progress.
Mr. Speaker: I agreed to that intervention by the Chairman of Ways and Means because I thought that it might help the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who is seeking a debate on the Joint Committee's report. I entirely share his view and I listened to what the Leader of the House had to say. He said this afternoon that there would be a debate early in the new Session. Let us now return to the subject of the motion.
8.27 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am not sure whether the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) were an objection to the Bill, or to the procedure. I ask that the Bill be carried over. The terms of the debate are strictly limited, so I cannot say—as I should—that the Bill will be an aid to jobs in Grimsby, which would otherwise be threatened, or that proper means for the disposal of effluent is essential and will improve the environment. Since negotiations between Tioxide and Associated British Ports have now been concluded but not ratified, the Bill should be carried over in case there is a breakdown in negotiations.
Mr. Redmond: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the Bill will lead to an improvement in the environment, or will it simply mean that toxic waste will be moved from one place to another? Will there be an improvement in the environment?
Mr. Mitchell: I am satisfied that there will be. The Bill seeks to be an improvement on the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Act 1986, which gave Tioxide powers to construct an outfall into the Humber to enable waste to be discharged into deeper water, where it could be more readily dispersed. That is a considerable environmental improvement and Tioxide must have an efficient means of waste disposal to safeguard jobs in the factory, which is in Grimsby.
Under the 1986 Act there had to be an agreement to protect the interests of Associated British Ports, as the conservancy authority. That agreement was not reached in time, so the Bill is an attempt to improve the position in those negotiations. It will probably be unnecessary, because agreement has been reached, although it has not been finalised. I hope that we can safeguard the Bill by allowing it to be carried over to the next Session, just in case any breakdown occurs. We should not throw away the work that has gone into the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill

563
Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
Ordered,
That the Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
Ordered,
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Newcastle Upon Tyne Town Moor Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Newcastle Upon Tyne Town Moor Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—
[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
8.29 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I hope that the House will allow the Bill to carry over into the next Session. The Bill, as modified, has the support of hon. Members who represent constituencies in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne. It also has the undivided support of the freemen's association which owns the leasehold on the Town moor in the city of Newcastle.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Did my hon. Friend say freemen or "freemasons"?
Mr. Brown: It is important to get that right. I assure my hon. Friend that I said "freemen," not "freemasons", although it would not be unusual if they had something to do with it. As far as I can tell, they are not specifically interested in the matter. Of course, as my hon. Friend would be the first to point out, one cannot always tell whether they are involved. However, that is irrelevant to the matter in hand.
Newcastle upon Tyne city council has unanimously agreed to promote the Bill, which is supported by the Labour majority, the Conservative minority and the much larger Liberal minority on the council. Incidentally, the Liberal representation on the city council is now twice the size of the Conservative representation, which shows how things are going in the north of England.
The Bill has been delayed, and it has been delayed for a good reason. It was being blocked by my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and myself. I take careful note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about the reasonableness or otherwise of carrying a Bill over from one Session to the next, but with this Bill we have a good reason. My hon. Friends and I, who have the honour and privilege to

565
represent communities on Tyneside, objected to the Bill because we did not believe that it contained sufficient safeguards to protect two principles which we believed to be encapsulated in existing legislation and which were highly desirable for our communities.
First, we thought that the Bill ought to protect the right of public access to the town moor—not just for the freemen of Newcastle but for all the citizens of Newcastle and for all those who come to visit the city. That has hitherto been the practice, although it has not been the law. We understand that such free access was intended in previous Acts, although it was not specifically stated.
We had a second objection. The Bill consolidates all previous legislation relating to our town moor which goes back 300 years and comprises a number of different Acts of Parliament. We suspected that it might enable the leader of the city council—the city council owns the freehold, although the freemen hold the lease in perpetuity—to bring pressure to bear on the freemen's association, which is not well funded, to sell part of the town moor for a car park or for a property development. The citizens of Newcastle feel very strongly that the town moor should be there for them to enjoy and that it should not be sold to property speculators. To prevent the leader of the council or anyone else from selling the town moor to property speculators we blocked the Bill and opened negotiations with the freemen, who wished to ensure its passage through the House.
Those negotiations have been entirely successful and we have inserted clauses that wholly protect the public right of access and prevent—as solidly as anything could—the alienation of the moor from the people of Newcastle. Because we argued and fought to secure those concessions, it was reasonable to delay the Bill, and it is now reasonable to carry it over into the next Session.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting such a good deal out of the promoters. However, that is no reason why Bills should be carried over in future. If the promoters know that it is difficult to obtain a carry-over, their minds will be concentrated and they will negotiate before the Bill reaches Parliament or early in its parliamentary proceedings. Because carry-over motions are now so commonplace, there is a temptation for everyone concerned in the negotiations to spin out the proceedings. I hope that in future promoters will come to the negotiating table much more quickly.
Mr. Brown: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. If our perfectly justifiable requests to safeguard the moor from property developers and to safeguard public right of access to it had not been conceded, we should have held the Bill up indefinitely.
Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has made a very good point and we are right to thank him for it. I agree that he is right to hold out for safeguards and protections, but there is an additional point to be made. Not only do the promoters know that Bills can be carried over—especially under the Tory Government, for whom carry-over motions are becoming the order of the day—but they can milk the ratepayers of Newcastle and elsewhere. In the knowledge that they can get a carry-over motion at will, the
566
promoters can say, "Let us carry over the Bill for a year, or even two, and all the time we can put in bills for big fat fees." The people of Newcastle will have to foot the bill. A carry-over motion will benefit the promoters, their agents, the lawyers and all the rest who can make a fat killing by carrying-over a Bill. They might have dragged my hon. Friend to the point at which he gave way—in this case he refused—and they would have lined their pockets as a result.
Mr. Brown: I have great sympathy with that intervention. I greatly resent the amount of public money that is spent on lawyers—unnecessarily in my view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) touched on an apposite point. At one stage in our negotiations the city council was using its power of funding as a weapon in its negotiations with the freemen of the city. In my view, that was wrong. In all our dealings with the freemen of the city of Newcastle, they have behaved perfectly properly and, like us, have sought to protect the town moor in its existing form and prevent the encroachment of property developers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover rightly hinted that others involved in public life would not have been unhappy for the Bill to have been passed in its earlier form, conceivably their enabling the alienation of open lands in Newcastle to property developers. I stand strongly against that, as do my hon. Friends who represent the city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the abuse in the House of private business in an attempt to get round planning constraints. I wholeheartedly agree with him, although this Bill does not deal with planning matters. It is an attempt to consolidate 300 years of legislation into one Bill. Where matters such as rights of herbiage do not translate easily into modern legislation, the Bill clarifies them in as fair-minded a way as possible and the draftsmen have sought to resolve any ambiguities that exist.
My hon. Friends and I are satisfied that the Bill protects the interests of the citizens of Newcastle and that it will prove a strong safeguard to preserve the town moor in its present form, so that it cannot be encroached upon by property developers. I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be carried over into the next Session and proceed to the statute book thereafter.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Newcastle Upon Tyne Town Moor Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in

567
the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
Ordered
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Promoters of the Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House:—
[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. John Home Robertson(seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just had the opportunity of voting in the No Lobby and while passing through I noticed a certain amount of smoke coming from a waste-paper basket. Presumably some hon. Member put a lighted cigarette into it. I extinguished that fire. I wonder whether you can give some guidance as to whether hon. Members should be taking such a risk in the Palace of Westminster.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): As I understand it, hon. Members are required not to smoke in either Lobby.
The House having divided: Ayes 100, Noes 37.

Division No. 488]

[8.39 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Day, Stephen

Alexander, Richard

Devlin, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Aspinwall, Jack

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Atkins, Robert

Durant, Tony

Atkinson, David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Forman, Nigel

Benyon, W.

Forth, Eric

Bevan, David Gilroy

Franks, Cecil

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter

Fry, Peter

Bowis, John

Gale, Roger

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Buck, Sir Antony

Gill, Christopher

Budgen, Nicholas

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Burt, Alistair

Gregory, Conal

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carrington, Matthew

Harris, David

Carttiss, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cash, William

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

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Couchman, James

Irvine, Michael

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

Kilfedder, James

569

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lawrence, Ivan

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lilley, Peter

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lord, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maclean, David

Summerson, Hugo

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mans, Keith

Thornton, Malcolm

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Thurnham, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trippier, David

Neubert, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Watts, John

Patnick, Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Pawsey, James

Wilshire, David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wood, Timothy

Porter, David (Waveney)

Redwood, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Michael Stern and

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Sir George Young.

NOES

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Faulds, Andrew

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

Fearn, Ronald

Bermingham, Gerald

Gordon, Mildred

Buckley, George J.

Hardy, Peter

Callaghan, Jim

Haynes, Frank

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Hinchliffe, David

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Home Robertson, John

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Lamond, James

Corbett, Robin

Lewis, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Cummings, John

McNamara, Kevin

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

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Dixon, Don

Marek, Dr John

Eastham, Ken

Meale, Alan

570

Nellist, Dave

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Primarolo, Dawn

Short, Clare

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Martin Redmond and

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. Harry Barnes.

Wall, Pat

Question accordingly agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House. —[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
8.54 pm
Mr. Chris Smith: I urge hon. Members to agree to this Bill being carried over. Many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be aware that, for some considerable time, I have been urging this House to encourage London Regional Transport to go ahead with the improvement of Angel Underground station. That is precisely the purpose of the Bill.
Angel is almost certainly the worst station in the entire Underground system—many hon. Members will have had personal knowledge and experience of that. The Bill contains a number of important measures to ensure that improvement work can go ahead. Principally those measures involve the removal of the present lifts, which work, at best, sporadically, and, at worst, not at all, and their replacement with new escalators leading to a new ticket hall and entrance to the station to be built on Islington high street.
In addition and most importantly, the Bill contains the provision for the removal of the island platform which is located in the middle of the tracks at the station and its substitution by proper normal platforms as in other stations on the Underground system. Presently the island platform is extremely dangerous, especially with the enormous increase in the numbers of people who use Angel. In recent years, in the immediate vicinity of that station a large amount of office development has taken place. That has meant that the number of people using that station has considerably increased. During the rush hour the press of people trying to get on and off the island platform has become great. The obvious danger to passenger safety should be all too clear to the House, especially on the day when we have considered the report of the inspector into the King's Cross tragedy. The safety of passengers in other stations on the Underground system should be uppermost in our minds.
572
The Bill will seek to put many of the problems right and it is important that the carry-over motion is passed by the House to ensure that the necessary work can take place as quickly as possible.
It is not entirely the fault of the promoters that a carry-over motion has become necessary. The Bill was tabled at a fairly late stage of the Session principally and regrettably because it took the Government some considerable time to come forward with the capital funding necessary to ensure that the work could proceed. I am delighted that that financial commitment has now been made by the Government to ensure that that work can be done, but it is a pity that it took so long for that commitment to be forthcoming. There were also lengthy discussions between London Regional Transport and the borough of Islington about the precise way in which the work should be carried out, the location of the new entrance and the detail of the necessary construction to improve the station.
All those discussions have now reached a positive conclusion and there are no outstanding petitions against the Bill.
Dr. John Marek: Will my hon. Friend put our minds at ease so that we may be absolutely sure that there are no outstanding petitions and that all the problems have been solved? I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being absolutely in the know about what has happened to this Bill, but there are many private Bills and it is simply not possible for any Member to know exactly what is going on at any stage.
Mr. Smith: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend on that point. The motion specifically says that there are no outstanding petitions against the Bill. I urge hon. Members on both sides to vote for the motion. My constituents and I have asked for these works for many years. At long last, in the past year, we have secured the agreement of LRT and the funding commitments from the Government that will ensure that they can go ahead.
The station is in dire need of improvement. Safety considerations are overwhelming, and I very much hope that proceedings on the Bill can be concluded in both Houses as rapidly as possible so that the works can commence as soon as possible.
9.1 pm
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
I should declare an interest as a director of a company which has recently moved to the area close to Angel tube station, in White Lion street. The building is used by more than 400 accountancy students each day. It is symptomatic of the improvement in the area that many businesses are moving into the streets surrounding the tube station, and it is only right that London Regional Transport should succeed in upgrading the station, thereby improving the conditions of houses and businesses in that part of north-east London.
I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage and that LRT will treat safety as a priority, remembering that litter and the general lack of cleanliness helped to fuel the awful tragedy at King's Cross. The station is a disgrace at the

573
moment and the improvements will increase the comfort of residents and business users and of all who travel through the area. I welcome the Bill.
9.2 pm
Dr. John Marek: I do not intend to vote against the Bill, which, on balance, is a good one. I do not know the details of the changes to the Angel station. Perhaps the Bill's promoters or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can provide me with reassurances that will enable me to vote for the Bill with enthusiasm rather than passivity.
We know LRT's record. I do not blame it for trying to cut the manpower and womanpower involved in rubbish collection, maintenance and servicing the Underground system. LRT is the monkey in the game: the organ grinder is the Department of Transport. The Secretary of State for the Environment is the man who should have resigned over the King's Cross disaster if he had had any integrity.
The Department of Transport has authority over LRT's actions. It is plain for all to see that any Bill brought forward by LRT will be coloured by the financial constraints of the Department of Transport. We now have what are called Thatcherite policies—value for money, efficiency and no waste—
Mr. Hanley: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise substantial investment in public transport when he sees it? Is that not in itself a reason to support the Bill?
Dr. Marek: I believe these things when I see them. None of us has seen the Bill. We have seen a few words on paper, but I have not seen the works and improvements that are planned for the Underground station.
Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend is right, in general terms, to be sceptical about the role of the Department of Transport—especially that of the Secretary of State—in the funding of LRT. The Angel tube station is on the City branch of the Northern line, which is the Cinderella of the Underground service. Many improvements in the frequency of trains and quality of service are needed, and I am already pressing the Secretary of State for them.
My hon. Friend asked about the specific works that are included in the Bill. I refer him to the estimates of expense, which have been tabled and are before the House. The overall total is nearly £45 million. That is the amount required to carry out these important works at Angel Underground station. That is a substantial and an adequate amount.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is providing information, but he is making another speech. I must ask him to bring his intervention to a close.
Mr. Smith: I was just concluding my intervention. This is a substantial and adequate investment to carry out the works in the Bill.
Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for seeking to reassure me on these matters. The estimates come to about £44 million, and that is a lot of money. On the other hand, in today's world, and at today's prices, I wonder what one would get for that amount.
Mr. Peter Hardy: Without disputing the need for the work to be carried out at Angel station, some of us will be anxious to know whether the expenditure there will be within a far too limited budget, which will mean that the needs of other Underground stations may be neglected. Is my hon. Friend aware that unless we have an assurance that other funds will be available we shall have some hesitation in supporting our hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) because he may wish to put too many of the rather limited number of eggs in a basket that is rather too small?
Dr. Marek: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. Perhaps he will have a chance to develop his ideas later in the debate.
We are debating a carry-over motion because certain things should have been done in a certain way and were not. That has created problems. Every hon. Member has a right to worry about what is going on and to wonder whether the £44 million will be spent properly. Secondly, is it sufficient to undertake specific works? I shall deal with one or two of the things that I mean.
In the past six or seven years, London Regional Transport has undertaken works in such a way as to spend the minimum amount of money necessary to get the public to use the Underground. It has not spent a penny more than was necessary, yet if it had spent a few more pennies it could have given the travelling public the comfort and the luxury that they desire.
The Underground walkways are far too narrow, and at times during the rush hour there is simply not enough room for people to get to or from the platforms. The frequency of service at some Underground stations is such, perhaps because of out-of-date signalling equipment or because there are not enough trains, that many people on the platform cannot get on the train and have to wait for the next one. In some cases people are not allowed on to the platform.
This important Bill is about the refurbishment and rearrangement of the Angel Underground station. The question that we must ask about any carry-over motion is whether the promoters of the Bill have got it right, so that the money will be properly spent and the House can give a fair wind to the motion. The other question that we must ask is whether the money will be spent in a cheeseparing way, because, given the expected increase in passenger traffic, very soon, and perhaps even before the works are completed, we shall see that the works were inadequate and that too many passengers are using the station in unsuitable conditions.
That is why we must consider whether we should allow the Bill to go through, or whether we should stop it at this stage because the House believes that the money is insufficient or is not directed appropriately and it is better to ask the promoters to think again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has persuaded me that it would be reasonable to allow the Bill to be carried over into the next Session, but I wish to ask a few simple questions. The answers may be in the Bill or may already have been given in Committee, but it is difficult for any hon. Member to know the details of a private Bill. I apologise if I ask questions to which I should know the answers, but I should like to know whether escalators will be provided from ground level to the booking hall. That is important. We should all

575
welcome £44 million being spent to refurbish the Angel station. If these questions can be answered in the affirmative—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am extremely tolerant when I am in the Chair, but we are now going into deep water. I remind the hon. Gentleman—if I may have his attention—that this is a carry-over motion and that we are not now dealing with the details of the Bill. We are determining whether the Bill should be carried over into the next Session. The debate is therefore very narrow.
Dr. Marek: I apologise for straying into too much detail. I do not intend to detain the House for much longer.
Mr. Chris Smith: I urge my hon. Friend to allow the Bill to be carried over because the issues that he has raised have been resolved in the discussions between the various parties. Works Nos. 1 and 2 in the Bill cover the provision of escalators.
Dr. Marek: Let me justify my case, Madam Deputy Speaker, without going into the details. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to satisfy me on this point. If so, I promise that I shall not raise it again. I shall listen to his comments and decide which way to vote. Obviously, escalators will be included, but will they be from ground level to the booking hall?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are going into the details of the Bill. I have drawn the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are not dealing with the details of the Bill. They have already been dealt with. We are dealing with whether the Bill should be carried over into the next Session. That is the only thing with which he should concern himself now.
Dr. Marek: I am slowly being hemmed in. If the Bill is carried over to the next Session, there will be plenty of time to consider all these details. I hope that we will be able to consider them carefully, to ensure that the Bill is right. We may sniff at £44 million, but the Government are now intending to allow London Regional Transport to invest that money. We all agree that that investment is necessary, but is it right? This money will be included in the public sector borrowing requirement.
Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is now straying.
Dr. Marek: That is an important matter that we can discuss when the Bill has been carried over. I hope that I shall be able to support my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury when he gives me an assurance that all those things will be looked at—perhaps they have been looked at and I need have no qualms whatsoever about supporting him in carrying over the Bill.
9.15 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) suggested that I intervene, and I shall do so very briefly. I shall certainly bear in mind your reminder to the House that this is a very narrow matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall restrict my remarks to that narrowness.
My basic concern is about escalators and the time scale to which my hon. Friend referred. Occasionally I have to use Pimlico Underground station. During the past four or
576
five months, whenever I have used the station, an escalator has been closed for what is said to be repairs. I was told that it was under repair last week, the week before, the week before that and way back in June or July. I am worried that if we agree to the carry-over motion, presumably it will be quite some time before the Bill is given further, and presumably final, consideration in the next Session, and it may be that the Pimlico escalator will be waiting for months while London Regional Transport tries to make sure that the £40 million or so earmarked for Angel station remains available for that station.
I feel somewhat hesitant about making that point because I have quite enough to do to represent my impoverished, hard-hit Yorkshire constituency, but since the Conservatives who control the City of Westminster spend their time selling public assets for extremely small sums of money, and, presumably, travel around in chauffer-driven cars and do not know what is happening to their constituents who have to climb down a very long staircase, which must be distressing for the aged and the disabled, I feel entitled, even though my constituency is 170 miles away, to offer this very narrow point for the consideration of the House.
Mr. Chris Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I would point out ever so gently that many hundreds of my constituents, many of them impoverished or elderly, have to walk up and down extremely antiquated, very steep stairs when the lifts at Angel tube station are out of action, as they frequently are. With the interests of those people in mind, I have been fighting extremely hard and vigorously for this Bill for many months.
Mr. Hardy: I commend my hon. Friend for the diligent service that he has given to his constituency. I was delighted to give way so that he could make that valid point. He is valiantly seeking to ensure that his constituents do not have to undergo the experience suffered by so many people in Pimlico as a result of the almost incessant failures to operate the escalators there.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the problem of non-functioning escalators in London is now substantial. Rotherhithe tube station in my constituency—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have intervened twice in the debate already to draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that we are not concerned with individual escalators and lifts not working. We are debating a carry-over motion. I ask hon. Members to discipline their arguments to that.
Mr. Hughes: I was about to convince you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it was a perfectly appropriate intervention. Constituents in London wish that we did not have so much carrying-over of repairs, and that we had less need to carry over the legislation. The sooner we get the legislation, the sooner we will get the repairs and the less need we will have for debates such as this.
Mr. Hardy: I usually find myself in substantial disagreement with members of the SLD, but I am glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. He touched on an important matter, but he obviously disregarded the advice that you had given, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the

577
narrowness of the subject. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again because, clearly, he will be out of order if I do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will remain in order.
Mr. Hardy: I have been in order from the start of my remarks.
I do not believe that we should oppose the Bill, because we should sustain the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). The needs of his constituents are such that even if it leads to Angel, Islington, having a higher value on a Monopoly board, which it may as a result of the investment in his constituency, it is right that the elderly and disabled people in his constituency should have their interests served. I hope that the carry-over motion will be passed and that the legislation will move on rapidly. During the period of delay, however long it may be, I trust that London Regional Transport will find a corner of its heart, a little of its money and perhaps a trifle of its commitment to ensure that the escalator at Pimlico station is repaired after these many months.
Dr. Marek: I want to raise an important item which I should have mentioned earlier. It is not a detail, but is a major alteration. My hon. Friend will be aware that a London Regional Transport plan is to be published within the next few months. That will propose vital alterations to public transport in the London area. One of the suggestions is for a lozenge-shaped, fast transit system with one apex of the lozenge at Angel and the other in the south-west of London. That is a major plan for London and I wonder whether the Bill, if it is worth carrying over, will take account of any proposals that might come from that major addition to London Regional Transport.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) not to stray down that road, but to return to the carry-over motion.
Mr. Hardy: I would not take up those comments, because my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham may be causing difficulties. If he makes this matter more complex, there is a risk of delay. We must not give the Government too many things to think about at the same time. If we do, the delay will be considerable.
I do not oppose investment in transport. I have every sympathy with people who live in London, but I hope that those who live in south Yorkshire, who also need more money for public transport, will receive support. The pensioners in and around Hoober Stand, the highest point
578
of my constituency, have no bus service, and many of them are too old to walk the considerable distance to a bus stop. People such as that need to be considered.
If we facilitate the Conservative Members who feel that London Regional Transport should have investment, we should congratulate them on their service and support for the public sector. It is nearly as commendable as the devoted service that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury has given to his constituency. I hope that Conservative Members will accept that a higher priority needs to be shown to public transport in other parts of the country, not just to the escalator at Pimlico, but to the pensioners and disabled in rural areas who have been hit harshly by the appalling public transport policies that the Government have slavishly pursued.
I hope that London Regional Transport will have heard my comments about the escalator at Pimlico. I certainly would not wish to oppose the progress that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury's constituency desperately needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
Ordered,
That since no Petitions remain against the Bill no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the Committee;
Ordered,
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the London Regional Transport (Penalty Fares) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a Second time;
That any Petition against the Bill presented in the present Session which stands referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business;
That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
9.24 pm
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I received some helpful assurances earlier from the Chairman of Ways and Means about the principles of private Bills. The Bill gives me an opportunity to return to some of the issues raised in the special Committee's report on private business procedure.
In the previous debate we witnessed what I often refer to as the blackmail effect, whereby hon. Members can block or slow down the effect of one Bill to peddle constituency interests or other interests. That is a common feature of transport Bills, especially those introduced by British Rail. Examples of London Underground stations not functioning efficiently can be brought to the House's attention on Bills such as this. Unless the promoters improve the Bill, hon. Members may delay it.
If it is reasonable for London Transport to impose penalty fares on people who do not have tickets, surely those people should be able to impose a penalty on London Transport if its facilities are not working. We have heard examples of such failings from my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), who mentioned Pimlico, and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who mentioned Wapping.
The Bill should not be promoted as a local private Bill. If people are to be subjected to penalty fares if they travel on trains and buses without a ticket in London, surely the same should apply in Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham or elsewhere. If penalty fares are to be introduced, they should be made the subject of national legislation moved by the Government so that people who move from one part of the country to another know exactly what the rules
580
and regulations are and what the consequences will be if they do not obtain a ticket. There is no possible justification for having one scheme of penalty fares in London but another in Sheffield or elsewhere. The willingness of the House to allow carry-over motions or Bills such as this to proceed under the private Bill procedure is an encouragement to the Government not to take national measures but to allow private business to proceed in a piecemeal way.
Mr. Martin Redmond: One needs to consider all the issues involved while remaining in order. I have been fortunate enough to travel on trains on the continent. It was extremely useful to be able to buy one's ticket on the train. In this country, we have to pay before we get on the train. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) is rightly stressing the way in which penalty fares should apply throughout the regions. South Yorkshire had an excellent bus service before it was destroyed by the Tories. London Transport should be considering the system that we previously had in south Yorkshire, which was tremendously popular with the people of south Yorkshire. The tragedy is that British Rail appears to be learning nothing. It is merely seeking ways and means of collecting money, and I do not argue with that, but if people had concentrated their minds a little more we might not have had the tragedy at King's Cross that we discussed earlier today. British Rail should perhaps consider its priorities and try to ensure that people, when travelling, are a great deal safer than they are now.
Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend illustrates the point. We should not be considering penalty fares in terms of piecemeal legislation of this kind. There should be one scheme for the whole country so that people who move from one area to another will know what the rules are. It seems very odd to have one set of penalties in one part of the country and another elsewhere. This is a good illustration of the need to develop national legislation to deal with the problem of fare dodgers rather than having individual Bills of this kind. It is thus a good example of a carry-over motion that we could defeat so as to remind the promoters of private Bills that they should not take the House of Commons for granted and should look for ways of developing public rather than private legislation. That would certainly be most useful.
If, on the other hand, the promoters succeed in getting their carry-over motion, they must consider how they intend to justify the penalty system contained in the Bill. The penalty for travelling on a bus or on the Docklands railway without a fare is a £5 fine, but on trains it is £10. In my experience, it is fairly difficult to get on a bus without paying a fare or having the opportunity to do so as there is usually a driver at the entrance or a conductor inside the bus to issue tickets. In most circumstances, therefore, it will be fairly clear whether a person is trying to avoid payment. Moreover, if a person does not have the necessary fare at that moment but has an urgent need to travel it is possible to explain the circumstances to the driver or conductor and hope to be allowed to pay later.
On the railways, and especially the Underground, however, the situation is far more complicated and it is fairly common for people to have to board a train without having had the opportunity to purchase a ticket. Service at Westminster tube station is generally very good, but at

581
11.30 or 11.45 in the evening the individual in the ticket office may be busily engaged in counting the day's takings and unwilling to issue a ticket, preferring the would-be traveller to pay at the other end. That may cause considerable difficulty for the individual who, to satisfy the conditions laid down in clause 5 of the Bill, has to prove that there was no one available to issue a ticket. Perhaps the Minister for Roads and Traffic, who is present in the Chamber, can tell us whether a person busily counting the day's takings would count as a person available to issue a ticket even though he might not wish to be distracted from his counting and if the would-be traveller lingers any longer at the window there is a good chance that he will miss the last train. The position is fairly vague.
It is often quite difficult to tell whether it will be possible to obtain a ticket at a tube station. There may be a machine issuing 50p tickets, but all the other machines may be shut down and the ticket office closed. In those circumstances, difficulties may arise under clause 5(2)(b)(ii). We should not be considering this legislation through the private Bill procedure. Legislation on penalty fares should be national, not local, because it would then be subject to much more vigorous scrutiny.
A private Bill may or may not be debated on Second Reading. Often it goes through without debate because no one has been alerted to its consequences. A Bill dealing with penalty fares is not really of local interest, so unless someone is especially concerned about the civil rights of individuals—
Ms. Dawn Primarolo: I do not quite understand what my hon. Friend is saying. Will penalty fares be automatic, regardless of any mitigating defence? For example, what happens if someone decides to extend his journey? What if he were given the incorrect fare when he began his journey? Will mitigating circumstances be taken into account, or will the penalty be automatic?
Mr. Bennett: I must be careful not to stray too far into the detail of the legislation as we are simply debating a carry-over motion. I refer my hon. Friend to clause 5, which deals with penalty fares in trains. I am sure that the fact that the wrong fare had originally been issued or that there was no one available to issue the ticket would be a reasonable defence. I am not sure whether changing one's mind during the journey would constitute a reasonable defence.
I am trying to explain why private legislation is not the best way to deal with these matters. At best, Second Reading takes place between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock—a maximum of three hours. If votes have taken place at 7 o'clock, even less time is available. It is much too short a time to debate such a matter as the rights and wrongs of penalty fares. Following Second Reading, the Bill goes into Committee, where petitioners are heard. If a member of the public is well organised, he may present a petition against penalty fares.
The Government have the opportunity to put their point of view, but there is no opportunity for the detailed scrutiny that a Bill would normally receive in a Standing Committee. The number of Members serving on a public Bill Committee is substantial, and each has the opportunity to table amendments. There would be real scope for those outside to make representations to their
582
Members of Parliament on, for example, what would constitute a reasonable defence—the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo).
Although the public Bill procedure is not perfect—indeed, some would criticise it—it is far more effective than private legislation, which has a Committee of only four people who decide between different vested interests. They act almost as judges. The private Bill procedure is inappropriate for this sort of legislation.
Once a private Bill has been through its Committee stage, it returns to the Floor of the House, and I accept that, from then on, the procedure for Report and Third Reading is exactly the same as that for public Bills. There is a tendency for private Bills to be nobody's responsibility. The Government have a responsibility to put forward public Bills, and the Opposition have a responsibility to scrutinise them. The issues in Bills are then examined. Private legislation is promoted by organisations outside the House. They persuade an hon. Member to pilot a Bill through the House, and often give that hon. Member little information about it. It is then merely a matter of luck whether other hon. Members take the trouble to read the Bill.
I have been amazed at the number of occasions on which I have picked up a Bill, started to raise one or two points in the House, and then other hon. Members have raised a series of other issues because they have taken the trouble to read the Bill and see its implications. It has often been pure chance that I have taken any interest in certain Bills.
It is inappropriate to use private legislation for such a fundamental principle as whether there should be penalty fares for fare dodgers. If fare dodging is a national problem, it should be subject to national legislation.
The way in which private and public legislation can be muddled is interesting. This is a private Bill, and its promoters have tried to get it through Parliament on that basis. However, there is a problem with private legislation, and that is how to take account of inflation when setting fees. The promoters then dodge the problem by using the public Bill procedure to allow the Secretary of State, by order, to prescribe any increase.
We have a peculiar situation. Although the Bill has short-circuited the normal scrutiny of a public Bill to catch fare dodgers, when they consider whether £5 or £10 will be appropriate for all time, the promoters turn to the dodge that, in future, the Secretary of State will be able to lay an order to increase or decrease the amount. They then follow the procedure of least parliamentary scrutiny, and that is to lay an order that is subject to annulment. All hon. Members know the difficulties in praying against an order and defeating it. The process is in favour of the Government and stacked against ordinary hon. Members. If it is reasonable for the promoters of the Bill to take powers to require the Secretary of State to vary penalties from time to time, the matter should be subject to an affirmative order. It will be possible for the House to debate that point when the Bill comes back to the House.
On this occasion it would be useful for the House not to support the motion and for the Bill to be lost at this point. If London Regional Transport or any other transport undertaking considers it necessary to have penalty fares, it should lobby the Department of Transport to legislate on penalty fares so that people know exactly what is happening.
9.45 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). I do not intend to detain the House for long, but I have considerable sympathy with the argument, and I can illustrate it by telling the House about my experience this week.
Earlier this week, I had to go to Bonn. I could not go the night before, because we were busy opposing another piece of private legislation even more pernicious than this one. I had to get up quite early in the morning to go to Heathrow. When I got to the Underground station, no one was there. As I had to catch the early flight to attend my meeting, I had to board the train without a ticket. Obviously, one pays at the other end. As far as I can see, one cannot get out at Heathrow without paying, and it was certainly not my intention to do so. I strongly disapprove of those who do not pay their way. There are far too many tax dodgers on the Conservative Benches for us to endorse any other view.
I had completed about three quarters of my journey when an inspector boarded the train. I explained that I could not buy a ticket because there was no one at the Underground station where my journey had begun. He was extremely courteous, and I paid my normal fare. It is wrong that even in London, where there is high unemployment, those responsible for public transport cannot employ people to sell tickets at the beginning of a journey.
Mr. Redmond: I know from experience that my hon. Friend is impeccably dressed when he travels abroad to represent this country. I wonder what the ticket inspector's attitude would have been had my hon. Friend been wearing overalls? The inspector may have assumed that my hon. Friend was seeking to dodge paying.
Mr. Hardy: As a matter of fact, a young man wearing jeans, which were not particularly new—I think that is the most charitable way of putting it—was in exactly the same boat and he was treated with considerable courtesy by that honourable and experienced inspector or ticket collector. However, the fact remains that that inspector could have been subject to considerable criticism and abuse because people do not like being put in a position of having to travel without a ticket simply because of the mean approach to the employment of people. As I have said, there is high unemployment even in London. It seems that our society has reached a point where adding to the labour force is regarded as almost a crime if there is any way to avoid doing so. It seems absurd for us to pass legislation that will strengthen that reluctance to employ people and to give them responsible jobs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish is right. This is not the way to deal with matters that involve such serious principles. We should argue this approach in a proper debate, not in this travesty of a procedure where most Members of Parliament feel that, as this is a matter for London Transport, it is not for them. I believe that the principle is important, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has suggested that we should ensure that there is a substantial debate. I hope that the Minister will comment on this matter—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley)indicated dissent.
Mr. Hardy: Well, he should, because he is saying that people are to be frequently placed—perhaps more frequently placed—in the embarrassing position of having to board public transport without having paid the fare and then run the risk of being criticised, embarrassed or made to feel guilty when there are no grounds for criticism, embarrassment or guilt. The Government have a responsibility, and the Minister should be asked to reconsider his negative response—a curt shake of his head —to my suggestion that he intervene.
There is an element of confusion in clause 5(2)(a), although perhaps lawyers in the House would not find it as confusing as I do. It seems that the Minister, or the sponsor of the Bill, may say that my point about people travelling without a ticket has been covered. Clause 5(2)(a) states:
"A person … shall not be liable to pay a penalty fare under this section if at the time when and the station where he started to travel on the train service there were no facilities available for the sale of the necessary fare ticket for his journey."
In other words, he may be excused.
It is a bit much that we have to pass a Bill to say that people will be excused a penalty when they are not in any way at fault. Would it not be better to ensure that such a position never arose? Would it not be better to ensure that we do not clutter the House of Commons with unnecessary private legislation when proper employment policies could be pursued? Is that not a sufficient argument for the Minister to take the trouble to get to his feet and say a word or two on the subject? He should reconsider it.
The confusion is that, while there appears to be some degree of exclusion in clause 5(2), paragraph (c) states that if a notice was displayed or an authorised person in uniform gave permission, the penalty would not be applied. If clause 5(2) is satisfactory, why do we need paragraph (c)(i) and (ii)? The Bill should be reviewed and the principles considered. London Transport and any other public transport authority should ensure that it employs a sufficient number of people so that ordinary decent citizens are not severely embarrassed.
9.50 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen: I shall not detain the House for long.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is a nice tie.
Mr. Cohen: Yes, I have a nice tie, and a nice pair of braces too, which I am wearing for the first time tonight. But I digress. The Minister is leading me down the wrong path.
I do not object to the carry-over motion, although I agree that this matter should be subject to national rather than local legislation. I agree, too, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) that tickets should always be available for people when they set out on a journey. They should not be forced to travel without tickets. That relates to employment, and people should be employed in those jobs as they provide an important service.
I am worried about penalty fares and would not like them cast in stone. There must be flexibility. All hon. Members will know of cases of violence against those who work on our buses and tubes. There have been appalling cases, involving deaths. Only recently work was stopped at Leyton garage for the funeral of a bus conductor who was

585
assaulted and died as a consequence. I am worried that if we set penalty fares in stone they could become a reason for violence. Even if the sum involved is small, a person who does not have that small sum might think it better to hit the conductor or driver and get away without being caught. At present there is a big advertising campaign about getting a ticket rather than a criminal record, and I agree with that, but violence is connected to that.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that if inspectors are expected to collect penalty fares, as is proposed, the inspector will end up carrying large sums if he catches many offenders? The legislation should discourage people from carrying substantial sums. The more we can persuade people to pay other than in cash, so that no one is tempted to assault an inspector and grab the money, the better. If this were national legislation, we should consider the safety of inspectors who collect penalties.
Mr. Cohen: That is an excellent point. I agree that in the present climate vast amounts of money should not be carried around because that is almost an invitation to assault.
I have not been fully briefed by LRT—perhaps other hon. Members have—about potential violence and how it could flow from penalty fares. The promoters do not seem to have made that clear. For example, have the trade unions been consulted? I should have thought that that was vital.
I acknowledge that the courts have an important role to play. In general, I favour lighter penalties. I make no bones about that. This country imposes some of the heaviest penalties in Europe. I think that sentences should be much lighter. However, we should take into account the social element in sentencing and the courts must deal rigorously with assaults on bus drivers, tube workers and others in the public transport services. I am in favour of harsher sentences in those circumstances.
There is also the question of fares. At the moment, fare increases are well above the rate of inflation, and that seems to have been so for a number of years. That may mean that more people will be tempted to try to avoid paying their fares, which again could lead to potential violence. I should not object to penalty fares if they were being introduced against a background of cheap fares,
586
giving people no excuse for trying to avoid payment, but while fares are increasing well above inflation there is a problem.
Mrs. Audrey Wise: Clause 8 requires a person to give his name and address if he cannot pay the penalty fare immediately. Has LRT considered that if a person's name and address are on the computer the information must then be covered by the Data Protection Act 1984? There seems to be no recognition of that in the Bill.
Mr. Cohen: That is a very good point. I was once described by a Home Office Minister as an aficianado of data protection. If I went into that question, I would be here all night.
I have expressed my view about the potential for violence. I would ask LRT to comment on how penalty fares may affect it.
9.58 pm
Dr. John Marek: I take part in the debate as a Member sponsored by the National Union of Railwaymen, but I also have a personal interest in ensuring that the Bill is the best that can be produced. It seems to me that it would not do any harm for LRT to take the Bill away and bring it back in a much improved form.
My hon. Friends have made all the points that need to be made. It is important that those who have to exact penalty fares should not be subjected to violent attacks. Would it not be better if the system were properly staffed so that it was difficult to escape payment? That would mean that fewer penalty fares would have to be collected.
Clause 5(5) implies that a person is guilty until he can prove himself innocent. Surely it would be better to phrase that provision so that a person is deemed innocent until proved guilty. I wonder whether the employees represented by their unions have been properly consulted.
It must be in the interests of everybody that no one should get away with not paying the proper fare. That is anti-social, wrong, and it should be stopped. But should it be stopped in this way? I do not believe that the Bill is the right way forward.
It would not do any harm whatever for London Regional Transport to take the Bill away and perhaps talk to the unions, the London boroughs and people in the community to find out how they would want such a system to operate.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed on Monday 14 November.

Consumer Protection
10.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Eric Forth): I beg to move,
That the draft Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.
The purpose of this commencement order is simply to put into effect the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which repeal the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. I am aware of the widespread concern that the prospect of this repeal has aroused, both publicly and in this House, since it was announced in October 1986. The issues here are more complex than they might at first appear and have not always been perfectly understood. I hope, therefore, that it will assist the House if I spend a little time outlining the background.
The 1972 Act requires goods made abroad but supplied here bearing a United Kingdom name or mark, or anything likely to be taken as such, also to be marked with a conspicuous indication of their country of origin. I should stress that the Act does not require United Kingdom-made goods, nor imported goods without markings, to be marked with their country of origin. Nor does it require goods to he origin marked as a condition of entry to the United Kingdom. This has not been required since 1968.
The 1972 Act originated as a private Member's Bill in response to fears, especially on the part of industry, that imported goods would be widely supplied under well known United Kingdom brand names which could suggest that they were of United Kingdom origin. Those fears sprang from the ending of compulsory origin marking of imported goods as a result of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. That Act revised and reformed the then existing merchandise marks legislation, but did not re-enact the origin marking requirements of the Merchandise Marks Act 1926. The 1926 Act, first, required the origin marking of imported goods bearing the names of United Kingdom traders; and, secondly, conferred powers to require the origin marking of unmarked imported goods, either at point of sale or of import. By 1968 more than 100 such orders had been made in relation to specific goods. They were preserved for a transitional period of three years. The object of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972 was then to re-enact the principal requirement of the 1926 Act at the end of that transitional period.
That was supplemented in 1981 by the Trade Descriptions (Origin Marking) (Miscellaneous Goods) Order, which required virtually all clothing and textiles, footwear, cutlery and domestic electrical appliances to be marked with their country of origin at the point of retail supply, irrespective of whether the goods were made in the United Kingdom or abroad and whether or not they bore any brand names or trade marks. The order was made on the basis that such information was generally useful to the consumer.
Fairly soon after it was made, the order was the subject of European Community infraction proceedings and, although vigorously defended by the United Kingdom before the European Court of Justice, it was found to be incompatible with article 30 of the treaty of Rome, which prohibits barriers to imports between EC member states.
588
In the court's view, the effect of that legal obligation was to enable consumers to distinguish between domestic and imported goods, and thus to assert any prejudices that they might have against products solely because of national origin. This was likely to have the effect of increasing the costs of imported goods and of making it more difficult to sell them on the United Kingdom market. The court also rejected the argument that the requirement was necessary to protect the consumer. If it were advantageous For manufacturers to indicate national origin, they were quite free to do so voluntarily and legal compulsion was unnecessary. The protection of consumers was adequately safeguarded by measures prohibiting false or misleading indications of origin and these measures were not called in question by the treaty.
As the House knows, two years ago the European Community Commission commenced further formal infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom on the ground that the 1972 Act was also incompatible with article 30 of the treaty of Rome. After careful consideration of the legal position, especially the earlier decision of the court, we concluded, reluctantly, that the United Kingdom could not expect to be successful in defending the Act.
I think that it is important that the current Commission challenge is seen against that background. Article 30 of the treaty prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports between member states or measures having equivalent effect. Case law has established that this includes any trading rule enacted by a member state which is capable, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, of hindering intra-Community trade. The treaty provides certain exceptions to this rule, but they do not include the purpose of consumer protection other than the protection of health or life. Again, however, the case law has recognised this as a legitimate purpose for national measures provided that certain conditions are fulfilled. In the context of the 1972 Act, the major considerations are that a measure must serve a necessary consumer protection requirement; that it must be proportionate to that purpose, that is to say, it must go no further than is necessary to achieve it; and that there must be no discrimination between United Kingdom goods and those of other member states.
While we and the Commission fully accept the necessity of protecting consumers from misleading indications, I am afraid that the 1972 Act clearly exceeds those conditions. To begin with, it imposes no requirements in respect of British-made goods: it applies only to imported goods, including those from other member states. The original complaint triggering the EC's challenge was from a multinational company that was the proprietor of the same trade mark in all the member states. It produced goods in a number of member states. Because it applied its own trade mark to those goods—a "UK mark" by definition under the 1972 Act—it was obliged also to indicate the country of origin on those goods in order that liability to prosecution would be avoided when the goods were supplied in the United Kingdom. Clearly, therefore, the Act discriminates between United Kingdom goods and goods from other member states.
While the 1972 Act may have been conceived originally to prevent the consumer from being misled about the origin of goods, in this case by using the criterion of United Kingdom names or marks, it goes considerably further than that. Virtually any name or mark used in trade in the United Kingdom falls within the definition of

589
United Kingdom name or mark, whether or not there is anything potentially misleading about it. Names such as Renault or Volkswagen are, as defined by the Act, United Kingdom names, and country of origin must be indicated even though there may be no question of the consumer being misled as to the country of manufacture. Such names applied to goods made here would not require origin markings. Similarly, a trade mark in the form of a logo or purely pictorial device is deemed by the Act to be potentially misleading as to origin, even in cases where it carries no such connotation. In those respects the requirement to origin mark goes further than is necessary to prevent consumers from being misled, which is a recognised consumer protection purpose.
I have spent some time explaining why it is not realistic for the Government to take this issue before the European Court of Justice. I have done so because I believe that this may not have been fully appreciated when the issue came to a head in late 1986, and in subsequent exchanges in the House during the passage of what is now the Consumer Protection Act 1987, when there was a feeling that the Government should have pressed the matter to that end. I hope that I have demonstrated to the House's satisfaction that this would serve no purpose.
More positively, however, when we accepted the Commission's view of the 1972 Act in terms of EC law, we also made it clear that the United Kingdom intended to institute a successor regime, compatible with treaty obligations, to take effect upon the repeal of the 1972 Act. My predecessors made this clear in answer to a parliamentary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 1 December 1986, in subsequent answers to other hon. Members and in the debates on the then Consumer Protection Bill.
A second order, the Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order—which I will call the marking order—was also laid before the House on 19 October to fulfil this commitment. The marking order represents the outcome of wide and lengthy consultation with interested parties, and we have also secured the acceptance by the EC Commission of its terms. Although the marking order is not the subject of this debate, it may be helpful to the House if I explain what it does.
The marking order is made under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. This Act makes it an offence for a person in the course of a trade or business to apply a false, including misleading, trade description to goods, or to supply or offer to supply goods bearing such a description. A trade description is any indication given in respect of a range of characteristics of goods, including their place of manufacture or production. The Act does not, however, give any guidance as to the circumstances in which a possibly misleading, as distinct from a false, indication of origin should be corrected, or how that should be done. Section 8 of the Act, under which the marking order is made, confers powers to require the marking of goods with information.
The aim of the marking order is, therefore, to set out the circumstances in which a positive, corrective indication of origin is required in order not to commit an offence under the 1968 Act. The essential trigger mechanism is whether the presentation—that is, the packaging, marking, get-up or other indications—of goods would
590
create the impression that they were made somewhere other than where they were actually produced or manufactured. Regard must be had of the totality of the presentation of goods, although certain relevant indications, such as flags, names, persons and so on, are specified in the schedule to the order. Failure to mark goods in the circumstances in which this is required would amount to an offence under section 8(2) of the 1968 Act by anyone supplying or offering or exposing for supply the goods in the course of trade or business.
I outlined earlier the limits imposed by European Community law on national measures of this kind. The marking order does not protect any one national origin. It would apply to misleading suggestions of, for example, German origin as well as of United Kingdom origin. There is, therfore, no element of discrimination against other member states' goods. In European Community terms, as I have said, the 1972 Act may be attacked on the grounds that it is applicable only to imported goods and is directed only to the potential for consumers to be misled as to United Kingdom origin. Moreover, the 1972 Act relates to the use of United Kingdom names or marks per se, whether or not they necessarily suggest United Kingdom origin. The marking order is intended to apply in any circumstances in which purchasers are likely to be misled, and is therefore concerned with the totality of the presentation of goods. The use of a particular language or trade mark is not in itself to be considered as necessarily indicating a particular origin, but, taken in the context of the presentation of the goods as a whole, it may be.
The marking order has been clarified and revised in a number of ways as a result of consultation on its terms. In particular, it now requires a statement of the country of origin of goods as distinct from any other expression of their place of manufacture if the latter could in itself be misleading. If, for example, goods were marked "Made in Sheffield" when they were supplied in the United Kingdom and in reality that marking refers to one of the Sheffields in the United States of America, then the actual country of manufacture would have to be shown. I think that this should allay the concern of manufacturers who pointed to the use of specific place names on goods made elsewhere with the apparent intention of misleading.
The marking order comes into effect on 31 December this year.
I think it is fair to say that, in consultation on the marking order, interested parties—industry, trade, consumer associations and enforcement agencies—have generally accepted that there are now very clear limits on the scope for compulsory origin marking and that the order represents the most that is workable on a national basis, within the confines of our European Community obligations.
I am well aware, however, of continuing concern about orgin marking in the wider context, primarily about goods made elsewhere in the world which are supplied here bearing well-known European names, United Kingdom or otherwise. While such names may not in themselves indicate origin, they may well be closely associated with goods from specific countries or places. Consumers might well assume from some brand names that, for example, electrical or electronic goods were of German or Japanese origin, simply because of such generalised associations. It is not possible, as I have indicated, to go this far in our

591
national legislation on a unilateral basis, and the only possible solution to these outstanding concerns is a European Community regime.
Although the European Community Commission has not, in the more recent past, shown any positive enthusiasm for such an approach, it was not clear whether that reflected the views of the majority of member states. It appears that most member states have some form of regulation of origin marking. A number have modified their requirements as a result of infraction proceedings by the European Community Commission and we understand that several currently face such proceedings in respect of their national legislation. In the light of this, we decided that a way forward might be to establish whether there is any consensus among member states on the desirability of a Community origin marking regime. Such a regime might, of course, take one of a number of forms —for example, a Community-wide requirement, along the lines of the 1972 Act, requiring the country of origin to be indicated when imported third-country goods have the names or marks of persons carrying on business within the Community. I have received a good measure of support from United Kingdom industry for such an initiative, and it is one which I am pursuing. I have written both to the Commission and to my opposite numbers in the other member states on this issue. However, I have to warn the House that progress will be neither easy nor speedy. I have spoken at some length about the past, present and future considerations surrounding these developments—
Mr. Roger Gale: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, and appreciating that it could take some time to get a European mark, will he confirm that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent a "Made in Britain" mark being applied? What efforts are his Department making to encourage a perhaps even better "Made in Britain" mark to be applied?
Mr. Forth: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised that matter because it is important. I can confirm that there will be nothing to prevent companies that make goods in this country from telling the consumer that that is the case. They will be free to do so if they feel that doing that is in their interests. As people have confidence in the quality of British goods, I am sure that that will be the case. Whether or not it would be for the Department of Trade and Industry to play any part is quite another matter. I think that there is sufficient incentive for companies to do that, and nothing in the order would prevent them from doing so.
Within the constraints imposed by our Community obligations, we have achieved as satisfactory an outcome in this difficult area as it is reasonable to expect. I commend the order to the House.
Mr. Speaker: I should have announced to the House that I have not selected the amendment.
10.15 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate the Minister both on his appointment and on the passion and eloquence with which he moved this interesting order. He is positively becoming an oratorical Demosthenes of orders. It could not have happened to a nicer guy.
The order shows the reality of grovelling subservience to the Common Market that lies behind the Government's oratorical flourishes against the Market. We see the
592
spectacle of the Prime Minister going round in the broad light of day making loud anti-Common Market and anti-communautaire noises so that she is becoming almost the football hooligan of Europe. It is reported that, when President Mitterrand was asked why he has bilateral talks all the time with the West German Chancellor and does not include Mrs. Thatcher, he said, "Because she disturbs us." That is the noise that the Prime Minister is making for home consumption to conceal the reality of grovelling subservience that we see in the order tonight.
We see that subservience in the abdication over the Cloft scheme for aid to the wool industry and we saw it when the aid for Rover was reduced. We see it in the VAT debacle because VAT has to be imposed on new construction. We see it in the increased taxation on beer to bring it up to the level of wine, in the way that the Single European Act was rushed through the House and in the way in which the increase in contributions has been conceded almost without a murmur despite the fact that last year our net contribution to the budget was £1·7 billion. All that is the reality of subservience behind the Prime Minister's loud anti-European noises.
Mr. John Redwood: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that good cross-party democratic debate is right in this national Parliament and but that the Prime Minister should not be allowed to indulge in good, hard-hitting political debate in Europe even though she has a good vision of Europe and wishes to persuade other nation states in Europe of that vision?
Mr. Mitchell: The answer is straightforward. The Prime Minister is doing this as a tactic for home consumption in order to conceal her own subservience to the EC which is illustrated in this order.
Effectively the Common Market has got us by the rebates. A rebate was conceded to Britain as a gesture, but it was not accompanied by any reform of the fundamental financial basis of the Common Market. We can be threatened with revocation of that rebate and the Prime Minister can be kept in line. She gets that rebate quamdiu se bene gesserit. I use that Latin phrase in order to confuse today's Tory party, which has no noblesse and certainly no oblige and which almost certainly does not understand the language taught in the public schools. If Mrs. Thatcher does not obey the instructions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must refer to the right hon. Lady as the Prime Minister.
Mr. Mitchell: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister does not obey the instructions and accept the humiliations that are forced on her by the EC, the rebate will be effectively revoked. Tonight, in this order, we are rushing to submit—without even being instructed to submit—to what we think the European Court will want us to do. There can be no procedure more humiliating than that.
The 1972 legislation that we shall eliminate through this order was right and fair, has worked well and is a vital piece of consumer protection. It is an opportunity for people to encourage domestic industry by discriminating in their choice against imports. It is a right for those who want to say, "I would rather support jobs in this country than pay increased taxation to support the large numbers of unemployed generated by the scale of imports,

593
particularly from the EEC." The EEC has about 40 per cent. of the car market in this country and it is people's right to discriminate against that in their choices.
It is also people's right to discriminate against regimes of which they do not approve. I draw attention particularly to the question of the boycotts by individuals or Governments of South African produce. That is one way of bringing that country to make concessions domestically. South Africa needs a trade surplus to offset the huge cost of capital flight and its debt repayments. If Governments will not do that—and Governments should do that—the consumer should have the right, by knowing that the origin of goods is South African, to discriminate against them. We can discriminate through the 1972 legislation against manufactured articles that come into this country from South Africa—the kitchenware, plastic goods, paper, printing, textiles and finished garments. There is a right and a principle case for consumers to be able to discriminate against goods of whose origin they disapprove and thus bring effective pressure to bear on those regimes. That right is effectively eliminated by the order.
The order also eliminates information behind consumer choice. Consumer organisations have objected to the repeal of the 1972 legislation because the information that allows consumers to choose is important. Consumers need to know where the materials that they buy come from. All that choice, discrimination and educational information sanctioned by the 1972 Act will be struck down. Although that Act was a private Member's measure, it was actively supported by the Government. The Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry at that time, the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), spoke of it as
"a Bill which is not in conflict with our international obligations or, indeed, the whole drift of thinking on world trade".
He said that the Bill should be supported for the right reason because
"it would afford a greater measure of protection against deception of the consumer, and I commend it to the House."
He also said:
"For example, a consumer might want to buy British goods instead of South African goods because he is patriotic or because he is antipathetic towards the country concerned. That is a valid reason for a consumer's choice".
That reason for consumer choice is being removed. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"As far as I know, the Common Market Commission has not proposed any common action on this and has no direction under consideration. It is a matter left primarily to individual nations."
When the then hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough, Mr. Darling, commented
"I do not think that issues of this sort appear in the Rome Treaty. I am sure that if there is any contravention the Under-Secretary will tell us."
the right hon. Gentleman replied:
"No."—[Official Report, 25 February 1972; Vol. 831, c. 1682 and 1734.]
I do not know whether that was a case of the right hon. Gentleman being his normal, helpful self and refusing to answer the question. I take it that he meant that that did not contravene the treaty of Rome, yet that is exactly why we are now repealing this legislation. It is humiliating for
594
this country to have to repeal valid legislation in that fashion without even being told or instructed to do so. We are doing so voluntarily, as a submissive offering.
As it was projected in 1972, when we were told that it did not contravene the treaty of Rome—although we are now told that it does contravene the treaty of Rome—it was just another item on the agenda of deceit that was presented to the country to persuade it to join the Common Market in 1972. It was on a par with Lady Tweedsmuir in the other place saying that there would be a veto over fishing legislation. It was on a par with the pamphlets that were distributed saying how much better off we would be and how much better the weather would be if we entered the Common Market.
The Minister has told us the sad saga that has forced us to withdraw valid and important legislation passed in 1972. The order of 1981 was struck down under article 30 of the treaty of Rome. It is nonsensical because one of the countries that objected to that was West Germany which is foisting on the Common Market butter imports from East Germany, with no hint of their origin, as if they were produced in the Common Market. It is nonsensical because this country has a higher proportion of its domestic markets taken by imports—particularly EEC imports—than any other country within the EEC. Yet our legislation is attacked in this fashion and our Government rush to submit to the EEC before they have even been asked.
Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in 1972 his party opposed the legislation that he now supports?
Mr. Mitchell: My party supported the legislation in 1972 for a number of very good reasons which the hon. Gentleman will see if he reads the debate. Therefore, he is incorrect.
The Government are incorrect to submit to the Common Market before being asked. It is not as if the European Court which struck down the 1981 order was a body dedicated to the pursuit of abstract justice or to a serious consideration of the issue. The European Court, which this country has an instinctive tendency to obey, is machinery for pursuing European federalism, for advancing the case of a stronger, more united Europe. That is its commitment. It is not a legal court deciding on the abstract justice of the case. Its purpose is to advance European unity, and it is doing that through this kind of legislation. Therefore, we should not rush to submit to that court or to its decisions.
Other countries have a long backlog of judgments against them on which no action has been taken by the Governments concerned. As the Minister pointed out, other countries in the Common Market—and I wish that he had listed them—have origin marking legislation which has been left intact and which has not been struck down in the way that our legislation has, although our country imports most from the EEC. Other countries have various ways of getting around the decisions of the European Court, particularly through legislation passed at regional level or decisions taken at regional level by the German lander, for example, which the court is very slow to deal with. Yet we rush to obey the European Court as if it were some abstract decision on the justice and merits of the case. It is not, and we should not rush to obey it before being asked.

595
We have tied our own hands by passing the European Communities Act 1972. If we continued to enforce the law of 1972, and if an importer contested or defied that law, we could not bring him before our courts because our courts would have to rule that European law was superior to ours, because of the European Communities Act 1972. That is the humiliation. The Prime Minister should do something about that matter rather than talking a lot of hot air about her sentiments on the Community when our hands are tied. She should be tackling that issue. Only on that basis can she say what she does.
Mr. William Cash: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for withdrawal from the Community? Effectively that is what he is saying. Is it not entirely at variance with what is being said by members of his Front Bench, the Leader of the Opposition and Jacques Delors?
Mr. Mitchell: Personally, I would take the cash in hand and waive the rest. But if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I was saying, he would have realised that that is not in any sense what I am arguing. The Prime Minister is beating the anti-Market drum and whipping up support at home while the Government are submitting to every humiliation that the Commission lays before us. The only way to create a certain amount of distance, which we will have to create if we are to rebuild British industry and make the economy strong, is to repeal section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. It is the Prime Minister's decision, not mine. That action should be behind her words, particularly when we remember that we have turned the 1970 surplus in manufactured trade, which at today's valuation would be about £4 billion, into a deficit which is this year running at £14 billion on an annualised rate. That is a turnround of £18 billion in manufactured trade and represents the export of more than 1 million jobs to the EEC. In spite of that, the Minister is asking us to submit to the humiliation of repealing our own legislation before we are even asked to do so.
596
The Government have twisted and turned on origin marking. They have tried to decide what to do and have held consultations. The order that is still to come is the Government's fig leaf. They have been saying, "Don't press us on this issue. We shall produce something good." Fortunately, we shall have a chance to debate that issue again, and that is welcome. I am worried about what the Government will put in place of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972. I do not think that it will be adequate. An order under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 deals with goods only if they are presented in such a way as to deceive the purchaser about where they are produced. The new legislation might be called the Amstrad order. What will the order do about Amstrad or Ford cars which are not made in Britain? What will it do about Vauxhall—a British name—cars, most of which are imported from the EEC? We are worried about what the effects of the legislation will be. It will be no satisfactory substitute for the 1972 legislation, which we should not have rushed to strike down in this way.
The 1972 Act has served us well. It is humiliating for the Government to strike it down. We do not propose to support them in their humiliation. We are against the repeal of the 1972 legislation. Rather than voting against them, we propose to subject them to the more exquisite torture of letting them dangle in their own wind for their own supporters to deal with. I do not propose to embarrass the hon. Members who signed the amendment, which has not been called. I am sure that those hon. Members will have the courage of their convictions. I do not propose to embarrass them by bringing the Opposition into play in their support because that might frighten them off. They might be afraid that they will defeat the Government. I want them to have the guts to vote in support of the views expressed in the amendment, which is right. They can do it. They can resolve the Government's schizophrenia in the only way it can be resolved—within the Tory party itself.
10.33 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Most of us are delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister on the Front Bench, knowing that he has made some dramatic and impressive speeches from the Back Benches. However, he gave the impression tonight that perhaps his heart is not in his case. I may be entirely wrong. It is fair to say that having a debate of this magnitude late on a Thursday gives the impression that no one will be aware of it or take note of it, except possibly that splended organisation on Radio 4, "Yesterday in Parliament".
It is interesting to see the number of Conservative Members present at what would otherwise be a debate in the presence of three or four of the old faithful. That shows that Conservative Members are beginning to become worried—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of this in Brussels—about the transfer of power to Brussels and decisions of Parliament being changed by foolish bureaucratic decisions.
We should appreciate what we are being asked to do. We are being asked to repeal, root and branch, an Act that was passed unanimously by Parliament in 1972. It was supported by Ministers because it made a major contribution to consumers. It provided them with information, it was not in conflict with our international obligations and, most important, it afforded the consumer a greater degree of protection against deception. We are repealing an Act that every hon. Member supported because it was good for consumers and because it gave information that would help them. We are chucking out that legislation and destroying it because of the views of the non-elected EEC Commission.
My hon. Friend the Minister will know that it does not matter whether the order is approved or rejected. The Government do not have the power to implement the 1972 law because of the Commission's views, and because of a decision of the European Court. To that extent, the order is irrelevant, but it is important constitutionally.
Why are powers being taken away from the people? Why should housewives not know where goods are made? Why do they want to know? Ministers have said that, for different reasons, people might want to support British industry. The marking of goods created jobs and helped our trade balance. It encouraged British industry, and we should be concerned about that at a time when the Government's economic policy is being put at risk by a trade deficit, almost all of which is with the EEC.
Some people have prejudices and do not like certain foreign countries. Some do not like the Soviet Union, or South Africa, and say, "Given the choice, I should prefer not to buy goods made in that country." Some, for good or bad reasons, think that goods made in certain countries are reliable, but that those made in others are not. Many of our constituents take such decisions daily.
Why is that right of choice being destroyed. The EEC Commission said that
"it enabled consumers to assert any prejudices that they might have against foreign products."
If consumers are told the truth, how will it distort trade in Europe? If something is made in France, Germany, Japan or Taiwan, why should consumers be denied that information by the action that we are taking tonight? Why
598
should the unanimous decision of Parliament be overturned merely because of the views of the EEC Commission?
There is another aspect of the matter about which colleagues will be genuinely concerned. We have recently witnessed the changes in the EEC's powers to deal with dumping. Dumping used to be selling goods cheaper than cost price or the price charged on the home market. The Commission has extended that to market share. Before the Trade Descriptions Bill was approved by Parliament on 25 February 1972, the Government were asked specifically, because we were contemplating membership, whether it would be contrary to the treaty of Rome. The clear and precise answer given was that it would not be contrary in any respect.
The action that we are taking tonight is important constitutionally. Whether we approve the order or not, the Act will be dead because of the Commission's decisions. What we do tonight does not matter at all.
On the other hand, it is vital for us to realise what is happening to our country and our sovereignty. EEC bureaucracy, which is non-elected, is requiring the British Parliament to overturn a measure designed to inform and protect consumers which we passed after weeks of debate. To that extent, what we are doing is serious and we are right to draw attention to what is happening.
I hope that the Prime Minister's words in Bruges will reflect a change in our attitude towards the EEC. We are in the Common Market and we really have no way of leaving. The only country to leave was Greenland, and it got out only by getting a Bill passed in every member state, and that could never happen to us. We must get away from the situation in which a non-elected body can tell individual member states, for no good reason, to abandon legislation. This is bureaucratic law rather than parliamentary law.
What is achieved by denying information to consumers? Does it restrict trade to tell people that goods are made in, say, Japan or Taiwan? People should be told the truth. That is what the previous measure did and, in doing that, it served a useful purpose. If a referendum were held in Britain asking people if they wanted to know where goods were made before they purchased them, the vast majority would say yes.
Tonight we are making a major change in our constitution. An encouraging aspect is that, while, sadly —with some honourable exceptions—Labour Members are not discussing these Euro issues, my hon. Friends are becoming greatly concerned about the way in which bureaucratic decisions are interfering unnecessarily with our affairs. We are getting fed up with the way in which the Common Market is more and more reflecting all those things against which our splendid Prime Minister is fighting.
While I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) at the Dispatch Box, I hope that in future he will fight hard to get the EEC to reflect the true meaning of Thatcherism and Conservatism and get away from this nonsense of bureaucracy taking powers away from consumers for no good reason.
10.43 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) on his appearance at the Dispatch Box, I wish him every success in his new office.
We have been intent on increasing consumer protection, particularly in foodstuffs, and more and more the trend is for manufacturers to declare all ingredients. Until now, all foodstuffs consumed in Britain have been subject to inspection by the nation's health inspectorate. With the implementation of the single European market that will cease; imported food will no longer be guaranteed by our own inspectorate as being of the standard, quality and purity that we have come to expect. Such inspections will be made by the inspectorates in the various producing countries.
That presents us with a dilemma, for the public will undoubtedly wish to discriminate in the food products that they consume. They are bound to have reservations about the source of certain products, and particularly about whether the standard of inspection in the countries of origin are commensurate with the standards which have traditionally been enforced in this country, and which we shall continue to enforce for home-produced products. The order is inconsistent and poses a dilemma for the Government because it effectively denies the consumer knowledge of the original source of the food.
10.45 pm
Mr. ,Jonathan Aitken: The hour is late—
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was not here for the opening speeches—[Interruption.] Order. No point of order arises. I decide.
Mr. Aitken: The hour is late and I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. I simply wish to record my sadness at debating this order tonight. I sound that note of sadness on several different counts. First, I sound it in the direction of my hon. Friend the Minister. I well recall him in his former seat below the Gangway, unsheathing his sword so that, with measured tones, he could plunge its point into Minister after Minister who introduced measures that trod, by even a small margin, on British sovereignty.
I could hardly believe my ears tonight as I listened to my hon. Friend's high-speed, staccato delivery as he rattled through some amazing phrases. He said that Renault and Volkswagen were really United Kingdom names; that we were doing the most that was workable within the constraints of our European obligations; that progress would be neither easy nor speedy; that the totality of presentation did not need British marks upon it. It recalled to mind the opening words of Browning's famous poem, "The Lost Leader":
"Just for a handful of silver he left us,
Just for a riband to stick in his coat."
I do not mean to do more than treat my hon. Friend to the sort of treatment that he gave out in his day. He dished it out pretty well, and it is right that he should take it tonight.
600
I am sad not simply because of such a change of tone by my hon. Friend. He will have plenty to time of repent at leisure in due course. The sadness is that the order affects this sovereign Parliament, of which we are all so proud to be Members. The 1972 Act was a good Act. It was introduced by someone who I have not always praised for his goodness towards the British consumer—my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is not present tonight. It was his Government who, in 1972, introduced a robust measure that was supported by both sides of the House. It was intended simply to defend the interests of the British consumer. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) made the important point about the significance or origin markings on foodstuffs. That could apply across the whole range of consumer goods because it would be in the interests of the British consumer. It is sad that an Act of Parliament should be swept away at an hour of night when most sensible people are drinking their Horlicks or Ovaltine and saying, "Me for bed, so goodnight, darling." The 1972 Act has been ambushed and swept away.
Above all, what is happening tonight is sad for parliamentary sovereignty. The great British public has difficulty in understanding what is meant when we say that sovereignty is being eroded. They should witness this scene tonight, when an Act of Parliament that passed through all its stages only a few years ago is obliterated from the statute book, on the nod, and without any real pressure from Europe, simply because the Government are suddenly in a genuflectory mood, willing to bow the knee and get rid of the Act before anybody can cause any trouble.
What a sadness that must be for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In Bruges, she said:
"Europe will be stronger precisely because it has France as France, Spain as Spain, Britain as Britain, each with its own customs, traditions and identity."
She might have added, "But no longer with its own origin markings."
Something of importance is going on the nod, quietly, and, frankly, in a rather humiliating way. A piece of British sovereignty is being thrown out the window. I am sad about it, and I wish to record my protest tonight.
10.50 pm
Mr. Roger King: I shall not detain the House for long, but one or two practical points in the legislation worry me. I expect that you will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that one growth industry is wine production, and we are rapidly becoming international experts in its development. The trouble is that we are running into a little competition from France and German wine producers. They put "Produce of France", "Bottled in France" or "Bottled in Germany" on their wine bottles. That discriminates against English wine producers who want their wine to have a fair share of the market and do not want to be discriminated against in preference to French or German producers.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, whom I congratulate on his presence on the Government Front Bench, whether an English wine producer would be able to go to the EEC and demand that French wine producers remove the words "Produce of France" from their bottles.
Mr. David Nicholson: Is it not even more important that wine consumers should have some idea of

601
where the stuff comes from? Wine from various EEC countries which most of us perhaps regard as undrinkable or wine that might possibly be regarded as French but which comes from north Africa might be discriminated against.
Mr. King: One could take that point of view, but labelling is surely a thing of the past. I am trying to establish to what extent the legislation will permeate through to everyday produce items.
I am intrigued also about what will happen when a cargo of Welsh lamb arrives in France. At the moment, lamb is clearly produce of Wales, but it will presumably become European lamb—Euro lamb. Is that another reason why the legislation is advantageous—that the French will no longer be able to stop the arrival of Welsh lamb, because there will be no such thing; it will be Euro lamb?
A more substantial matter relates to the car industry, in particular Nissan in Sunderland. One of the highlights of overseas investment in this country is Japanese involvement in much of our industry these days, be it video cassette recorders, television sets, electronics products or, in this case, cars. The difficulty arises in getting other countries to accept that such products are originally created in this country.
Presumably, under this legislation, that obstacle to our exporting cars throughout the EEC will be removed, because they will be considered Euro products. Therefore, France will not be able to stop the arrival of loads of Nissan Bluebirds, because it will no longer be valid for it to point the finger and ask where such cars originated. The cars have come from this country. There is no longer any need for them to be marked "Made in England with parts from Japan." They can simply be marked "Euro made."
Although there are some practical problems for the consumer, there are great opportunities for our wine makers, Welsh lamb, car and electronics producers to open new markets in Europe. Hitherto some markets have been closed to our products because the relevant countries were not satisfied that the goods were of United Kingdom origin.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but hesitate to point out that he has got it all wrong. The order has no effect in the Common Market; its only effect is in this country, where it deprives the consumer of the weapons to discriminate against imports. People are increasingly resentful of the high proportion of our domestic market that is taken by imports and by the number of British firms that are being taken over by foreign firms. The order deprives people of the ability to do anything about that, and it has no effect on getting our goods accepted in Europe.
Mr. King: I am grateful for that intervention. What I am seeking to establish is the element of two-way traffic. If we are not entitled to put our country of origin on our products, it follows that, if it is to be a fair and stable market, neither can the country of origin be mentioned on products coming in from Europe. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will enlighten us on those points.
10.55 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the debate. I am also sorry that the Government lost their hundred and did not move the business motion, which is what I had expected them to do. As the annunciator in my room is not working, I was unable to be here at the beginning of the debate because there was nothing to indicate that it was starting. If the annunciators are not providing the information, they should be ripped out throughout the House.
I accept that I should have been here—there were good reasons why I was not—because the order is important to the wool textile industry, which is based in Bradford. The industry has sent me a brief and a note from the chairman and managing director of Centaur Clothes of Leeds, Mr. J. D. Jackson, who is probably a supporter of the Conservative party. WOOLTAC—Wool Textile and Clothing Industry Action Committee—is supported by both Labour and Conservative local authorities, and both have expressed their concern; which is based on reality.
That organisation, which, as I have said, is supported by both major political parties, points out its concern at the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, by stating:
"This Act is being repealed because the European Commission have initiated infraction proceedings against it, and the Government believe it could not be successfully defended in the European Court."
I am sorry that I missed the Minister's opening words, but I wonder why the Government did not try to act in the European Court and why they have given up before they have even got there. That suggests a different spirit from the view expressed by the Prime Minister in her Bruges speech. If the Prime Minister was expressing the view that the Common Market is becoming too federal and that we should stand up to it, surely the Government should be using all the machinery that is available to them.
The replacement legislation in the form of an order under the Trade Descriptions Act, the Trade Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order, is not as effective as the original legislation. Indeed, it is so soggy that the letter sent to me states:
"Former Industry and Consumer Affairs Minister John Butcher gave a commitment to WOOLTAC earlier this year that more detailed guidance would be provided as to what constitutes a misleading presentation of goods under the new Order."
Perhaps the Minister outlined the detailed guidance, but he will no doubt refer to it when he replies to the debate. I shall examine Hansard in great detail when it is published tomorrow. It is important to note that the guidance does not have any legal effect. The legal application is in the order, not in the Minister's guidance. The Minister's guidance can be ignored.
The truth is that the Department of Trade and Industry is scared stiff that the European Commission will threaten to take it to court again. So it has produced a soggy, vague, unsatisfactory order and tries to appease manufacturers, many of whom support the Conservative party, by saying that the Minister's guidelines will provide a satisfactory background. The Minister knows that that is so much window dressing. His guidelines have no legal effect and can be ignored.
Mr. Cash: I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which the hon. Gentleman chairs.

603
Does he recall whether we have referred to the provisions of the order in any of our reports, and especially to the fact that this is a "Henry VIII" type of clause?
Mr. Cryer: Many statutory instruments are published with a great deal of guidance. The Committee has said that statutory instruments should stand on their own and should not depend on guidance. The law is set out in the statutory instrument, and guidance—whether it is from the Department of Health or the Department of Social Security, which issue shoals of guidance documents, handbooks and leaflets, or from the Department of Trade and Industry—should not be relied upon.
The Prime Minister says that the Common Market is becoming stronger. She disagrees with the view of the President of the Commission that in 10 years' time 80 per cent. of legislation will emanate from the Common Market, not from state Parliaments. Yet she is allowing the erosion of legislation by the Government.
The wool textile industry has invested heavily. It is not antique. The textile and clothing industry is one of the largest employers in the country, employing more than 500,000 people, and is of vital importance to the economy. The industry, certainly in Yorkshire, is worried about the erosion of jobs by imports and about the fact that consumers will not now be able to make a fair judgment. If they wish to buy cloth made in Japan, West Germany or the Prato region of Italy, which is still producing subsidised woollen products because it can get round the social security provisions, thus producing a 10 per cent. price advantage—it has been investigated by the Commission, but with no positive result in terms of equality of competition—people should have that information of origin. But they are denied it because the Government have yielded to the Commission, which does not want a group of countries to work together. It wants a complete Euro blur, and that is what this order is about.
Mr. Gary Waller: The hon. Gentleman suggests that the wool textile industry is worried about the order, but the brief that he received says:
"Overall WOOLTAC feel the Government have pressed the European Commission hard to achieve protection as near as possible to that available under the 1972 Act."
Furthermore, having attended many meetings of WOOLTAC, which is supported by trade unions, the Labour party, Conservative authorities and employers, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that although there is anxiety about imports—especially unfair imports—there is a strong feeling that the new regime being introduced to replace the 1972 Act will be sufficient protection for jobs in the textile industry in west Yorkshire.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention the four points of qualification in the briefing which follow that. First, WOOLTAC wants the approval of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1988 to move in parallel with approval, through the affirmative resolution procedure of the Trades Descriptions (Place of Production) (Marking) Order, to ensure no gap in protection. Secondly, WOOLTAC emphasises the desirability of a European Communitywide scheme of origin marking for imports to the EC. The Minister has been "sounding out" member states on that and we would expect him to make a statement of the results. Thirdly, WOOLTAC emphasises the need for adequate resources for effective enforcement
604
of the new order, and the fourth part relates to the point I mentioned earlier about the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs. WOOLTAC has enumerated those four important qualifications. In his "sounding out", has the Minister received an assurance from Italy that subsidised exports to this country from the Prato region will stop? He may receive assurances, but they are not put into effect.
As the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) knows, the industry has been pressing the Department to do something about imports of Turkish acrylic fibre yarn, which have shot up to more than 4,000 tonnes from virtually nothing. The Government cannot take any action themselves, but must go to the Commission. The Commission wants to see greater damage to the industry before it will begin to take action, and that means either more unemployment or short-time working. The power to apply criteria for fair competition has gone from the Government, whatever the Prime Minister may say in her speeches in Bruges and elsewhere. It has shifted to the Commission, whose priority is not the United Kingdom textile industry or other United Kingdom industries which manufacture goods for sale, but the complete harmonisation of every standard it can lay its hands on inside the Common Market. It has been unsuccessful, as I showed with textiles in the Prato region of Italy, and there are many other examples which, unfortunately, I have not time to go into now.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that on 25 February 1972 the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)—now the right hon. Member, which shows that selling people short pays off—agreed that this would never happen? Now it has happened. How many more times will we be promised that these things will not be changed, which in time will be changed?
Mr. Cryer: I shall conclude my remarks because I want to give the Minister a chance to make a few closing comments.
We are in great difficulty. The hon. Member for Keighley may say that WOOLTAC has been prepared to compromise and to say that it hopes that the new regime will be as good as the old one, but the reality is that it is unlikely to be so. The old Department of Trade had a strong element of Euro-fanaticism and made compromise after compromise to the Common Market. That was when I was a Minister in that Department, and no doubt it has done so ever since, so I am worried.
The wool textile industry has invested and is a modern industry. The workers have accepted all sorts of changes in working practices. They work 24-hour shifts and have accepted new machinery which covers a much wider range of output. Productivity has increased. Yet there has been a continuing erosion of jobs ever since 1970. Under the last Labour Government there was an increase in employment in the wool textile industry in 1978, but since that high point it has declined.
A passage in the action committee's letter reads:
"I write requesting your help concerning the provision of adequate origin-marking legislation, which as you may know has been of concern to the Wool Textile and Clothing Industry Action Committee for some time now."
I fear that the cause for that concern will rear its head again. We are seeing another example of the Government's power to act being eroded by the Commission, and it will

605
be followed by further examples that will further erode the rights of the elected Government of the day. I happen to disagree with the elected Government of the day, but they were elected and they have certain responsibilities to undertake. Their powers to act, however, are being eroded by the Common Market.
The erosion will continue until we repeal section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. If that is not done, we shall continue to be confronted with orders of this sort. The Government's room for action is being limited by non-elected appointed commissioners, who put the interests of some vague, shadowy and amorphous notion of a United States of Western Europe before the interests of the workers of the individual states and their employers.
11.11 pm
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Orders of this sort come before the House week after week, month after month. They will come before the House year after year. We have been promised by one Minister after another—it does not matter which party is in office, and that is one of the tragedies—that no contravention will be made without the authority of the House. However, we continue to approve orders and, as Mr. Delors said, 82 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "80 per cent."] Does it matter whether it is 80 per cent. or 90 per cent? Mr. Delors has said that in due course 80 per cent. of our laws will be enacted as a result of what happens in Brussels.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman was the Eurofanatic who sat outside the House. If Jacques Delors came into the House now, he would wipe his shoes for him. He would grovel at his feet, as he has always done.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Like the TUC did.
Mr. Skinner: Absolutely right. If I had been at the TUC, Jacques Delors would not have received a standing ovation from me. Over the past decade, and for longer than that, too many have grovelled to the Common Market and the commissioners, such as Jacques Delors. There are still a few members of the Labour party— Socialists—who will never surrender to people like Jacques Delors. We should remember that the country that is making all the money in the Common Market is West Germany. It has a balance of payments surplus this year of $40 billion equivalent. Britain has a deficit of $13 billion equivalent. By God, there are some who say that Germany lost the war. The Prime Minister and all the rest of them have helped West Germany on its way.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had made his brave speech at the Labour party conference instead of making it here.
Mr. Skinner: That is exactly what I did.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It did not sound as brave then as it does at this hour of the night.
The point is—[Interruption.] Has the hon. Gentleman finished?
Mr. Skinner: I am not like the hon. Gentleman, who is a Eurofanatic.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The most important consideration is where we shall finish. As hon. Members have said, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry used to sit proudly on these Benches and fight for this country, but what we have heard—
Mr. David Harris (St. Ives): My hon. Friend was not here; he did not hear it.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: With respect, I have heard it so often—
Mr. Harris: My hon. Friend did not hear it.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I have heard these brave speeches so often. People who sit on these Benches and then transfer to the Government Front Bench tell us why it is not possible. But in the end all the people of this country must decide where they stand. Do they stand for this country or for Europe? Surely we were elected to this Parliament to represent our people. Under regulation after regulation, this House is given solemn assurances that there will be no contravention of our rights, yet contraventions march on and on. Where will it end? It will end with this Parliament being a subsidiary of the Parliament in Brussels.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: From this Dispatch Box I have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to put his vote where his mouth is and to demonstrate to the Government what he thinks about this legislation. It is largely up to him.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: The Labour party always says that it is up to other people, not itself. I have not voted for similar European legislation year after year, and I will not vote for this legislation tonight.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Or against it.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I am prepared to vote against it if the Opposition will put the Whips on. I believe that many of us would be prepared to do so. It is time to say that we are not prepared to accept one assurance after another that this country should be run from anywhere but Westminster. If the Opposition will put the Whips on, I shall vote against the order.
11.16 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I shall not detain the House for very long tonight. My remarks will be in the form of a question to the Minister, which I ask him to answer in his concluding remarks.
On balance, I regret the disappearance of origin marking as enshrined in the Consumer Protection Act 1972. Nevertheless, I recognise that, if we are moving towards a single European market and if that single market is to mean anything at all, we must have one domestic market. Therefore, it does not make too much sense to distinguish between different origins within the Community, and it would not make much technical sense either. Given the immense amount of integrated manufacturing, subcontracting and consortium manufacturing that takes place within the European Community, origin marking by individual countries within the Community probably would not make too much semantic sense. Nevertheless, those considerations do not apply to goods imported into the Community from outside.

607
The Minister referred to the representations—which I know that he has received—from a number of industrial groups which are in favour of introducing some form of Community origin marking. There are various ways in which that can be organised, and I shall not detain the House by describing them in detail. My hon. Friend did say, however, that he was a little pessimistic about the chances of persuading his Community colleagues to accept a solution along those lines, and that he envisaged a number of difficulties. The Minister did not say what those difficulties were, but a number of people who will be listening to the debate, both inside and outside the House, will be interested to have his assessment of them. I should be grateful if he would enumerate them, at least briefly, and give us some confidence that he will not abandon the attempt to persuade his Community colleagues to move in that direction.
11.19 pm
Mr. Forth: This has been a revealing debate, not just because of the tributes that have been paid to me, for which I am grateful and which I accept with traditional humility from the Dispatch Box, but because of the attitudes and motives displayed by those who have questioned some of the elements of the order.
The expressions and words used by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) were especially interesting. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby based much of his argument on people's right to discriminate. I always thought that Opposition Members were rather wary of discrimination and were against it. When it comes to this matter, however, they are in favour of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East based much of his argument on the right of people to exercise their prejudices. I am sure that my hon. Friend is one of least prejudiced of men, yet he based his argument on some sort of god-given right of consumers or housewives to exercise a degree of prejudice, or, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby has said, discrimination, when distinguishing between goods originating from different countries of the Community.
Many references have been made to the Prime Minister and her stated views adumbrated at Bruges. I remind the House that one of the things that my right hon. Friend emphasised over and over again was her belief in the importance of a genuinely free market in the Community. She also emphasised the importance of a market that would be as open as possible to non-Community imports. Therefore, we do not believe in a "fortress Europe" approach. The order is at one with that desire as it attempts to improve the possibilities for the freest movement of goods within the Community without prejudice or discrimination. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby will concede that that is an important element of the Community's aims. It is also what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants to see happen in the Community.
I made it clear that, at present, there is no universal origin marking requirement even under the terms of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972, which has been much praised by hon. Members. That Act requires imported goods to be origin marked only if they bear a United
608
Kingdom name or mark. Many of the implications that have been made tonight are not true, even within the terms of the 1972 Act.
Much play has been made of the belief that what is going on here is unparliamentary and undemocratic and that this is some sort of sordid measure being rushed through late at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) made such claims. The origins of the order, however, were contained within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which went through this House in the proper, full parliamentary manner. It was debated and democratically dealt with. The order is simply the culmination of what was set in place by the Act. To suggest that something unparliamentary is happening is ridiculous. The order has been given a generous amount of parliamentary time and many hon. Members have been able to make valuable contributions. The order has received the full examination of the House and, if it is approved tonight, it will have received proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: In 1987 the Consumer Protection Bill was rushed through a few days before the House was dissolved. It got a bipartisan reception because the Government then undertook that they would introduce effective control over origin marking. They have not done so and, therefore, the pretence on which that reception was based has been removed.
Mr. Forth: I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman's endorsement of the 1987 Act, which he said had bipartisan support, because it contains the provisions for the repeal of the Trade Descriptions Act 1972.
Mr. Cash: The provisions in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which gave rise to the power to repeal this under the order were themselves contained in a European Community directive. That is the origin of the appeal.
Mr. Forth: As always, I defer to the knowledge of my hon. Friend in these matters. His knowledge of them is almost unparalleled in the House, and I am grateful for his guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) asked whether wines and lamb could be labelled with their countries of origin. The answer is yes. Producers are free to identify the country of origin of their products if they think that is to their benefit. Nothing in the order will prevent British manufacturers or producers from proudly proclaiming that their products are British—
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Vauxhall?
Mr. Forth: I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman shouts that at me. He is probably saying that we must not confuse this order with the much discussed matter of contents and origin, particularly of vehicles. The definition of origin for that purpose is contained in section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968–I am sure the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is well aware of this—which defines the country of origin as where the goods
"last underwent a treatment or process resulting in a substantial change."
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield is well acquainted with that definition. He and many others still struggle with it; it continues to pose difficulties. But it

609
has nothing to do with this order. I mention it only to clarify that and to remind hon. Members that the order is different.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made some uncharacteristically inaccurate remarks. He knows as well as I do that as soon as this country joined the European Community in 1973 we acknowledged the role of the Commission in Brussels in policing the measures passed by the other bodies in the Community. We also acknowledged the European Court of Justice as the ultimate arbiter of the relevance and validity of Community measures. Tonight, we acknowledge that again. As a member of the Community we acknowledge the role of the Commission. The hon. Member for Bradford, South has the great distinction of holding a dual mandate as a Member of this place and as a Member of the European Parliament in Strasbourg. Surely he would not deny the legitimate role of the European Court of Justice or the Commission. He is an elected member of the third great body of the Community and it would be remiss of him to deny the roles of the other two.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) made the relevant point that, given the degree of integrated manufacturing—Vauxhall may be a case in point—in the European Community these days, origin marking intra Community countries is probably irrelevant. It becomes even less relevant with increased integration. We are now going to try to persuade our colleagues in the Community to set about deciding on a workable origin marking regime that will apply to countries outside the Community.
This order essentially applies to the movement of goods inside the Community; the Government and the Prime Minister are committed to that. We shall strive—I have already initiated the process—to bring the Community together to devise the means of dealing with goods from outside the Community—
Mr. Teddy Taylor: We know what the order is about. Is my hon. Friend saying that he wants a regime that will enable consumers to know whether goods have been made in Japan but not whether they have been made in Germany?
Mr. Forth: What I am saying implies that. If the order is approved, I have undertaken to work with our Community partners to devise a regime that will go some way to meeting my hon. Friend's request. I have already initiated that process.
I have tried to satisfy hon. Members with answers. I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 13.

Division No. 489]

[11.29 pm

AYES

Amos, Alan

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Arbuthnot, James

Benyon, W.

Atkinson, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Beith, A. J.

Boswell, Tim

610

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lord, Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Buck, Sir Antony

Mans, Keith

Burt, Alistair

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Maude, Hon Francis

Carttiss, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Cash, William

Mills, Iain

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Moss, Malcolm

Cope, Rt Hon John

Neubert, Michael

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

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Day, Stephen

Nicholls, Patrick

Durant, Tony

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Dykes, Hugh

Sackville, Hon Tom

Fallon, Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Forman, Nigel

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Forth, Eric

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Freeman, Roger

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

French, Douglas

Stern, Michael

Gale, Roger

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Gill, Christopher

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Thurnham, Peter

Gregory, Conal

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Hanley, Jeremy

Waller, Gary

Harris, David

Watts, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Widdecombe, Ann

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

Winterton, Nicholas

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Wood, Timothy

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Knapman, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lawrence, Ivan

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Lilley, Peter

Mr David Maclean.

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Pike, Peter L.

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Stott, Roger

Bevan, David Gilroy

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Fisher, Mark

Foster, Derek

Tellers for the Noes:

Gordon, Mildred

Mr. Dennis Skinner and

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Consumer Protection Act 1987 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments &c.)
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  AGRICULTURE
  That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1398), dated 2nd August 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th August, be approved.
  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures (Miscellaneous Foods) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.

  WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
  That the draft Weights and Measures (Intoxicating Liquor) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  Question agreed to.

  Girobank
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]
  11.40 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: First, I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for coming to reply to this Adjournment debate. However, a statement should have been made to the House about the privatisation of Girobank before now. It should not have taken an Adjournment debate to bring the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster here. There should have been a debate in Government time on the Government's proposal—a major privatisation proposal—affecting the 6,000 people who work for Girobank and all those who work in sub-post offices throughout the country which are mostly dependent on Girobank for their business. It also affects pensioners, the unemployed and everyone who receives cheques from Girobank. It is a major privatisation that does not need legislation. Therefore, the Government should report to Parliament on a regular basis, explain what is happening and enable debates on their proposals to take place.
  Girobank is very successful. Since 1968, when it was established by a Labour Government, Girobank has grown into a successful banking arm of the Post Office. It now has about 2·5 million customers, and in 1986–87 it made a profit before tax of £23·1 million. It is a successful financial institution in the public sector. As I have already said, it employs 6,000 people—5,500 in my constituency.
  Most EEC countries have a public sector Girobank. It provides competition in those countries in the same way as it does in Britain, where it offers customers a real alternative to the major clearing banks, and it has enhanced competition. As well as creating jobs on Merseyside and keeping the local community alive, Girobank has created jobs in Edinburgh, Leeds, Ashford in Kent, Birmingham, Bristol, Belfast and London. Girobank pioneered free banking and brought banking to the doorsteps of many rural areas about which many Conservative Members are concerned.
  Labour Members see no reason why Girobank should be privatised and why the Government should have made the proposal to sell off Girobank in the first place. It will not increase or enhance competition, and the way in which it is being done will not extend share ownership in any way whatsoever. If it is kept in public ownership and further developed, competition will continue.
  However, in June the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when he held the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced that Girobank would be privatised—for doctrinaire reasons, presumably, as there were no other grounds—that it would not be a flotation, but that it would go out to tender, and certain conditions were set down. On 7 June, the Minister said that Girobank was a successful bank
  "with a particular strength in money transmissions and handling deposits of corporate cash."
  He said,
  "Girobank … needs to expand vigorously".
  Indeed, it is in the process of doing so in the public sector. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Post Office had agreed with the Government to privatise Girobank and that Girobank would be offered for sale to
  612
  a financial institution or other suitable company. He said that suitable bidders for the bank would be given the opportunity to tender, and that has happened. He said that in deciding on a buyer the price would be a major consideration in order to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer. The figure of £200 million was in the Government's mind. He also said:
  "weight should be given to … a purchaser who will widen choice"—
  that is important—
  "for the general public in banking services."
  He also said that the purchaser should be
  "capable of developing and expanding Girobank's business."
  He said that the close links between Girobank and Post Office Counters would be safeguarded and that
  "prospective purchasers will be invited to propose arrangements to enable management and employees to share … in the future success of the business."—[Official Report, 7 June 1988, Vol. 134, c. 713.]
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the purchaser would have to satisfy the strict requirements of the Bank of England, and the Government went on to rule out a management buy-out or a consortium bid.
  The Government employed a company of merchant bankers, Schroder, to deal with the matter. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, then the Minister responsible, wrote to me on 27 June saying that he hoped the sale would be completed before the end of the year. An expected timetable was submitted to all those who expressed an interest in purchasing Girobank which gave the end of September as the deadline for round two bids. The Minister, and a letter I received from the Prime Minister, made it clear that a shortlist would be produced and announced during the recess and that in November the Government hoped to announce the successful bidder.
  Although the unions were opposed to privatisation, they met and decided not to take industrial action but to seek some safeguards from the Government about the procedures involved in the sale. They behaved very responsibly. They produced an eight-point plan. They wanted continued investment commitment to the bank; a commitment to the growth of the bank, especially among corporate customers; protection of the bank as an entity and the protection of Bootle as the major operational centre.
  If privatisation threatens the centre in Bootle, the entire area will be devastated. It is an area of high unemployment where Girobank, the flagship of public enterprise at work, is one of the major employers. The unions also wanted the siting of the contingency centre in close proximity to the Bootle centre. The proposal is that it should go ahead in Wigan. We hope that that will be safeguarded. The unions wanted protection of the commercial relationship between Post Office Counters and the bank; protection of conditions of service such as pension rights and continued trade union recognition. They wanted staff involvement in the development of the bank. Those are all reasonable requests made by the work force and those involved in making Girobank such a success.
  Since the statement in the House and since Girobank was put out to public tender we have heard nothing from the Government except rumour, speculation and leaks from Schroder and the Department of Trade and Industry. Despite the fact that I have asked questions in the House and that my hon. Friends have tabled questions for written answer, the Government have not told us what has happened. We have passed the deadline that the

  613
  Government originally laid down for the publication of the shortlist. We were told that it would be published in November and that the unions and the work force would have an opportunity to have discussions with those wishing to purchase. We have heard rumours that Westpac, the Australian company, and the Bank of Scotland have withdrawn their bids and that the bids were well below £200 million. The shortlist that the Government hoped to publish was depleted to such an extent that they could not publish it. There were insufficient bidders for Girobank and the Government faced the dilemma of whether to go ahead with the privatisation.
  That is authoritative speculation that has appeared in the press over the past two weeks and no Minister has denied it. The Department of Trade and Industry suggested that there never was a deadline so one could not be expected. The Government hoped that a deadline would be met and a timetable was sent out by Schroder. The Government's proposals for Girobank have not stayed on course. I hope that the Government will be able to answer my questions because I am concerned about the future of Girobank and its employees. The current uncertainty must be brought to an end.
  The Labour party and the majority of the work force at Girobank are completely opposed to privatisation. The employees are aware that if privatisation goes ahead their future will be at risk, and they are aware of the risks of asset-stripping. Girobank is competitive and successful in the public sector, but my main concern is for Girobank, whether or not it stays in public ownership.
  Why have not Parliament or Girobank's employees been told of the shortlist of bidders? Why have the Government relaxed the conditions governing the sale of Girobank? I hope that the Minister will say that the Government have not relaxed the conditions and that they want to ensure a secure future for the bank. Will the Government still insist on a sale price of about £200 million, or will they sell it at a knock-down price? In that regard, we have had the Royal Ordnance fiasco and the BP sale. In many instances, asset-stripping has resulted as a consequence of privatisation and the taxpayer has suffered.
  It is feared that if someone buys Girobank at a knock-down price the business will be asset-stripped and sold at its true price. If a second sale took place shortly after the first, the conditions and guarantees that the Government have given may be lost. If it is sold at a knock-down price, those concerned about the interests of the taxpayer and those concerned about the future of Girobank will be angry because the centre of Bootle may disappear.
  Is a management or part-management buy-out ruled out by the Government? Will a consortium bid be allowed? The Government implied, if not stated categorically, that that would be ruled out. Are the Government still excluding bids from British clearing banks or the larger building societies? If a bank with a clearing house facility or a large building society buys Girobank it would be more likely to run down the centre of Bootle. It would also be more likely to asset-strip Girobank, because it would have
  614
  the same facilities and would be buying it to get its customers, its business and the Post Office outlets or to buy out the competition, about which we are very worried.
  Have the Government abandoned their commitment to more customer choice in the market? They said that that was one of the purposes of privatisation. If a major clearing bank or building society purchases Girobank, that will not happen.
  What has been the response so far by way of Girobank bids? Will the Minister come clean and answer that question? If a satisfactory buyer is not found or if an acceptable bid is not submitted, will the Government withdraw their proposals for privatisation? Any other reasonable vendor—a householder putting a house up for sale or somebody selling a business—would take the view that if the asking price cannot be realised, the house or business should be withdrawn from the market, rather than leave it there with all the insecurity and uncertainty that must result.
  What is the Government's timetable for the sale of Girobank, if the sale is to go ahead? As I said, I am totally opposed to its privatisation and hope that the Government will not proceed with the sale. But if they are intent on going ahead, I hope that they will guarantee to all concerned that Girobank will be maintained as a viable business with a successful future.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman have the consent of the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Rogers) and the Minister to take part in the debate?
  Mr. Stott: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well.
  Mr. Stott: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on raising this important issue. I must record, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, that this is a most unsatisfactory procedure by which the House may have an opportunity at least to debate this issue—in a few minutes—on a Thursday at just before midnight. After all, we are discussing the employment prospects of 6,000 people in Bootle and elsewhere and an important banking institution. This is a most unsatisfactory way of dealing with this important subject.
  My hon. Friend raised many issues that are worrying Labour Members and those employed in Girobank, and, I suspect, millions of customers, of whom I am one, of the bank. We want to know what is to happen to the bank with which we have banked since it came into existence. My hon. Friend posed reasonable questions. So far, we have not received satisfactory replies to the letters we have written, to the parliamentary questions we have tabled or to other forms of probing in which we have indulged.
  My hon. Friend pointed out that the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the Minister's predecessor, made a statement in the House last June about the Government's intentions towards Girobank. I understood that on that occasion he laid down the parameters governing the way in which the bank would be sold. They were drawn in such a way as to

  615
  exclude the major clearing banks from bidding, to avoid any problem with the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and I could appreciate that.
  Since then, the only information that I and my hon. Friend—and he represents the town of Bootle and those who work in Girobank there—have received is from the newspapers. We read almost daily that the Government are in real trouble over the sale because nobody wants to buy it.
  My hon. Friend referred to Westpac. It has pulled out, as has the Royal Bank of Scotland. If such organisations are not showing interest in purchasing Girobank, what prospective purchasers are there? Which organisations are bidding? Is the Minister beginning to move the goal posts, as it were, from where his right hon. and learned Friend put them in June of this year? According to The Independent, the Government are considering entertaining a bid from the Co-operative bank and Unity Trust or a management buy-out. If that is the case, the parameters that his right hon. and learned Friend laid down in June certainly have been shifted.
  The Minister is an honourable man and he must come clean on this matter. The House, the people and especially the employees of Girobank have to know whether the ground is changing. We believe that it is, for the simple reason that when the Minister's right hon. and learned Friend came to the House in June we told him that it was a bad idea. We opposed the privatisation of Girobank on ideological grounds. We also said that it was the wrong time to do it. The bank was just about to break into the new era of financial services. I think that we will be proved right. The bidders for Girobank are virtually non-existent.
  It is an insult to the House that it must deal with a matter of such importance at this time of night during an Adjournment debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I met the unions from Girobank earlier this evening. The vast majority of those who work in Girobank are employees of the Post Office, and have been for 20, 25 or even 28 years. Their pension provisions are locked into the Post Office pension arrangements. As I understand it, once the bank is sold those pension arrangements will run for only a further 10 months. They will then, under this new liberated Government scheme, have to find other ways to fund their pension scheme. That is disgraceful. Five thousand people who were employed by the Post Office three or four months ago have now been told, following an arbitrary decision by the Government, that their pensions are in jeopardy. If the Minister thinks that they will accept that with equanimity, he is wrong.
  My hon. Friend and I have posed a number of questions that the Minister must answer.
  12.2 am
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): In the nine minutes remaining to me I shall do my best to respond to the many questions that have been posed. I hope that Opposition Members will understand if the pressure of time makes it difficult to respond as fully as I would have wished.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, but resist the suggestion that as Cabinet Minister responsible for this matter, coming to the House to answer an Adjournment
  616
  debate raised by the Member of Parliament with the most direct interest because his constituents are affected, constitutes an abuse of the House. It constitutes an entirely proper response—[Interruption.] I was picking up the comments of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), rather than anything that the hon. Member for Bootle said.
  I thank the hon. Member for Bootle for his courtesy in letting me know in advance the specific questions that he would ask, to which I shall reply. I had intended to say a word about the history of the Girobank and about the Government's general attitude towards privatisation. The House is certainly familiar with the latter, and the history was touched on by the hon. Gentleman.
  It was against the history of Girobank and the privatisation policy that the Government have successfully pursued in many areas of industry and commerce that we considered the position of Girobank. As the hon. Gentleman said—there is no dispute between us on this —it has been successful in advancing its business. However, the banking market is rapidly changing and is extremely competitive, and we concluded that if Girobank was to achieve its full potential, to sustain its success, and to grow further, it would need to match its competitors in the freedom and flexibility with which it could respond to changing circumstances and new opportunities. It has to be free from the inevitable constraints that go with being a public sector undertaking, for which Ministers are answerable in the ways familiar to the House. Thus, on 7 June the then Chancellor of the Duchy, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), informed the House that the Government and the Post Office had agreed to offer Girobank for sale to a financial institution or other suitable company.
  The announcement of the proposed sale generated a wide response, with many inquiries, and on 25 July a confidential information memorandum was sent to those who had registered interest. To protect the future interests of the bank and the taxpayer, the Government and the Post Office Board outlined certain factors of which account was to be taken in evaluating bids. They covered price, acceptability to the Bank of England, the prospect of widening choice for the general public in banking services, the importance of the link between Girobank and Post Office Counters Ltd., capability to develop and expand Girobank's business, and arrangements to enable management and employees to share directly in the future success of the business. Those who expressed an interest in buying the bank were informed that the Government and the Post Office Board would also be concerned—I ask the hon. Member for Wigan to take note of this—to ensure that proper regard was paid to the interests of the employees.
  When bids were sought, it was indicated that they should be submitted by the end of October. The current position—this answers some questions—is that the Post Office has informed me that the sale of Girobank by tender has not produced, within the hoped-for time scale, a buyer able to meet the requirements set for the sale. However, it remains the case that the Government and the Post Office Board are committed to transferring Girobank to the private sector through the sale of the bank to a suitable purchaser. Therefore, the Post Office and the financial advisers for the sale are holding further confidential discussions with potential purchasers, taking into account the factors set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the

  617
  Member for Rushcliffe in his statement on 7 June. This process is likely to take some time. I will, of course, continue to keep the House informed.
  Before coming to the other questions raised by the hon. Member, it may be helpful if I say something about the factors that we think have contributed to the position I have described.
  Although it provides all the services that a modern bank provides, Girobank has a number of distinctive features. It uses the 20,000 or so outlets of Post Office Counters Ltd. Counters are open six days a week, and over longer hours, compared with high street banks. On the other hand, the staff are not employed by Girobank, as the hon. Gentleman said, and provide services to others in addition to Girobank. Over the past three years—another factor to be borne in mind—Girobank has further developed a distinctive telephone and mail banking system.
  Having given the matter careful consideration, we now think that for selling a specialised bank like Girobank the time scale indicated in July was too demanding and may not have allowed prospective bidders adequate time for assessing and understanding the special features of Girobank, the potential to which those features give rise, and how that potential might fit their future strategy. For that reason, we considered it right to allow more time.
  Let me now refer—I hope fully—to the specific questions of the hon. Member for Bootle to which I have not yet responded. He asked why we had not published the names of shortlisted bidders. The simple fact is that several bidders asked that their bids should be regarded as entirely confidential unless they were selected as the purchaser. They are entitled to ask that, and, in my view, entitled to have their wishes respected. In those circumstances, the Post Office Board is not in a position to release any names.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me about what he described
  618
  as a "relaxation of the conditions" of the statement of 7 June. My right hon. and learned Friend said those factors would be taken into account in evaluating bids. As I have said, those same factors will continue to be taken into account in the further confidential discussions with potential purchasers.
  I was also asked about the price. That is one of the factors which the Post Office has set which will be taken into account. The sale is by tender, and no fixed price is, or was, set in advance. There has never been any question of insisting on a particular price. The point is that we must be satisfied that it represents an acceptable deal for the taxpayer.
  I have been asked whether a bid from a clearing bank or a large building society would be acceptable. As my right hon. and learned Friend said on 7 June, no one is ruled out from putting in a bid. We would judge a bid from a clearing bank or a large building society in the light of the same factors as a bid from anyone else.
  I have also been asked the same question in respect of a management buy-out. As I have said, no proposal is ruled out, but we doubt whether a management buy-out would be likely to satisfy the factors set out by my right hon. and learned Friend. A bid from a consortium is certainly not ruled out just because it is made by a consortium. It would be judged on its merits.
  The Government remain convinced that the bank would benefit from the freer and more competitive environment of the private sector. Both we and the Post Office Board remain committed to transferring Girobank to the private sector through the sale of the bank to a suitable purchaser. Although the objective has not been secured as quickly as we had earlier hoped, we are continuing to work with the Post Office Board to achieve it, because we believe that it is in the interests of the bank and those who work in it that we should.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  Autism
  Autism
  Access Officers
  Access Officers
  Advance Factories
  Advance Factories
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Sea Fishing
  Sea Fishing
  Tourism
  Tourism
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Psychiatric Nurses
  Psychiatric Nurses
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  £2 Coin
  £2 Coin
  Planning Regions (Expenditure)
  Planning Regions (Expenditure)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Press Briefing)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Press Briefing)
  Commemorative Coins
  Commemorative Coins
  Agencies (Accounting Officers)
  Agencies (Accounting Officers)
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  EC (Balance of Trade)
  EC (Balance of Trade)
  Gross Domestic Product Deflator
  Gross Domestic Product Deflator
  Science and Technology
  Science and Technology
  Manufacturing (Operating Surplus)
  Manufacturing (Operating Surplus)
THE ARTS
  "Spycatcher"
  "Spycatcher"
CIVIL SERVICE
  Management Improvement
  Management Improvement
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  School Meals
  School Meals
  AIDS
  AIDS
PRIME MINISTER
  Ethical Problems
  Ethical Problems
  Newport, Gwent
  Newport, Gwent
  Environmental Research
  Environmental Research
  Health and Social Security Records Office
  Health and Social Security Records Office
  Mergers and Takeovers
  Mergers and Takeovers
  Engagements
  Engagements
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Attachment of Earnings
  Attachment of Earnings
  Departmental Expenditure
  Departmental Expenditure
  Prison Sentences
  Prison Sentences
  Strangeways Prison
  Strangeways Prison
  Indictable Offences (Northamptonshire)
  Indictable Offences (Northamptonshire)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  HM Prison, Risley
  HM Prison, Risley
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  New Businesses (Derbyshire)
  New Businesses (Derbyshire)
  Regional Breakfasts
  Regional Breakfasts
  Single European Market
  Single European Market
  Barlow Clowes
  Barlow Clowes
  Sumire Clothes plc
  Sumire Clothes plc
  Investigations and Report
  Investigations and Report
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Motorways
  Motorways
  EC Assistance
  EC Assistance
  A1-M1 Link Road
  A1-M1 Link Road
  M62 (Nuclear Transport)
  M62 (Nuclear Transport)
  Road Safety (Westminster)
  Road Safety (Westminster)
  M20
  M20
  A650
  A650
  Seat Belts (Children)
  Seat Belts (Children)
ENERGY
  Piper Alpha
  Piper Alpha
  Electrical Supply Industry (Privatisation)
  Electrical Supply Industry (Privatisation)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Internal Market
  Internal Market
  Kurdish Refugees (Turkey)
  Kurdish Refugees (Turkey)
  Chemical Weapons (Iraq)
  Chemical Weapons (Iraq)
  Lebanon
  Lebanon
  Albania
  Albania
  Iran
  Iran
  North Korea
  North Korea
ENVIRONMENT
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Barnstaple
  Barnstaple
  Water
  Water
  "Living Options Lottery"
  "Living Options Lottery"
  Local Authorities (Statutory Duties)
  Local Authorities (Statutory Duties)
  Ministerial Cars
  Ministerial Cars
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  Housing
  Housing
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Radiation (Wigan and Southport)
  Radiation (Wigan and Southport)
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Water Pollution
  Water Pollution
  Regional Water Authorities (Ownership)
  Regional Water Authorities (Ownership)
  Housing (Greater London)
  Housing (Greater London)
  Marine Research
  Marine Research
EMPLOYMENT
  Employment Training
  Employment Training
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Construction Industry Training Board
  Employers (Information)
  Employers (Information)
  Tourism
  Tourism
  Industrial Tribunals (Ethnic Minorities)
  Industrial Tribunals (Ethnic Minorities)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Closures and Takeovers (Ballots)
  Closures and Takeovers (Ballots)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
HEALTH
  NHS Staff(Length of Service)
  NHS Staff(Length of Service)
  Family Planning and Abortion
  Family Planning and Abortion
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  Contracts (Mersey RHA)
  Contracts (Mersey RHA)
  Vascular Surgery, Wakefield
  Vascular Surgery, Wakefield
  Service Men (Nuclear Tests)
  Service Men (Nuclear Tests)
  Private Residential and Nursing Care (Training)
  Private Residential and Nursing Care (Training)
  Market Harborough (Ambulances)
  Market Harborough (Ambulances)
  Maternity Unit, Market Harborough
  Maternity Unit, Market Harborough
  Hospital Pharmacist Service
  Hospital Pharmacist Service
  Pinderfield Hospital, Wakefield
  Pinderfield Hospital, Wakefield
  Dental Charges (Students)
  Dental Charges (Students)
  Registered Homes
  Registered Homes
  Hospital Social Work Service
  Hospital Social Work Service
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Nursing
  Nursing
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Payments
  Payments
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Reciprocal Arrangements (Irish Republic)
  Reciprocal Arrangements (Irish Republic)
  Claimants (EC and Ireland)
  Claimants (EC and Ireland)
  Household Incomes
  Household Incomes
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Medical Appeal Tribunals
  Irish Nationals
  Irish Nationals
  "Living Options Lottery"
  "Living Options Lottery"
  Family Credit
  Family Credit
  Family Credit (Bradford)
  Family Credit (Bradford)
  SERPS
  SERPS
  State Pensions
  State Pensions
  Benefit Entitlement
  Benefit Entitlement
  Social Fund
  Social Fund
  Appeal Tribunals
  Appeal Tribunals
  Single Parents
  Single Parents
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Low-income Families
  Low-income Families
  Departmental Switchboard (Efficiency)
  Departmental Switchboard (Efficiency)
SCOTLAND
  Disabled People (Access)
  Disabled People (Access)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Teachers (Statistics)
  Teachers (Statistics)
  School Boards
  School Boards
  Mobile Creche Facilities
  Mobile Creche Facilities
  Green Belt Boundaries
  Green Belt Boundaries
  YTS
  YTS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  EC (Food Aid)
  EC (Food Aid)
  BSE
  BSE
  Apples
  Apples
  Barnes Review
  Barnes Review
DEFENCE
  Overseas Students (Military Training)
  Overseas Students (Military Training)
  Land Disposal
  Land Disposal
  RAF Bases (Western Isles)
  RAF Bases (Western Isles)
  Relocation
  Relocation
  Hovercraft Minehunting
  Hovercraft Minehunting
  Warsaw Pact
  Warsaw Pact
  Defence Expenditure
  Defence Expenditure
  Stealth Systems
  Stealth Systems
  European Fighter Aircraft
  European Fighter Aircraft
  Challenger 2 Tank
  Challenger 2 Tank
  Clyde Safety Scheme
  Clyde Safety Scheme
  AWRE (Incident)
  AWRE (Incident)
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Contractors
  Contractors
  Royal Ordnance plc
  Royal Ordnance plc
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Payments for Debt Act
  Payments for Debt Act
  Irish Language
  Irish Language
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Health and Social Services
  Health and Social Services
  Security
  Security
  Harland and Wolff
  Harland and Wolff
  Constitutional Reform
  Constitutional Reform
  Integrated Education
  Integrated Education
  Leisure and Recreation
  Leisure and Recreation
  Remissions
  Remissions
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Short Brothers
  Short Brothers
  Criminal Evidence Order 1988
  Criminal Evidence Order 1988
  Chelsea Girl Shop (Arrests)
  Chelsea Girl Shop (Arrests)
  Hospital Services (Belfast)
  Hospital Services (Belfast)
  Vehicle Tests
  Vehicle Tests
  Land Registration
  Land Registration
  Industrial Promotion and Enterprise
  Industrial Promotion and Enterprise
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
  IRA (American Funds)
  IRA (American Funds)
  Rural Areas (Mains Electricity)
  Rural Areas (Mains Electricity)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Saint Albans—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Child Safety: EC Campaign
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the child safety campaign due to be introduced in September or October as announced by the European Commission (HL Deb., 16th June, col. 370).
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the launch date for the European child safety campaign has been postponed. The Commission has experienced difficulties in finalising its contribution to the campaign. Until these problems are overcome it will not be possible to give a revised date for the launch.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that is a most disappointing Answer, which I expected but for which the Government are not to blame. As the Minister will be aware from his brief, we have now been on this matter for some two and a half years. As the Commission has fallen down so badly on what it said it would do, can the Government do anything both to spur indignation and stir up initiative among the organisations concerned in this country? Would it be possible to get on with our plans? Will the Government support such an endeavour?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. She is quite right in saying that the Government are not to blame in this matter, and we continue to work with child safety organisations such as the Child Action Prevention Trust and RoSPA in this most important and vulnerable area. From the Government's point of view, there is no question of delay leading to a standstill on child safety. Other initiatives are going ahead continually such as the recently launched toy safety campaign and the publication of the Keep Them Safe and Keep Your Baby Safe booklets.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is great disappointment that the Commission cannot launch a scheme? May I suggest to my noble friend that he contacts the Commission to suggest that it contacts RoSPA, which I am sure would be only too pleased to help put such a scheme on the road?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are always pleased to pass on the messages of the noble Lord, Lord Brougham and Vaux. RoSPA is a highly respected organisation and I shall pass on his comments, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, to the Commission.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the importance of a campaign which aims to reduce the number of accidents to children in the EC by 10 to 20 per cent. by 1995, does the Minister know what reasons the Commission give for the delay and the specific actions that the Government have taken to encourage the EC to launch the campaign?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government were informed by the Commission earlier this year that it would launch its campaign in September or October this year. Since then things have gone badly wrong for the Commission and the major projects that were to be its responsibility have all come up against severe problems. This has led to the delay that I have mentioned. The campaign was to be divided into three parts: the building of a giant house involving an imaginative display of safety hazards, the production of a logo and the establishment of a computer database system. None of these has gone ahead because of various legal technicalities and disagreements with other member states. Specifically, as I mentioned in a previous answer, the Government are not letting that delay their campaign for child safety, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is extremely important. The Government are very much aware of the problems.

European Single Market: Preparation
3.5 p.m.
Lord Rodney Lord Rodney asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their assessment of British industry's awareness of the programme to complete the European single market by 1992, and what steps are they taking to encourage this in preparation.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, nine out of 10 firms in this country are aware of the significance of the single market challenge. Now they have to examine the implications for their business and consider what action to take accordingly. The Department of Trade and Industry's Europe Open for Business Campaign aims to encourage firms throughout the country to prepare for the single market. Preparing for the market is above all a task for business. This is why I have welcomed the CBI's Initiative 1992, which provides clear evidence that British business is ready to seize the new opportunities.
Lord Rodney: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that encouraging reply. I believe Her Majesy's Government should be congratulated on the efforts they have made to make British industry aware of the challenges that will arise in 1992. But does he agree that there is a considerable difference between being aware and taking the necessary steps to meet this challenge? Will he say whether Her

729
Majesty's Government have further plans to monitor British industry to ensure that it takes the necessary steps to meet the challenge? Are there any sections of British industry that particularly need to be followed up, like the smaller companies?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, although I said that nine out of 10 firms in the country were aware of the campaign, so far only one firm in three has taken steps actively to prepare for the single market. This shows that a great deal of work needs to be done, which will be done by the Government, trade associations, professional advisers and others to stimulate a response. The specific areas that need to be encouraged arc marketing, sales and distribution, training, recruitment and language skills.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, how does the Minister arrive at the figure of one firm in three? How does he know that people are not doing a great deal on their own without approaching the department?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is quite right. There are many people doing things on their own, and this is something which the Government seek to encourage. The one in three figure has been derived from those people to whom we talk in the department and I assume that it is correct.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is not just a question of firms being alerted to the possibilities and problems of the 1992 arrangements, but also of employees? What arrangements have the Government made with the Trades Union Congress to make sure that through the trade union movement employees are so alerted?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am sure that the Trades Union Congress is well aware of 1992 and is making its own decisions on how to inform its members. However, the Commission also has views about employees and, while the Government are happy to develop measures to combat unemployment and to use structural funds to help the labour market to work better, we tend to oppose the idea of mandatory worker participation in companies.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, following my noble friend's question—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead:—can the Minister assure us that the Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, welcomed the appearance of Monsieur Jacques Delors at the Trades Union Congress, the terms in which he spoke and the reception which he received?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has not told me her response.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the speech made by Jacques Delors at the Trades Union Congress bore no relation to 1992 separately? We can and should support the 1992 initiative but that should not interfere with the independent sovereignty of the 12 countries which make up the Community and that should always be borne in mind.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, my noble friend is right. I commend to the House as necessary reading the Prime Minister's Bruges speech.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many firms are making private arrangements for 1992 and that they are concerned that they are not receiving answers from this and foreign governments to questions about tariffs?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are aware that there are problems. We are trying to solve them as quickly as possible.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the Government have had no contact with the TUC in regard to this matter? Although the Prime Minister may not tell him all her thoughts on various matters, is the Minister satisfied that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is telling him all his thoughts?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not aware whether there has been contact between the Department of Trade and Industry and the TUC. I shall be pleased to inquire and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there would be more enthusiasm in the approach of industry in preparing for 1992 if there was more enthusiasm in the approach from on high?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if by the phrase "on high" the noble Lord means the Government, my reply is that the Government have made their position clear. They are most keen in their approach to 1992 and they are doing a great deal to make people aware of the challenges.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the efforts of the Government, especially the Department of Trade and Industry, to raise the level of awareness of business and industry in this country are much admired and appreciated? Nevertheless, can he assure the House that the Government will try to ensure that our eyes are not taken off the ball of the single European market in 1992 by irrelevant arguments about European federalism?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the two videos and the literature made available by his department to trade associations, chambers of commerce and so forth are most instructive and illuminating? Does he also agree

731
that they point in the right direction those who do not know the direction in which to go and that they therefore answer some of the questions which the noble Lord opposite believes to be left unanswered?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful for my noble friend's interjection.

University Funding: VAT on Gifts
3.14 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will increase their subvention to the Universities Funding Council to compensate for the loss of revenue which universities will suffer as a result of the decision by Customs and Excise to charge VAT on gifts by private companies to universities.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to clear up a general misunderstanding. There is no VAT on unconditional gifts of money to universities. Nor does the mere acknowledgment of such support attract VAT. However, VAT is chargeable where payment is conditional upon a university's supplying clearly identifiable benefits in return, such as advertising or publicity. This has always been the position and each case is considered on its particular facts.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer. Is he aware that recent press reports state that the Customs and Excise are applying a more stringent test to gifts made by donor companies to universities and colleges? Can he confirm that the Customs and Excise has not changed the basis of the test and is applying a common-sense policy to such very desirable gifts?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am aware of the press reports which are based on a misunderstanding. In order to avoid any further misunderstanding in this area I should like to point out that today the Customs and Excise is issuing a press release on the subject.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, the Minister's Answer avoided a grey area. Normally VAT is charged by seller to buyer and the seller must then account for it to the Government, less any VAT he has paid. Where a university accepts an industrial contract for research would it include that in its bill to the commercial customer and then account for it to the revenue authorities? That appears to be a grey area which has not been covered by the noble Viscount's Answer.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, to the extent that tax is incurred which can be directly attributed to its taxable activities, the university will be able to deduct input tax under the normal rules. In that respect the university will be in the same position as any other taxpayer. However, I remind your Lordships that
732
most universities are registered for VAT because they make taxable supplies, such as holiday lettings and accommodation, sports facilities, concerts and bar sales. Therefore there will be no charge made on them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for a reassuring Answer. The statement to be made by the Customs and Excise will reassure universities. However, the Question referred specifically to gifts; it did not refer to other activities in which universities might engage for business enterprises. Is one correct in understanding that gifts will not be subject to VAT?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, providing that no other benefits are supplied in return, such as advertising or the making available of the university facilities to the company, VAT does not apply. Companies which are charged VAT are able to recover it from Customs and Excise through the VAT credit mechanism. Most financial support is outside the scope of VAT. The Government have no wish to impose unnecessary tax on a means of helping universities. However, the VAT EC law must be observed.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister's Answer was reassuring. Does it apply also to individual colleges which may have appeals for endowments and so forth?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Committee of Directors of Polytechnics and the Standing Conference of College Principals have recently proposed that after 1st April 1989, when they leave local authority control, they should enjoy the same VAT exception as universities. Discussions with Customs and Excise officials are continuing and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the case carefully.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply but perhaps I did not make myself clear. I was referring not to polytechnics and colleges in the public sector but to colleges in the university sector which may have their own appeals. Does the situation apply to them?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have an answer to that question but I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Whisky Exports: Japanese Tax
3.18 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in removing discrimination against whisky produced in Scotland in the Japanese tax regime.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, earlier this year, the Japanese authorities announced their intention to introduce, from April 1989, a single rate of tax for all

733
whiskies, at a level 45 per cent. below that currently applying to whisky produced in Scotland. We very much welcome Japan's proposals which, when implemented, will greatly improve the ability of' such whisky to compete in the Japanese market on fair and equal terms.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer; it indicates expectation of a great improvement next year. Will my noble friend accept qualified congratulations on what has been achieved so far? The process takes a long time but have the remedies available through GATT been fully pursued and carried out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for his congratulations, which I naturally accept. Having said that, it was not all my own work. As the noble Lord no doubt knows, it was the European Commission which took Japan to GATT and that has led on to the success of these proposals. We hope that it will take place in April next year.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is it right to assume that the new rules apply also to whiskey from Northern Ireland and, indeed, from the Principality?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is correct.
Lord Rugby: My Lords, is there any saki produced in Scotland and can that be exported to Japan?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that will be up to manufacturers to decide.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is the definition of whisky for these purposes?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I understand that the definition of whisky which we are using is that which is currently agreed by the Government; that is, over 40 per cent. proof.

Business
3.21 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that, subject to the progress of business, it is expected that Parliament will be prorogued by Royal Commission next Tuesday, November 15th. The House will sit at 9.30 in the morning and, save for Royal Assent, no other business will be transacted.
With the leave of the House, it has been agreed through the usual channels that I shall arrange for a statement that will be made in another place this afternoon on the report of the inquiry into the King's Cross underground fire to be printed in the Official Report. As soon as the statement has been concluded in another place I shall arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree that that statement on the King's Cross incident is of such great importance that it merits far more consideration than would have been possible in a 20-minute exchange of questions and answers in your Lordships' House. We are given to understand that the report will cover 91 days of public inquiry and we are informed in the press that it will contain something like 151 recommendations. Although the Government Chief Whip can make no guarantees, perhaps I may ask for an early debate on the report to be arranged through the usual channels.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may endorse those remarks while thanking the Chief Whip. This is clearly a most important report which should not be trivialised by spending just a few minutes on it this afternoon. This is a serious matter. I believe that noble Lords on all sides wish to study the report and I support the view that we should have a debate at the earliest moment. I hope that that can be arranged through the usual channels.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Underhill and Lord Tordoff. Of course this is an important report. It would be very difficult indeed, in reading the statement, to achieve very much in the period which is allowed for questions and answers in the normal way. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, I cannot promise anything, I can certainly undertake to consult through the usual channels as to whether and when a debate should be arranged.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can we assume that the report will be available this afternoon in the Printed Paper Office?
Lord Denham: My Lords, yes, I think we can assume that.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there is a very considerable wish in all quarters of the House that this very important matter, vital to all those who move about in London, should be debated very early in the new Session?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I shall certainly bear in mind the added weight that my noble friend has put to that request.

King's Cross Fire: Fennell Report
Following is the statement by the Secretary of State for Transport (the right honourable Paul Channon) referred to:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a further statement about the disastrous fire at King's Cross underground station on 18th November 1987. I am publishing today as a Command Paper the report by M r. Desmond Fennell QC on his investigation under the

735
Reguation of Railway Act 1889 into the causes and circumstances of this terrible disaster.
"The House will join me in renewing on this occasion our expressions of condolence to the bereaved and sympathy and best wishes to the injured. The House will also join in paying tribute to the many people in the emergency services, the staff of London Underground, the public and the doctors and nurses who showed courage and dedication and gave help in this disaster. I repeat in particular Mr. Fennell's words that a large number of members of the London fire brigade behaved with conspicuous courage and devotion to duty. He particularly mentions Station Officer Townsley, who died a hero's death, and also the great courage shown by Police Constable Hanson of the British Transport police, which must have enabled many people to escape with their lives.
"Mr. Fennell has concluded that the fire was started by a discarded match falling into accumulated grease and debris on the track of the escalator and that it accelerated up the trench of the escalator until it burst into the booking hall, causing the deaths of 31 people.
"Mr. Fennell has made 157 recommendations. He regards 33 of these as most important, and a further 59 as important. Action is of course already under way on many of them. Many of the recommendations require specific action by London Underground Ltd. to prevent a recurrence. They do, of course, include the most urgent removal of wooden panelling from escalators. I have asked London Regional Transport to have all these recommendations dealt with promptly. Considerable amounts will have to be spent. The plans announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 1st November already provide in full for all the proposals already put to me for spending on underground safety totalling £266 million over the next three years.
"The investigation has shown major shortcomings, requiring a new approach to safety management and fire prevention in the underground and specific safety audits by London Regional Transport. I am calling on both bodies urgently to put into effect new arrangements recommended by Mr. Fennell.
"An enhanced approach is also required from the Railway Inspectorate and I have discussed Mr. Fennell's recommendations with the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission. I have every reason to expect that the present recruiting campaign will bring the inspectorate fully up to complement by the end of January. It will need to be further strengthened for the tasks that Mr. Fennell identifies, including the use of the powers of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 to enforce measures needed for the safety of passengers on the underground and, I must add, on other railways. The chief inspecting officer of
736
railways is now organising a special investigation of London Underground with support from the Health and Safety Executive. It will examine the safety management systems and monitor the implementation of planned safety measures, and will be completed in March.
"The lessons of this report go wider than London Underground and London Regional Transport. I have today written to the chairman of the British Railways Board inviting the board to consider the lessons of Mr. Fennell's report for the management and audit of safety. Letters are also being sent to the chairmen of the passenger transport authorities in Tyne and Wear and in Strathclyde.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will shortly bring forward regulations under Section 12 of the Fire Precautions Act 1971 to require specific measures at underground stations. This is the speediest means to introduce enforceable standards without uncertainty. The railway operators and fire authorities will be consulted on them. My right honourable friend is commissioning special studies of the best methods to control spread of smoke. These present difficult technical problems.
"There are also lessons for the emergency services. Copies of the report are being sent to the London Fire Brigade and London Ambulance Service. I shall be considering its implications for the British Transport Police, and my right honourable friends concerned will be considering its implications for the emergency services for which they have responsibilities.
"I have to deal with two particular matters. As regards the costs of representation at the investigation, after taking into account the special circumstances of this case, I am accepting in full Mr. Fennell's recommendations.
"Secondly, the position of individuals. Following the fire, Sir Keith Bright offered to resign as chairman and chief executive of London Regional Transport. I asked him to stay during a difficult period, and he did. He has asked me again to accept his resignation, and I have now done so. Dr. Tony Ridley is a member of the board of London Regional Transport, and the chairman and chief executive of London Underground Ltd. He also has given me his resignation, which I have accepted. I shall make fresh appointments in due course, and meanwhile Sir Neil Shields, who is a member of the board of London Regional Transport, has at my request agreed to take on the chairmanship.
"I conclude by expressing to Mr. Fennell and his assessors my warm thanks for a very full and thorough investigation. We must all ensure that the lessons of this tragedy are fully learnt and fully applied. The Government will play their full part to ensure that they are followed up as quickly and as vigorously as possible."

North Killingholme Cargo Terminal Bill
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of yesterday. (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Rate Support Grants Bill
3.27 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill deals with modifications to the arrangements by which grant entitlements for local authorities are to be calculated for the remaining years of the present rate support grant system. It has been certified in another place as a Money Bill. It nevertheless requires your Lordships' consent, and the House will therefore wish me to explain both the reasons for it and the way in which it will work.
The Bill was announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and my right honourable friend the Minister of State for Wales in statements about local government finance made on 7th July which were repeated in this House. The Opposition spokesman in the other place recognised that:
"the Secretary of State's scheme…would not have worked if it had not been a secret".
The primary purpose of this Bill is to provide the basis for an orderly closedown to the present RSG system, and thereby pave the way for an orderly transition from the existing system of grants to local authorities to the new community charge system which will operate from April 1990. In the present system grant depends on an authority's need to spend and on its actual spending. In the new system an authority's grant entitlement will depend only on its need to spend. This will be an important simplification. It will enable the grant arrangements to he simpler and, I hope, more comprehensible both to authorities and to Parliament.
The move to this new system does, however, mean that there is a need to make sensible transitional arrangements to bring the existing system to an orderly close. This is what this Bill does.
There are two fundamental reasons for legislating in the way proposed in this Bill. First, in the present system, local authorities do not know their grant entitlements for a year with certainty until many years after the financial year has been concluded. We have not yet, for example, finished with 1985–86. There is clearly a need to be finished with the old system before the new community charge system comes into effect. I think it is generally recognised that something would need to be done along the lines
738
of this Bill in order to achieve this. Although there may be differing views about the best way to achieve this, I hope there will be agreement about the underlying principle. This legislation will allow us to make all the final adjustments to grant under the old system before the end of 1989–90.
Secondly, the Bill also removes the risk that some less than scrupulous authorities might seek to obtain an unjustified grant gain in remaining years of the present system. At present, any device which reduces an authority's total expenditure up to 1989–90, even at the expense of higher expenditure later, will produce a once and for all grant benefit at the expense of the Exchequer. Some authorities are known to have been considering the use of various creative accounting mechanisms in order to exploit the present system.
Let me explain why. In the present system, grant entitlements depend on total expenditure, which is a technical, accounting concept. The figure for total expenditure for any year may be higher or lower than what might be called its "real" expenditure on services, depending on the accounting manoeuvres which an authority might engage in. In the normal course of events, this does not matter greatly, because eventually any artificial devices have to be paid for. A gain in grant in one year is counteracted by a reduction in some later year.
Your Lordships will appreciate, however, that a reduction in expenditure in 1989–90, or in one of the other years for which grant adjustments are still possible, will result in a grant advantage without any offset in later years under the new system when grant no longer depends on spending. In short, it would be a one-way bet at the expense of the Exchequer. I understand that a number of City institutions were offering authorities arrangements designed to produce precisely this effect. They would have enabled some authorities to transfer the burden for their services away from their ratepayers and onto the national taxpayer. This would clearly run counter to the Government's objectives as regards encouraging local accountability. If local authorities want to enter into complex financial deals, that is a matter for them, but there is no reason why the national taxpayer should be expected to pay a grant bonus as a result.
To bring the old system to a close and to remove the incentive for further creative accounting, the Bill provides that any authority's grant for the remaining years of the present system—that is, 1985–86 to 1989–90—should be based on information with the department at the time the new arrangements were announced on 7th July.
Clauses 1 and 2 deal with grant calculations for the years 1985–86 to 1988–89 in England and 1986–87 to 1988–89 in Wales. They provide that instead of using final outturn spending information we should instead use an expenditure figure—termed the relevant amount—which is derived from the rules set out in Schedule 1. The principles by which this relevant amount will be calculated are applicable to all local authorities. We believe they are fair. They produce clear, unambiguous figures which are accepted by local authorities. A clear line must be drawn under

739
the old system; and we believe the information we held on 7th July makes that an appropriate date.
Clause 3 deals with 1989–90. Each year the RSG settlement makes an assumption about authorities' spending in the next financial year. Such an assumption is necessary in order to calculate authorities' initial grant entitlement. Clause 3 and Schedule 2 set out the rules for determining authorities' total expenditure in 1989–90 against which grant will be paid. Next year grant payments will be based on authorities' budgets for 1988–89 projected forward. This is the normal way in which the expenditure projection is made. What will be different is that grant entitlements will not subsequently be revised in the light of what authorities actually spend. This is important because it will give authorities certainty about their grant entitlement before the start of the financial year.
This forward projection will be subject to special adjustments: first, to take account of the transfer of higher education establishments which from April next year will no longer be the responsibility of local authorities but of the new Polytechnics and Colleges Fund Council; and, secondly, for community charge preparation costs for which extra provision is made available.
To assist local authorities in preparing for the introduction of the new system my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has announced that next year's settlement will include £110 million for the extra costs authorities will incur on preparing for the community charge. Half of this expenditure will be met by a new specific grant (£55 million) which will be payable next year to all charging authorities. The remainder will be supported by block grant in the usual way. Capital allocations for 1989–90 will include a specific allocation of £135 million in addition to £25 million already announced for this year. There will therefore be no excuse for authorities which do not make adequate and timely arrangements for the community charge.
Clause 4 will enable consultation on next year's settlement to begin before Royal Assent. This will enable authorities to have details of their grant entitlements for next year in good time for their budget-making.
During the debate on this Bill in another place, alternative rules were suggested to those set out in Schedule 1. They were debated at considerable length. But I have to say that these alternatives would fail to meet our objectives in this Bill. They would not enable us to bring about an early close down of the present RSG system because they would require the collection of new informaton from authorities which had been certified by the auditor. Authorities whose total expenditure would be higher under the alternative rules would of course lose grant. Such authorities would be in no hurry to provide further information to the department. There would be a real risk that the system could not be closed down until after 1990.
The alternative rules would also present considerable operational difficulties. They are most unlikely to produce a single unambiguous figure for total expenditure for each authority for each year.
740
There would be major difficulties of interpretation. We have considered very carefully the alternatives that have been put forward by local government, but I have to tell your Lordships that none commends itself.
This Bill will enable us to meet our three main objectives. First, it will close down the present RSG system in an orderly manner. Without it we would need to continue with supplementary reports under the present legislation until 1992 or 1993. Secondly, it will break the link between expenditure and grant in the present system and thereby provide for a smooth transition to the new system in which grant will be fixed. It will provide authorities with certainty about their grant entitlements for 1989–90 and for earlier years. Thirdly, without it there is a considerable risk that some less than scrupulous authorities would use creative accounting in the remaining years of the present RSG system to manipulate their expenditure and so extract additional grant from the national taxpayer. This Bill therefore provides important protection for the Exchequer. Without it hundreds of millions of pounds would have been at risk.
Your Lordships, and local government, should not judge this Bill solely in terms of its effects on grant for this year and last. They should also take into account next year's settlement. For 1989–90 we have proposed aggregate Exchequer grant of £13,575 million. That is a generous amount. It is a substantial increase of £1·1 billion—about 9 per cent.—on grant payments this year. As a result of this Bill the full £13,575 million will be paid to authorities. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Hesketh.)
3.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not in any way wish to go against constitutional proprieties which restrict the powers of this House in relation to Bills which have been certified in another place as money Bills, but that does not mean we have to like this Bill. Certainly it does not mean that we have to let such a Bill go through without at least discussing the issues raised.
It is particularly objectionable that a Bill of this kind should be introduced during the spill-over period at this stage in the Session. We have looked at precedents for Bills being introduced at this time. There are precedents but they do not in any way justify the introduction of such a controversial measure at this late stage in the life of a Session.
The precedents of which I am aware are the Cinematograph Films Act 1975, which was supported by the then Conservative Opposition and which was not a party political matter, and the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980, which was subject to some attempts at amendment in Committee in another place but was not opposed here at Second Reading by the Labour Opposition and was not a party political matter.
This Bill is a party political matter. It is yet another attack on local government. Whatever the noble Lord says about the administrative nicety of closing down the accounts on the old system of local

741
authority finance before we start on the new one only makes me even more suspicious. It strikes me that this is a civil servant's Bill, an official's Bill, and that the Government have jumped on the political bandwagon because they see it as an opportunity to impose further financial penalties on local authorities.
There is no doubt that the effect of this Bill, particularly for last year and the current year, will be to impose financial penalties on local authorities as a whole. It will also have the effect of course of bringing windfall profits for the accounting periods back to 1985–86 to a large number of local authorities and unexpected losses to local authorities. In a moment I shall come to creative accounting, which forms so much of the justification for this Bill.
We have in this Bill an early end to the resource equalisation system which has been the basis of local authority expenditure for many years. The Government, having succeeded in persuading Parliament that it would be right to have a completely new system, the poll tax, are now in effect retrospectively taking advantage of the fact that the old system has to be phased out. That is being done substantially to the financial detriment of local authorities. The calculations which we can make based on returns to the Treasury by the local authority associations are that the grant holdback— in other words, the loss to local authorities under this system—in 1987–88 is about £265 million and that the grant hold-back for 1988–89 is about £511 million.
My honourable friend John Cunningham, MP, obtained from the Secretary of State, in answer to a Written Question at the end of October, a complete list of how individual local authorities are affected by this loss of £511 million. It is not what one might expect. It is not that Labour authorities alone will lose and Conservative authorities gain relatively. The losses are very heavy for many of the shire counties. I am somewhat surprised that noble Lords who commonly speak with a knowledge of the affairs, for example, of Kent County Council are not present. Kent County Council is losing well over £10 million as a result of this taking away of £511 million grant which would otherwise have been allocated under the old system.
In effect we are having retrospective legislation. We are changing the rules of the old system in order to close it down, and changing the rules involves taking away money. Our objections would be less strong, though they would still exist, if the result was neutral and if the effect was that some local authorities gained and others lost. The fact that local authorities as a whole will lose and that the Treasury will gain £.75 billion simply is not acceptable. It is certainly not acceptable in a Bill introduced at the very end of October and at the very end of the Session. There is no good reason whatever why this legislation should not have been introduced early in the new Session. There was no such action taken at the end of the last Session though Scotland was going into the poll tax regime a year earlier. Why should this legislation be introduced now? It is simply not acceptable.
742
A large part of the noble Lord's speech was taken up with claims of creative accounting that we have heard so often. I believe he described it as a one-way bet at the expense of the Exchequer. I believe I have made it clear that this is a one-way bet at the expense of local authorities and that the Exchequer will gain. The noble Lord is quite wrong about the claim of creative accounting in any event. These are simply accusations about City institutions being prepared to lend. The evidence produced to the department is very well known to it. Moreover, it was rehearsed at some length when the Bill was debated in another place. The reason for these measures is not creative accounting; there are many local authorities, by no means all of them Labour, that will lose very badly as a result of this Bill because they have been prudent in their expenditure rather than the reverse.
They will lose because though they may expect savings they do not include their savings in their claims to the department until they are absolutely sure that they will materialise. That is sensible and prudent accounting and made possible by the existing system which provides that the final settlement is based upon actual expenditure as finally agreed. In practice there are many authorities that will lose very badly as a result of the Bill—authorities that have not in any way been creative, but authorities that have been prudent. As an example let us consider the Conservative London Borough of Merton. The final accounts incorporate the expenditure reductions of £15 million for which no additional grant will be forthcoming.
Perhaps I may also give further examples as regards superannuation funds. Any noble Lords who have involvement with them as I have in private industry, will be aware that superannuation funds are not funds that are changed and valued in each year on the year. It takes a long time to make a final evaluation of superannuation funds. As regards the West Midlands' superannuation fund, which represents the West Midlands metropolitan districts, there will be a block grant loss of about £25 million as a result of the revaluation of the superannuation fund. No action by them is required: it is the professionals who do the revaluation. They have been prudent in not taking those reductions in expenditure into account in their accounts and because they did not get the figures to the Secretary of State by the right time they will lose £25 million.
The same situation is true of the London borough of Lewisham which will lose £3 million for exactly the same reason. The borough of Wolverhampton will lose £2 million of additional grant because it has made expenditure reductions in the years 1987–89 which could not be reported to the Secretary of State by 6th July. The borough of Dudley has made economies of £5 million and it was expecting to receive an increased grant of £3 million, but it will no longer receive it.
Police and fire authorities—not just local authorities—that have made reductions in expenditure as they have been urged to do are not receiving the benefit of those reductions. In other words, and to put it more crudely, they are being penalised for over-spending which they have not undertaken. They are losing out in every possible

743
way. I do not believe that it will be in the tradition of the Government party normally and publicly to penalise police authorities, but that is what it is doing over and over again.
If the Government were to argue that the main cause and justification for these measures was creative accounting, they could have paid attention to the amendments that were put down by my honourable and right honourable friends in another place. Those amendments did not in any way seek to condone creative accounting; they sought to take account of the realities of local authority budgeting and auditing procedures. The amendments said, first, that where an authority had, by 7th July, already approved its accounts for 1987–88 that expenditure information should be taken into account in determining grant entitlement. Local authorities had approved their accounts and they could not change them any more. There was no scope for creative accounting but the accounts were not with the Secretary of State by 7th July and therefore many of these bodies will lose out.
The second amendment stated: that where an authority had not approved its accounts by 7th July grant entitlement should be based on final expenditure as certified by the authority's auditor. Again, there was no scope for creative accounting but there was scope for a realistic assessment of the likely actual expenditure of the local authority by professionals and not by politicians.
The third amendment stated that where an authority had not approved its final accounts, but had by 7th July formally taken decisions which would affect the final reported total expenditure, those decisions should be allowed in determining total expenditure for grant purposes. Again, decisions had already been taken before the statement was made by the Secretary of State on 7th July. There was no possibility of subsequent creative accounting, but there was the possibility of the recognition of the true position of the authority under the existing rules as far as it was aware.
The Government's response was not to agree to these amendments. They could not shelter behind the creative accountancy argument because that argument is irrelevant to these amendments. The Government just ignored them and gave no adequate replies, it must be said, in another place to the arguments and they were simply rejected by the Minister.
This is a classic case of shifting the goalposts while the game is still in progress. It would not be so serious if it were not so much more than a game. A great deal of money is involved. The Treasury is taking a windfall profit by changing the rules in the middle and we are expected to acquiesce in these measures. Constitutionally we have to do so, but we do so with a heavy heart.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I confess that I have never understood the fiendish complexities of the rate support grant. I am filled with admiration for those like my noble friend Lord McIntosh who are able to give us such a powerful
744
speech as he has done this afternoon. I want to approach the subject in a much simpler way by putting to your Lordships what I have been asked to say by the City of Cardiff as regards the impact of the Bill—a Bill which my noble friend certainly convinces me should not have been put forward at this stage and there certainly should have been more consultation than there has been.
The Bill's impact on the City of Cardiff is to involve the ratepayers improperly in an extra bill of some £2,300,000 because Ministers have failed to keep their word. That is a harsh thing to say but I intend to prove it and I shall do so quite shortly. I will trouble the House with a series of dates. On 19th March 1987 a report was placed by Ministers before another place which said that the grant paid to a local authority by the Government in respect of the year 1987–8 will depend on what the authority actually spends. The grant was to depend not on the budget that the local authority prepared or on the estimates as they seemed to be working out during the year; it was to depend on what the authority actually spent. If that is not a firm undertaking I have never heard one. It is that undertaking that Ministers break in this Bill.
In the light of that statement the city of Cardiff set about making reductions in its budget in order to keep within the Government's guidelines. It published estimates which showed that it intended to reduce its expenditure. The financial year began a month after the statement in April 1987. Events proceeded with Cardiff city council, and the county as well, working at these reductions, which clearly could not be achieved by a stroke of the pen. They have to be achieved by cutting services over a period, by making people redundant and by inviting people to take early retirement. All these sums accumulate during the year.
In February of this year the Secretary of State for Wales asked local authorities how they were getting on. He said that the year would shortly be coming to an end and though he could not expect an exact figure because part of the year was still to come, he would like an estimate. That is a free paraphrase. His exact words were:
"It is recognised that in compiling figures there may be a need to balance speed of reporting against the time required to refine the estimates".
He went on:
"I would be grateful to receive the best estimates that can be made in the time available as an informed approximation".
In other words, the Secretary of State was saying, "I know that you cannot tell me before the end of the financial year the exact outcome on which I shall be paying you a block grant, but give me the best idea you can so that I have some figures to go on". That was the position in February 1988.
The council complied. However, our treasurer—and normally this would be a compliment—is a cautious and prudent man, as all treasurers should be. There were some savings he had not achieved which he hoped to achieve before the end of the financial year. They had not fructified by February although he expected them to do so by the end of the financial year in April. They were not in his hand so

745
he did not include them in his estimate when he returned the ministry's form to the Welsh Office. Indeed, when he wrote to the Welsh Office and enclosed the form he said that his figures were,
"no more than a prudent estimate".
I emphasise again that during the whole of this period services were being cut and therefore savings were being garnered in the whole time. Staff were being made redundant and people were taking early retirement. These were not creative accounting measures. They were measures of real substance which affected both men and services in the city of Cardiff.
The estimate was made in February. The financial accounts for the year ending April finally closed in June. That is when the treasurer was able to set out the position. He was able to report to the finance committee of the city council that he had done better than he had estimated in the previous February. In other words, his prudence was justified. The city treasurer was delighted. He made his formal report to the finance committee on 16th June. Note the date. The accounts had closed. The council had kept within the Government's guidelines. It had done better than the situation set out in all the figures it had given to the Government when asked for them. He was able to add the good news that, on the basis of the undertaking laid before the House of Commons by Ministers, the city of Cardiff would be entitled to an extra £2,300,000 because its grant would depend on "what the authority actually spends". Those are the words.
So far so good. On 29th June another important date—around about a fortnight after he had reported to the finance committee (all was well and the accounts were closed) the Secretary of State for Wales asked the council for its final figures, something it had been expecting. The form was headed "Block Grant Claim Form". Nothing could be clearer than that. It was not asking for an estimate, as the previous form had done. It was asking for a form to be duly certified and signed by the financial officers of the city council. They did so. The Secretary of State asked, "Please return this form to me by 1st August". All this was in accordance with normal practice. The council had complied in every respect with the Government's wishes. It had reduced its expenditure. It had given the Secretary of State the approximate estimates he had asked for of what it hoped it could do. It actually improved on the estimate in the final result. The council was soon disillusioned if it thought that the block grant claim formon which it sent in its figures would be accepted.
Only eight days after he had sent the council this form—this is a very material point—a Statement was made in another place, on 7th July saying that the grant would be based not on actual expenditure, which had been the basis on which the whole thing had been worked out during the previous 15 or 16 months, but on,
"information which was with the department by midnight last night".
That is to say, the information that had been contained in the estimates made before the year was ended.
746
No one can tell me that on the 29th June when the form was issued, asking for it to be returned by 1st August, Ministers were not already pretty well making up their minds that they were about to change the basis. Every fair-minded person who studies this matter will regard Ministers as having grossly misled Cardiff city council and all the other city councils and county councils which were taking Ministers at their words. The form was sent out on 29th June, asking for it to be returned by 1st August. On 7th July the rules were changed. If the form was in by 5th July the council was all right. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos knows, if only the form had said midday on the day we would have whipped round from the city treasurer's office to the Welsh Office—it is only five minutes walk—and would have had the form in.
It is not right that these financial matters should depend upon a lottery of this kind. If we in this House had the power, I would undoubtedly ask your Lordships to send the Bill back in order for it to be looked at again. What has happened is grossly unfair. When the city fathers heard this they were dumbfounded. Indeed, it is an understatement to say that they were dumbfounded. They were incredulous. They went to the Welsh Office and said, "You can't mean it". When it was confirmed, this incredulity turned to anger—anger on all sides and among all parties. I speak for them all this afternoon. They felt, and I agree with them, that the Minister has cheated. Remember the dates: 29th June, 7th July and 31st August. Ministers have behaved in a most shabby manner over this matter.
I have one other point. The district auditor had already received the accounts before the Minister's announcement. There could have been no question of fiddling them afterwards with so me creative accounting—the phrase my noble friend used—in order to adjust them and get them right. The district auditor had those accounts which had been finally cleared in every way. The Minister had not asked for them to be delivered to him until 31st August. I do not know what your Lordships make of this behaviour. I have a strong feeling that you will agree with the city of Cardiff that the Government's good faith is in question and that Ministers have gone back on their word and on the understandings on which they based this matter for a very long time. The council feels that it has behaved responsibly, that it has co-operated in every degree with the Government's policy, unpalatable though it was, that it has been misled and that its financial relations with the Welsh Office have been harmed as a result. Above all, it is the view of the city of Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, that this shabby behaviour is damaging to the integrity of public administration.
I ask Ministers to take serious note of these people who did all that they could. It was the Conservative council which first cut; it was the Labour council after an election which carried it on and indeed made further reductions. Both sides are united on this issue.
I wrote to the Secretary of State, Mr. Peter Walker, and received a letter in return. I did not believe it myself when I read it, but I wrote to him and asked him to look into the matter because I thought at the time that perhaps Cardiff was alone and that

747
something had gone wrong; I did not realise that this was a general affair that affected all of the cities. I hope that my noble friends will not mind me spending so much time on this because I think that it is a clear illustration of what has apparently happened in so many local authorities up and down the country. The letter said:
"I fully appreciate the concerns which you have expressed. It remains a fundamental principle"—
that is his defence, and as noble Lords can see from the letter it is not much of a defence—
"of the Bill that closedown of the existing rate support grant system should be based on simple rules equally applicable to all authorities".
All right—administrative convenience. If it does not mean that, then I do not know what else it means. I must tell the right honourable gentleman that there is another fundamental principle in my book, and I think in the book of many noble Lords on both sides of the House; that is, when Ministers have given their word, they should stick to it.
I do not overblame Mr. Walker. I do not think that he is the real villain of the piece. Indeed, he has built up quite a good reputation for himself in Wales since he was sent there as a viceroy and I can tell him that his exile there has certainly not done him any harm. No, as I say, I do not blame him. The voice may be the voice of Jacob; but the hand is the hand of Esau. I think that Mr. Ridley is the villain of this piece and Mr. Walker is just being dragged, humbled and chained at the wheels of his chariot.
I am sorry to have taken so much time but I feel that this is a most important and serious matter in which local authorities up and down the country have been mulcted by something which is very difficult to understand. It has taken me a long time in which to master all these details and if the example I gave is repeated throughout other local authorities, I can only say that the Bill should not have been passed and I very much regret that it has been.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may put something to him. I should like to assure him that I am certain there are many noble Lords on this side of the House who, having listened to what he has said, will accept that the good faith of the Government is clearly in question and that a question has been raised as to the integrity of public administration.
May I also say to him that many people in local government who are most concerned about the relationship at present between central and local government will be very disturbed by what he has said.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has said. I believe that this is a matter where party differences should be put to one side. As I said, in my city there are no party differences over the matter. Putting party differences to one side, there should be a certain relationship between the actions of Government, their word and what happens afterwards.
I understand—no doubt the Minister will be able to comment on this—that as a result of the Bill Ministers will have no discretion to put the matter
748
right; when the Bill becomes law nothing can be done. Indeed, we cannot send it back.
I have no doubt that every fair-minded person will agree that the Government should find some way to recompense the cities and the counties for what they have been unfairly mulcted of and that there should be some specific provision made to ensure that the Government do not gain this windfall which has been not only unfairly, but also unjustly, garnered by them.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we have had a more than interesting debate this afternoon on the Bill. However, before I comment on the various points made by your Lordships, perhaps it would be helpful if I were to reiterate the three key objectives of the Bill. First, it will enable the present rate support grants system to be closed down in an orderly manner—without it we should be still calculating grant entitlements, under the present system, well into the 1990s. Secondly, the Bill will provide local authorities with certainty about their grant entitlement for 1989–90, and for earlier years. Thirdly, it will remove the incentive for authorities to indulge in creative accounting. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was rather dismissive about that, but I shall return to the matter later.
Perhaps I may now try to answer some of the questions raised by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Callaghan. I should like to take the opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for writing to me before the debate, for which I am extremely grateful.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was unhappy with the timing of the Bill. I can only say that the Government decided to close down in July and announced that decision immediately. They could not have given a warning because, as the Opposition noted in another place, it would have entitled authorities to indulge in creative accounting. If the Bill had been delayed until the next Session, local authorities would not have known their position for grant for 1989–90. Further, the rate support grants settlement, which is usually presented before Christmas, would have either been delayed until the Spring or would have had to come forward under considerable uncertainty while the Bill was before Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew our attention to the £500 million. This year local authorities have overspent the provision available by about £1.2 billion, as a consequence of which they had forgone around £500 million in grant. I find it difficult to accept, as some have argued, that local authorities might reasonably have been expected during the course of this year to reduce their budgeted expenditure by £1.2 billion and so take up the additional grant which was on offer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. However, when he said that authorities have "overspent", what he means is that their budget and their provisional estimates involve overspending; he does not mean

749
what over-spending has meant in every previous year when it has been the final accounts which have mattered so far as grant is concerned.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, such a reduction is purely hypothetical and would have been unprecedented in local government finance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, how can it be said to be "hypothetical" when it has taken place every year in which the system has been enforced? It is not hypothetical; it is real money.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel that we shall have to agree to differ on that point. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, drew your Lordships' attention to superannuation. It has been suggested that those authorities which did not reflect their reduced employers' superannuation contributions in the expenditure information returned to the department should now be allowed to make that adjustment and thereby gain grant advantage. But local authorities are requested to revalue their superannuation funds every five years.
Because of the buoyant state of their funds some authorities obtained interim revaluations. They did so on the basis of actuarial advice and, in good faith, made reductions in their contributions. The department has subsequently advised that reductions in superannuation contributions between the five-yearly revaluations were ultra vires. We could not therefore allow interim revaluations to continue and so had to call a halt. It would have been quite wrong to penalise those authorities which had made the interim reductions. They have gained accidentally because of a combination of circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh was dismissive of creative accounting. We could go into the matter at some length but I feel that I should just draw his attention to the fact that no one, even today, is entirely clear about who owns Camden's lamp-posts, let alone its library books or its municipal art collection, although we know that a French bank is reported to have bought its parking meters. It is the book-keeping transactions or financial deals which are unrelated to true spending and which alter the level of reported total expenditure but which gain government grant that we seek to prevent in our proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was also unhappy about what he described as the "moving of the goal-posts".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord yet again, but he seems to be going on to another part of his speech without actually dealing with the real issue concerning creative accountancy. The point I was making—which he has not answered, and which Ministers in another place did not answer—is this. What is wrong with the amendments put down by the Opposition in another place which did not involve treating one local authority differently from another; which did not involve creative accounting but which provided for recompense for those authorities which
750
had been prudent and not reflected their reductions in expenditure until they were sure of it. I gave three examples of those amendments which, as I said, were not answered in another place. Will the Minister answer those charges now, before he moves on to another issue?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is, I believe, referring to what I described in my speech as the alternative rules. I felt that I covered that point in my speech but I shall repeat the basis. The alternative rules would require the submission of new information and that would not enable us therefore to bring an early close to the present rate support grant system. Authorities with increased spending would be reluctant to submit further information because by doing so they would make themselves worse off. The alternative rules are complicated; they do not produce clear, unambiguous figures for each authority, and they would present considerable operational difficulties. I feel that these alternative rules will be a recipe for confusion. I hope that I have answered the question which the noble Lord felt had not been answered.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to intervene, I fear that I do not know what the alternative rules are. I wish to suggest yet another way out if these are not the alternative rules. When a local authority has closed its accounts, and has even sent them to the district auditor but because of the requirements of Ministers up to 7th July it had not forwarded them to the ministry, why should that authority not be recompensed? Why should not the Government accept that? Ministers will need no more information. The information is there, has been there and was there at the time. The fact was merely that it had not been received by the Ministers who had asked for it by a later date. What is wrong with a simple solution of that sort? We know that there are councils in that position. Why can the Government not play fair?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in a second I am hoping very much to come to the points which the noble Lord raised earlier. I shall go on to the points concerning Cardiff. Perhaps I may once again say how grateful I was for the letter that I received from the noble Lord. Of course there will be disappointment on the part of authorities such as Cardiff. I fully understand their position. On the other hand, other authorities have benefited, although they have naturally been rather more reticent in announcing this. One of the key objectives of the closedown proposals was to arrive at a set of simple rules equally applicable to all authorities. I regard a clean break on 6th July, with no exceptions, as the mot equitable and straightforward way of achieving that objective.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales informed all Welsh councils on 15th September of the total expenditure figures which he proposes to determine under the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, I assure noble Lords that in calculating grant entitlement he will take account of all the information which is admissible under the

751
rules in the Bill. If an authority can demonstrate that the figure given to it on 15th September is not the relevant amount, under the rules and legislation my right honourable friend will be able to make a determination accordingly.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, that does not mean a thing.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am sorry. With respect, it does nothing of the sort. The rules contained in the Bill are precisely those under which the city of Cardiff loses £2·3 million. The legal experts in Cardiff have examined this, everybody has looked at it and that is the maximum amount to which they are entitled. I say this to the noble Lord in great friendship: all he is offering me is soft soap; there is nothing in it.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, to use the noble Lord's phrase, the feeling is not one of disappointment but of outrage. A very clear, specific and so far unchallenged attack has been made upon the good faith of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, speaking with all the authority and dignity of a former Prime Minister. If I may say so, he has put his case very fairly. I believe that the Government must answer it properly.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can only add that at closedown on 7th July no authority had made even its unaudited outturn expenditure return to the department. Even if we had waited until 1st August 1988, there would still have been fewer than 40 such returns with the department. One of them was audited. I feel that I cannot go further than what I have said this afternoon. I commend the Bill to the House.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the Motion is formally decided, a very serious charge, which has been supported on both sides of the House, has been made, by my noble friend Lord Callaghan, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Rippon. We appreciate the constitutional position of a money Bill, but I ask the Minister in all seriousness whether he would not be well advised not to press the Second Reading today but to put it off until Monday. Then he could go back to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State and put to him the matters which have been raised this afternoon, not so much from the Opposition Front Bench but from Privy Council Benches. The noble Lord would not risk losing the Bill: we shall not break the constitutional rules. Would he not be well advised to give the Bill three more days?
Lord Diamond: My Lords, before the Motion is formally dealt with, perhaps I may raise a point. I hope that the Minister realises the only reason why there have been two speeches against the proposals in this Bill. All those who have been concerned, as I was privileged to be concerned, when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was Chancellor of the
752
Exchequer—and one must not forget that he speaks in a dual capacity with all his experience—and those on these Benches regret very much that the Government have been guilty of creative legislation.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 7th November), Bill read a third time, and passed.

European Communities (Finance) Bill
4.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is very short. It also appears at first glance, with its Eurospeak of "own resources" and "undertaking(s) … confirmed … within the Council", to be fairly technical in nature. Nevertheless it sets the seal as far as the United Kingdom is concerned on a major review of the European Community's finances and policies.
I should like to start by outlining what that review involved and what its outcome was. Having outlined the context, I shall then explain what the Bill itself does. Finally, if your Lordships wish to raise specific queries, I shall be happy to try to answer them at the end of today's debate.
The future financing review, as it has come to be known, started in February of last year with the publication by the European Commission of a wide-ranging package of proposals. Those proposals contained both good and bad features as far as the United Kingdom was concerned. On the plus side they included measures to keep spending within agreed limits and in particular to tighten up control of the common agricultural policy. But the Commission was also looking for an increase of almost 50 per cent. in the ceiling of contributions to the Community budget, a large cut in the abatement of the UK's contributions which had been agreed at Fontainebleau in 1984 and a tax on oils and fats. The proposals also involved changes in the way budget contributions are calculated and a large increase in the Community's structural funds.
We made clear in the negotiations that followed: first, that any further increase in resources must be accompanied by effective and legally binding controls on spending; secondly, that agricultural surpluses must be reduced; thirdly, that the Fontainebleau abatement must not be diluted; fourthly, that there should be no oils and fats tax; and finally, that all the issues at stake had to be settled together. We could not agree to some parts of the proposals and leave the rest till later.
Not all member states shared these aims. Few were as committed as we were at the outset, for example, to bringing agricultural and other expenditure under

753
tighter control; some took the view that the Fontainebleuau abatement should be phased out.
I might add in passing that when we debated the Commission's proposals here almost exactly a year ago, following a report by the committee chaired so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, we were urged in some quarters to modify our objectives and to be more flexible in the interests of obtaining a satisfactory settlement. Well of course some flexibility is always needed in negotiations of this sort, but so is firmness. And I am pleased to say that by combining flexibility and firmness we achieved in the end all of the main objectives which I have just outlined.
That result was eventually achieved, after long negotiations, at the Brussels European Council in February of this year. After further discussions, a series of legal measures was agreed by the Council by June of this year to give effect to that agreement. The agreement was a wide-ranging one and it needs to be seen as a whole. I should therefore like, if I may, to give a few words of explanation about the main elements in that package.
The key area is of course reform of the CAP—control of agricultural spending and reduction in agricultural surpluses. The February package includes five major improvements. First, the guideline limit for agricultural spending is now legally binding. It will grow at no more than 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community GNP. which is likely to mean a real growth of around 2 per cent. a year, compared with real growth of 10 per cent. a year between 1984 and 1987.
Secondly, the loophole whereby the guideline could be exceeded in so called "exceptional circumstances" has been closed. In its place there is a monetary reserve of up to 1 billion ecu to cover extra costs if the dollar depreciates substantially. This money will only he called up if needed. And the reserve will work both ways so that provision for agriculture will be reduced if the dollar appreciates. The reserve is not expected to be used in 1988 and on current estimates we would expect reduced spending in 1989.
Thirdly, the Commission is monitoring spending each month for each main agricultural regime. When there is a risk of overspending, the Commission and, where necessary, the Council will take the requisite action.
Fourthly, automatic stabilisers have been introduced to control expenditure on all the main products. The stabilisers generally take the form of automatic price cuts if production exceeds agreed maximum quantities.
Finally, new stocks are from now on being depreciated systematically in the year of purchase, with special funds set aside to pay for the disposal of existing stocks. This should produce a normal stock situation by 1992.
Control of other expenditure was part of the package. It was agreed that there would be a series of legally binding sub-ceilings or annual limits on resources which would constrain the totality of spending. And an interinstitutional agreement was
754
reached between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament under which all three institutions bound themselves to respect ceilings on each major area of Community spending up until 1992.
Budget management is another area where we pressed successfully for improvements to the previous arrangements. For example, provision for expenditure should now generally be weeded out of the budget, if it is not used, rather than being carried over automatically from one year to the next.
The package also involved changes to the regional, social and agricultural guidance funds—the structural funds. There will be an 80 per cent. increase in the funds between 1987 and I 992— a significant increase, albeit less rapid than that originally proposed by the Commission. And the funds will be better targeted. Although a large part of the funds will rightly be concentrated on the poorest regions. the UK can expect to continue to be a major beneficiary from the main fields of structural fund activity, to the tune of over —750 million a year.
I turn now to the area of own resources or contributions to the Community budget. The most important changes made by the European Council were as follows: first, an increase in the limit on own resources. This will be set at 1.2 per cent. of the Community's gross national product, with as I have already mentioned—annual sub-ceilings rising from 1.15 per cent. in 1988 to 1.2 per cent. in 1992. The increase in the ceiling represents an overall increase in resources available to the Community of some 25 per cent. This compares with an increase proposed by the Commission approaching 50 per cent. We now have a ceiling that will last until 1992 at least.
Secondly, a change in the basis for calculating member states' contributions of own resources. In particular, the base in each member state on which its contributions of VAT own resources are calculated will be "capped" at, or deemed not to exceed, 55 per cent. of its GNP—thus reducing the VAT contributions of some member states, including the UK. And there will be a new "fourth" resource based directly on shares in Community GNP. These changes are a welcome improvement from the point of view of the Community as a whole, as they will relate contributions to the budget more closely to national prosperity.
Thirdly, the Fontainebleau abatement system will be retained intact. Technically, it will be modified to bring it into line with the new structure of own resources. Thus our abatement will be reduced to the extent that we benefit from the capping of our VAT base and the introduction of GNP contributions. The overall effect, however, is that we shall be no better or worse off than we would have been with the continuation of the original Fontainebleau abatement system and old-style VAT financing (though with an increase in the VAT ceiling).
The last major element in the package was an intergovernmental agreement, or IGA for short, to provide extra funds for the 1988 budget. Noble Lords may ask why such extra money is needed The answer is that the February European Council agreement

755
covered the Community's revenue, expenditure policies and budgetary controls for the years 1988 to 1992. The 1988 budget therefore needed to be settled in a way consistent with that agreement. But it was known that the various national procedures for approving the new own resources arrangements could take some time to complete. The governments of the member states—as opposed to the Council of Ministers—therefore entered into an inter-governmental agreement to provide the sums needed to balance the year's budget until such time as the new rules on own resources would legally come into force.
The IGA amounts to some 7 billion ecu, of which around 1 billion ecu relates to the monetary reserve for agriculture which in practice we do not now expect to be needed this year. The UK's share of the IGA, excluding any contributions to the monetary reserve, is likely to be around £610 to £620 million. Our net contribution will, of course, be lower than this because of the extra receipts we shall obtain, as well as higher abatement of our contributions in 1989.
I have described the main elements of the whole package agreed by the European Council in February because that package needs to be seen as a whole; it stands or falls as a whole, and the Bill is therefore in a sense seeking Parliament's endorsement of the whole package. I should now like to explain more specifically why the Bill is necessary and what the main elements in it seek to achieve.
I have already mentioned that legal measures to implement the European Council's conclusions were agreed by June of this year. Most of the measures came into force once the Council of Ministers had adopted them. But the position is rather different for the Council decision on the own resources system which provides for the increase in the own resources ceiling, the restructuring of own resources contributions and the preservation intact of the Fontainebleau abatement system. Under the Treaty of Rome, the new own resources decision requires not only the unanimous agreement of the Council, but approval by member states:
"in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
The first thing that this Bill does therefore is to seek Parliament's approval for that decision, which we have published as a Command paper.
Technically, the Bill aims to do this in very much the same way as approval was obtained for the current own resources decision in 1985. It would add the new decision to the list of treaties in the 1972 European Communities Act. This would have the effect of allowing payments under the new decision to be charged directly on the Consolidated Fund. as payments under the current decision are.
The second main element of the Bill is to seek Parliamentary approval for payments under the IGA—also published as a Command paper—by adding that IGA to the list of treaties in the 1972 Act. Again, the legislative procedure is similar to that used in 1985 to obtain approval for an IGA to help finance that year's budget.
I began these remarks by commenting that this Bill appears at first sight to be rather technical. In some
756
senses it is, but I hope I have said enough to show that it is also an important measure both for this country and for the European Community as a whole. if passed, the Bill would give approval to a new decision on own resources which brings the structure of contributions more into line with member states' ability to pay and which preserves intact our Fontainebleau abatement. The Fontainebleau system has worked well up to now, producing abatements of around £4·5 billion by the end of the year. The Bill will also enable payments to be made under the IGA which ended the uncertainty over the 1988 budget and allows the reforms agreed in February to be put into effect from this year. Finally, it will implicitly set the seal of approval on the whole range of measures agreed at the February European Council, including the much needed introduction of legally-binding controls on CAP spending. As such, I commend the Bill to your Lordships and trust that you will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for having explained his Bill. I should like to say at the outset how much we appreciated the introduction of the Bill in another place by the Foreign Secretary, who said:
"I reject the argument that it is wrong for us ever to shift our views for the sake of a common position. If 12 nations are to make the most of their separate resources and talents, each must be ready to join in the search for agreement. But equally, I reject the argument that it is somehow bad form within the Community to fight for what we think right".—[Official Report, Commons, II/7/88; col. 43].
We on this side of the House accept those words of the Foreign Secretary as representing the way in which we also would wish to address the Bill that we have before us this afternoon. The Bill is a Money Bill because, presumably, it deals with money. I cannot say that I accept the reasons that have so far been advanced for the Bill to be treated as a Money Bill, but it has been so certified by the Speaker in another place. All I wish to do about that aspect of the matter is to reserve the Opposition's position as to the true definition of Money Bills that come before this place from time to time.
As the noble Lord correctly pointed out, the Bill seeks to amend the European Communities Act 1972 in the same way as the European Communities (Finance) Act 1985 amended the Act of 1972 immediately following the Fontainebleau Agreement. Our understanding of the position at that time—and we ventured to articulate that understanding—led us to question whether the binding budgetary procedures, the new strict financial controls that were to emerge as a result of Fontainebleau, would be effective. It is because of the inadequacies of Fontainebleau that this Bill is before us this afternoon, particularly in so far as it deals with the 1988 budget and the overspending in the two previous years, contrary to the undertakings given at Fontainebleau.
We are talking about very serious matters involving the expenditure of considerable sums of taxpayers' money. I shall return to the term "taxpayers' money" with some emphasis a little later

757
on in the remarks that I shall address to the House. It is quite clear that the Bill does far more than, as the noble Lord indicated, merely to make up the shortcomings of Fontainebleau. It sets out expenditure for the four years to 1992.
In another place there is a well-known procedure of reviewing, arguing about, assessing the merits of and determining priorities for various items of government expenditure. That is done by presenting the Estimates to Parliament and by going through the Votes. As the noble Lord must know, much argument and disputation occurs when that happens in another place. There is normally a further round of such debates on individual Estimates when Supplementary Estimates are presented in the spring.
Here we have a situation in which the right of Parliament to discuss the merits and importance of the expenditure of very large sums of money on an annual basis is denied it. The Bill prevents Parliament from discussing those very large sums of money. Later on I shall give precise particulars of those sums as supplied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
An endeavour was made in another place to allow the somewhat abstruse provisions of the decision of the Council of Ministers to be incorporated as a schedule to the Bill. That was an innocent enough request. It was perfectly in order. This country's fortunes, to the tune of quite a few billion pounds over the next four years, are to be determined by the provisions of a decision. We requested in another place that that should be incorporated as Schedule 1 to the Bill. Even that request was denied.
If noble Lords will turn to Article 3 of the decision they will find a complete justification for the statement I have just made. The net contribution of the United Kingdom to the European Community is laid down in Article 3. Noble Lords will also find at col. 43 of the Commons Hansard of 24th October particulars of the intergovernmental agreement and the calculated contribution of the United Kingdom towards the deficiencies that have emerged in European budgets by virtue of the Fontainebleau Agreement having been ineffective.
Note 2 to the inter-governmental agreement states:
"The amounts paid by each Member State constitute non-repayable advances".
I shall invite the noble Lord to explain the term "non-repayable advances". If one advances someone some money one expects it to be repaid; otherwise it is not an advance. The term "non-repayable advance" seems to be one of those remarkable examples of European jargon which in these particular circumstances stems from the fact that under the Treaty of Rome the Commission is not allowed to borrow money. Therefore it has to be a non-repayable advance. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to elucidate that point a little further.
What are we committed to in financial terms as a result of those abstruse calculations the basic essence of which has already been given by the noble Lord most lucidly in the early part of his remarks? I shall tell the House just what it will cost the United Kingdom in terms of taxpayers' money over the next three years. They are not fanciful estimates pulled out
758
of my imagination, fertile though it is, some tell me. They are firm statements by the Chancellor which were annexed to his recent Autumn Statement.
The figures that I give to the House are net contributions by the United Kingdom after taking account of all receipts, including the abatements by which the noble Lord sets so much store. He mentioned that the abatements had saved the United Kingdom £4,000 million over the past few years, but I think that it would have been franker for him at the same time to say that even after taking into account those abatements and every other receipt, it has cost the United Kingdom £8,000 million over the past seven or eight years.
I turn to the contribution which the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks will result from the application of the Bill that is before us and the decision of the Council which it purports to implement. In the year 1989–90 the net contribution by the United Kingdom to the European Communities will amount to £1,970 million; in 1990–91 it will be £1,950 million—20 million less—and in 1991–92 it will be £1,580 million. I shall deal with the implications of those figures a little later, but they represent the net contribution to the European Communities from United Kingdom taxpayers' money. One is surely entitled to ask why it should be necessary for the United Kingdom to make those sums of taxpayers' money payable to the European Communities.
Over the past few days we have heard a lot about taxpayers' money. This House was discussing taxpayers' money in excelsis when, by a sudden influx of a great number of colleagues whom we had not seen for a long time, your Lordships succeeded in overturning a former decision of the House in order to make some charges for spectacles and dental treatment. That was deemed to be a vital matter of government expenditure that struck right at the roots of the stability of the United Kingdom's financial system.
We have had plenty of other instances. Every time some relief is sought, albeit for the humbler sections of our society—for example, in respect of homelessness, additions to the National Health Service and a whole series of matters—we are told that it is a matter of scarce resources that must be husbanded. That has been reflected, for example, in decisions to cut the number of coastguards around the United Kingdom, or the number of Customs and Excise officials, whose numbers go up and down like a yo-yo according to the will of the Prime Minister, and indeed in other matters. As your Lordships will recall, in the course of a very moving speech made by a noble Lord opposite whose name escapes me for the moment, even in order to safeguard our coastline on the eastern coast a grant of £5 million was refused.
Yet we are invited to pass this precommitment as a Money Bill without any further question. Perhaps we ought to bear in mind the words of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who addressed this House a couple of nights ago on the vital nature of conserving taxpayers' money. He said:
"It is not right to say that £120 million is chicken-feed. I once resigned high office for half that figure". [Official Report, 8/11/88; col. 561.]

759
What will he say about £1,970 million! If £120 million precipitated his resignation, I imagine that a sum of £1,970 million would give him apoplexy. The whole thing is quite ridiculous.
In addition to the question of the general scarcity of taxpayers' money for all projects which the Government do not like because they hate the welfare state and dislike providing money for those who are in much reduced circumstances, there is value for money to be considered. I am sure your Lordships will agree immediately that £1,970 million or thereabouts—because I can give or take £20 million or so—is not insignificant expenditure. Surely any prudent government want to seek value for money. We have been told so many times.
There has been local government legislation whereby local authorities have had to put services out to tender in order to be quite sure that the country gets real value for money. Detailed investigations are made into the question and working parties are set up to see whether value for money is being obtained. I want the noble Lord to apply his mind to consider what value we derive from the EC. For that matter, it concerns any noble Lord who has any sense of fairness as distinct from a rather ethereal belief in the star of the EC, with which as an organisation we are not concerned.
I can immediately think of one response to that question; namely, "Ah, but look how much of our trade is with the EC. It is so important that we should remain in such close association with the EC. Look at the benefits we get by reason of most of our trade being done with the EC". That could be so, but if subscriptions will be based on the degree of trade that one country does with another, someone from the EC ought to be paying an astronomical sum to the United Kingdom for the exports it sends here, which are our imports. Far from the United Kingdom being dependent on the EC for trade, the EC is dependent on us. At the present time our trade deficit with the EC is running at the rate of over £10 billion a year. Are we then to pay another subscription of nearly £2 billion to safeguard our right to import in vast quantities from the EC? No—that horse will not ride.
Let us look at this matter from another angle—from the point of view of cost-effectiveness. Those words come very easily from the party opposite when anything in the social field or even economic or environmental matters are under discussion. Is the expenditure of this money—taxpayers' money—cost-effective? To that of course we cannot get any reply from the Government because they have not even studied the matter. They do not even know whether it is cost-effective or not. They do not even pay attention in detail to the reports that come from the Court of Auditors year by year. They spend about half an hour looking at them; that is all. If they do not know what the cost-effectiveness is, I can tell your Lordships that the people of the United Kingdom know what the cost is to them.
During the Recess a report was produced by the National Consumer Council. It was conveniently done in the Recess when Parliament was not sitting and it largely passed its notice, but happily not that
760
of the press at large. With an amazing degree of agreement the press of this country from the Right—to wit, the Sun newspaper—to the Guardian, the Independent, The Times they all denounced the common agricultural policy by virtue of which every household in the United Kingdom pays between £11 and £12 a week extra in food costs.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I am following his remarks with close attention and I wonder why, if our membership of the Community is quite as damaging as he suggests, the Labour Party has decided to abandon its policy of withdrawing from the Community.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have not sought in any way to damage the European Community. I am asking the Government to answer perfectly simple questions. I have made no denunciation of the EC. Indeed, so far as concerns certain of the expenditure in which the United Kingdom is involved, I applaud it, as I do, for example, the EC expenditure on research to which we contribute, and in particular the fusion project called JET at Culham, about which incidentally the Government now have cold feet and have abandoned their enthusiasm.
To return to where I was before the noble Lord intervened, between £10 and £12 a week extra for a family of four is being paid as a result of the common agricultural policy. That is the people's answer, and certainly the answer of the press to this proposition. It may well be said that under the new agreement—which they did not want to put in as a schedule to the Bill—the common agricultural policy will gradually whittle away. Not a bit of it.
If the noble Lord looks at his own explanatory memorandum of the 1988 and 1989 budget he will find that expenditure there on the EAGGF is still running at over £19 million in 1988. There is no real change. It is indeed implicit in the figures that the Chancellor set out in his Autumn Statement that the common agricultural policy will continue.
The noble Lord may say that Her Majesty's Government are quite determined that the common agricultural policy shall be kept under rigid control. They said so at the time of Fontainebleau. It has not happened. But let us say that the Government—and there have been certain restive opinions in the higher quarters of government about the EC over the past fortnight or so—decided that they wanted to modify the EC common agricultural policy. Under the Treaty they could not do so. The Council of Ministers cannot originate proposals. Proposals can only be originated by the Commission. If the Commission does not make a proposal for the reform of the agricultural policy the Council cannot even consider it.
The only powers that the Council has under the Treaty—and they appear in Article 145—are in fact by unanimous agreement to amend the Treaty itself. Does anybody think for one moment that the Commission, as at present constituted, based upon the Continent and fundamentally part of Brussels, will produce a proposal to the Council for the reform

761
of the common agricultural policy? I had the honour to represent this House there from 1975 to 1979. The reform of the common agricultural policy has been a cry by every political party in the European Parliament, and still is. What chances are there of reform?
Under the Bill the Government have regrettably boxed themselves in. They have committed us to billions of pounds of expenditure out of taxpayers' money, and they themselves are powerless to avoid the consequences of the agricultural policy both in terms of prices to the consumer and in terms of the tax that the ordinary British taxpayer—and not only payers of income tax but indirect taxation as well—is called upon to bear.
In the normal way if this were not a Money Bill and I still have my reservations about that—we should not have the slightest hesitation in advising the House to send it back to another place. I am afraid that we cannot do that, but on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches I enter a protest at a Bill of this kind being initiated by any British Government that have the interests of the whole nation at heart.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the noble Lord who has just spoken to us for some time. I learned an interesting fact from his speech. In the light of his response to the intervention of my noble friend, I gather that we must regard that speech as in favour of the EC. I gather that we must take that speech as being a testament of faith by the Labour Party in the European Community. I also learned that government money was taxpayers' money. It would be serious if government money was something else.
I shall come to the CAP a little later in the few remarks that I propose to make, but I should remind the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that the deficiencies of the CAP, about which we whinge so much in this country, are largely due to the fact that when the common agricultural policy was developed we were not there. If you do not join a club at the beginning you will find that other people will make rules in your absence.
However, the real gravamen of the noble Lord's speech was a question and not an answer. The question was: what value do you get out of the EC? My view of that should emerge in the course of my remarks, but what was noticeable in the noble Lord's speech was that he did not indicate any alternative to the EC that would give us better value. There was not the glimmer of a constructive proposal in any single sentence that he uttered.
I am surprised that a member of the Labour Party should not see some value in the structural fund devoted to the poorer regions of Europe. It is surely something from which we in this country can benefit, and from which the other poorer regions of the Community can benefit.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? Why does the noble Lord think that it is
762
amazing to want to get rid of this crass burden of the common agricultural policy? This is agreed by all people from the City down to the smallest businessman. Why must we not dare to criticise it or want to get rid of it until we have some alternative? It is like advising someone who has cancer to make sure that they get some other terrible illness before the cancer is treated.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I do not regard the European Community to be like cancer! I do not object to the noble Lord saying that he would like to reform the common agricultural policy. What I object to is the tenor of totally negative criticism of the EC and all its works.
I and my colleagues on these Benches welcome the Bill as a further step in the integration of Europe. We welcome it for the following reasons. It increases the resources at the disposal of the EC—I am sure that in this respect I have the support of noble Lords on the Labour Benches; it sets an absolute limit on agricultural expenditure in 1988; it arranges that the sums agreed by the 1GA are fixed as a proportion of GNP, which we have advocated for many years; and it doubles the funds available for the structural fund. All that involves some sacrifice of sovereignty. I do not think that one can have one without the other. They are all steps in the right direction and each step is one that we support.
What is more difficult to follow, and what I should like to know, is why there has been such a fuss about these matters; and why a package presented in Copenhagen at the end of last year and rejected out of hand by the Prime Minister was accepted about three months later in much the same form in Brussels. What lies at the back of the Prime Minister's tactics and her attitude to the single European market? It appears to be a continuing reluctance—one which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, would share—to accept the nature of the European Community and the way in which it will develop. It is that which lies behind the Bruges speech and the views that she expressed to the Italian Prime Minister when she met him in Italy.
Indeed, when I read through the Bruges speech it reminded me very strongly of a speech made almost 30 years ago by Reginald Maudling on the breakdown of the free trade area negotiations. His response to the suggestion, made from the Liberal Benches at the time, that we should join the European Community used almost precisely the same arguments as those deployed by the Prime Minister. There was only one that she did not use that he used—the Commonwealth which was then a very controversial matter.
Mr. Maudling said in that speech that if we joined the EC it would mean interference with our economic and social policies and involve a loss of sovereignty. He said that to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal political federation in Europe, including ourselves. Indeed, the Bruges speech was a marvellous free trade area oration. But, as Mr. Maudling 30 years ago recognised, the European Community is not simply a free trade area. Since than we have signed the Treaty of Rome. It is

763
central to the Treaty of Rome that it demands a sacrifice of sovereignty. It made this demand—this is perhaps one of the things that we have got out of the European Community that we must bear in mind—because the European Community was never simply a free trade area; it was inspired by political purposes. The chief political purpose that inspired it was to prevent the outbreak of another European civil war. The chief political objective was to amalgamate the countries of Western Europe in a unity that could never be un-scrambled. The technique was to do this by what Mr. Monnet termed "functional means". That is one of the advantages that we can say we have got out of it.
It also recognised that in the 20th century a middle sized nation state can protect neither itself nor its interests by itself. For example, this country needs, requires and has been provided with a much larger trading area within the EC. When one considers nuclear power, pollution of the environment or satellite television one finds in every case that the opportunities that those technologies offer and the dangers that they present cannot be effectively dealt with within the framework of a middle sized nation state. This means that if one is to deal with these things, take these opportunities and avoid these dangers one has to accept an abrogation of sovereignty.
Refusal to recognise this has already led recently to a refusal to join the EMS and to the dismissal of the idea of a central bank, a common currency and so on.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the United Kingdom was a founder member of the EMS? It merely has not joined the ERM part of it.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, that was the germane point!
I regard the consequence of those failures as likely to be serious. Most people who think that we should have joined the European Community are of the view that we should have done better if we had joined it earlier and had been in the Messina conversations; they think that we should have done better if we had tried to join the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom had applied to join the EC in 1958–59.
It is commonly said that we missed the bus. The fact of the matter is that "missing the bus" is not merely a phrase; it actually means that the people who catch the bus get there before you. If you catch a later bus, you will find that they have arranged the picnic and you will have no control over what you eat. I hope that we will not repeat that mistake. I repeat, one of the consequences of missing the bus in the early days was that the common agricultural policy was formed in our absence. Had we been there it would have taken a very different shape and complexion. We cannot afford to do that again in my view. If we refuse to associate ourselves with the EMS, the formation of a central bank and a common currency, we shall find that the others go ahead leaving us outside.
764
Sir Geoffrey Howe, talking on this Bill in another place, spoke of a free market in financial services. He said:
"It will be a major boon to the City of London". [Official Report, Commons, 11/7188; col. 44.]
If we refuse to participate in setting up a central bank I imagine that it will go to Frankfurt, and the City of London as the third centre of finance in the world will be in jeopardy.
Noble Lords must recognise that we are living in a tri-polar world. We cannot get out of that. Whether one considers defence and foreign policy or commerce and economics, we are in a tri-polar world. In defence it is the United States, the USSR and Europe; in finance and economics it is the United States, Japan and Europe. British influence can best be exercised and British interests best preserved in our view by working within the European Community rather than behaving like a grumbling fringe member.
One area that has not been mentioned I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, did not raise it—in which British influence should be exercised in the Commission's affairs is in connection with Commission bureaucracy, so often attacked not so much because of its size, but there seems to be an absence of democratic control over the Commission. The only way that can be dealt with is by a serious attempt to reform both the procedures of the Council of Ministers and of the European Parliament. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, no.
Lord Bonham-Carter: The noble Lord was looking interested, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for having given way, merely on the basis of an expression on my face. That is extremely charming of him. Would he consider that any amendments to the powers of the Commission require an amendment to the Treaty of Rome? That requires unanimous consent of all the members of the Community. Does the noble Lord envisage that the Commission will bring forward proposals to the Council for limiting its own powers?
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I was envisaging that the Single European Act would be followed by further extensions in the powers of the European Parliament. I see no reason whatsoever why that should not occur. I was also envisaging that the activities of the Council of Ministers should be public and not private. That seems to me an essential element in the democratisation of the EC. But the present proposals which M. Delors has floated seem to me to be entirely in accordance with the original purposes of M. Monnet, that is of creating a community and not a federation (as is sometimes said) by functional means. That is to say it would be achieved by developing economic and financial cooperation which in turn will then be matched by political development.

765
It is my view that the Bill is a step in that direction. I hope that it will be followed by other legislation along the lines which I have suggested so that the political developments which are essential should be allowed to go forward with the support and not the hindrance of this country.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Jay: My Lords, the Minister naturally put the best face he could on the package which is now before us. I should like briefly to consider some of its longer term implications. What the Bill does is to increase by 25 per cent. the level of taxation which the EC imposes on its own people—a lasting increase, according to the Explanatory Memorandum—of from £200 million to £300 million in the contribution from the UK taxpayer and a special levy, according to the Bill, of £765 million, although I think the Minister said £600 million this year from the United Kingdom, disguised, as my noble friend said, as a non-repayable advance authorised by the subterfuge of an intergovernment agreement outside the machinery of the EC.
I can congratulate the Government on one matter and that is that at least this time they have embodied the latter in a Bill and have not tried, as they did earlier, to slip it through by an order pretending that it constitutes a treaty. We have heard much about creative accountancy this afternoon; but I think that was an example of creative legislation. However, that has been improved.
The Government's surrender last February to this further huge increase in EC budget expenditure represents, I fear, the end of the last hope that the common agricultural policy—despite the minor easements which have been made—would ever be basically reformed or its main economic damages curtailed. After all, 72 per cent. of this huge spending is still swallowed up by the CAP. The CAP alone costs an astonishing £18 billion a year. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, went into some past history and I recall that once we were told that at the time of the 1975 referendum, that spending on the CAP would be limited to the level of 1 per cent. of VAT revenue. Then we were assured in the next stage that the absolute limit would be 1.4 per cent. of VAT revenue. In fact the only real hope of ever putting an effective ceiling on EC extravagance was to have stuck to that 1.4 per cent. limit.
But the Prime Minister's capitulation last February—I know it was in the middle of the night and I do not believe that that is an adequate excuse—has destroyed that hope and we are now faced with this huge increase in the annual payment made by the UK taxpayer to Brussels.
The CAP as practised by the professed free traders in Brussels, who talk a great deal about competition, is the most extremely damaging form of protectionism yet known. Not merely are the food supplies imported into this country for the UK consumer heavily, indeed penally, taxed, but many essential food imports from outside the EC are directly prohibited, which hitherto was an almost unknown form of protectionism. As a result we are
766
all now paying far more than the world price for our food. The Commission is so ashamed of the gap between EC and world food prices that it has now ceased to publish the exact statistics. But the figures it produced earlier showed that EC food prices are usually and in most cases at least double world food prices.
In recent years, with a few gaps up and down as the dollar rose or fell, EC cereal and meat prices have on average been 100 per cent. above world prices. Dairy products have been 300 per cent. higher. If the Minister has the up-to-date figures I shall be delighted to hear them. We now have the authoritative estimate not merely of the National Consumer Council, but also of our own British Treasury in a document, rather oddly called the Treasury Economic Progress Report, which tells us that every UK consumer is now paying about £3 a week more for food and a family £10 or £12 a week more than they would have paid outside the EC.
This heavy burden, which is a tax though a hidden one, on our economy takes the form partly of a loss in real living standards—particularly of those worst off who are most affected by food prices—and partly of a rise in pay rates and so in the labour costs of all UK producers. Higher food prices of' course mean higher pay rates.
The study quoted in this Treasury document also estimates that about half a million of the rise in UK unemployment since 1970 is due to this rise in our production costs. That is the study's estimate and not mine. That rise is also one major cause of the extraordinary swing into deficit of our trade with the EC which in the case of manufactured goods has reached a level of £12 billion or £15 billion a year and is, incidentally, the whole cause of our present overall balance of payments deficit. With the non-EC world we have a large trade surplus.
As one would expect from these food price figures there was a sharp drop in consumption per head of the main foodstuffs by the British consumer in the first ten years after the introduction of the CAP. These figures come from the National Food Survey. That amounted to a drop of between 10 per cent. to 30 per cent., in the consumption of many foods such as milk, meat, butter, eggs and some others, and a fall in living standards.
It is often said that there are surpluses of those food commodities. But there are not surpluses at all in the sense of producing more of the food which is needed or wanted by the public. The trouble is that the prices are much too high for the consumer to pay. If CAP prices were allowed to fall to world prices, the surplus would soon disappear. Indeed, one can produce surpluses of anything by charging two or three times the market price. One would then be recommended to stop producing the goods in order to avoid the surpluses.
Before the United Kingdom joined the EC we paid farmers a moderate deficiency payment to keep food prices down. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, did not refer to that item of past history. Now, as a result of the increases, the United Kingdom taxpayer will be paying approximately £1 billion per year in order to keep prices up, so damaging our industrial

767
costs and indirectly our balance of payments. How better the extra sums whether £200 million, £300 million or £765 million—might have been spent on other things, as my noble friend suggested, such as child benefit, housing, education or whatever.
We cannot oppose the Bill and now that we have accepted an even heavier load on our future balance of payments we must fear and expect that the burden will be permanent and will grow heavier year by year as the EC's huge spending on the CAP continues to increase. Although there is said to be a limit, it is one which increases all the time.
The load on our balance of payments is threefold. There is the excess price of food imports over and above what they would otherwise be, the higher cost of producing our exports and the Budget payment across the exchanges. That threefold load is certain to be one main element in the ever-increasing deficit in the balance of payments which this country will almost certainly face in the 1990s as our oil revenues fade away. In my view it will be our main national problem during that decade.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, it is difficult not to contrast the relaxed way in which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, put forward the Bill today with the spirited opposition to the perpetuation of this House's decision to exempt people from charges for dental and eye examinations. It is difficult to reconcile the Government's attitude. At one fell swoop, and without much opposition, the Bill proposes to increase the amount of money available to the EC by £775 million beyond the enormous amount they already spend. That is five times as much as the cost of continuing with free dental and eye examinations for the population as a whole and 30 times as much as the cost of granting that benefit to pensioners. The Government voted against that proposal in the same way as they voted against the general proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, believes that it is a good deal. It is clear that my noble friend Lord Bruce does not believe that it is a good deal; the House will he aware that I do not believe that it is a good deal. We are not the only ones to think so, because The Times published a leading article headed "A bad deal". This is the last time that I shall quote from a publication. The first paragraph of the article stated:
"It is hard to accept the Prime Minister's assertion that the EEC Deal she struck in Brussels was not a fudge. She came closer to the mark when she said, 'It was not too had'. It is nearer still the truth to call it 'a had deal'.".
It is not only the Labour Party which believes that it is a bad deal. It is not only my noble friends who believe that it is a bad deal.The Times, which is not usually friendly towards the Labour Party, particularly recently, also believes that it is a bad deal. Of course it is a bad deal like so many of the others which have been struck by this and previous governments. It imposes on the British taxpayer depredations over and above those which have already been imposed.
768
My noble friend gave the figure for this year. After rebate it will be £1,690 million. He was right to ask what benefits we receive from that payment. It will be an ongoing payment; the figures will continue each year. The total amount of expenditure which has been taken outside the purview of Parliament is much more than that; it is more than £5,000 million per year. That is the extent to which Parliament is losing control of much of the expenditure.
The Government believe and say that they want value for money and that they wish to target resources. Are we receiving value for money from the EC? Anyone who studies the matter and who thinks about it knows perfectly well that we are not receiving value for money. Is it the right targeting of expenditure to subsidise those countries in Europe which do not need it? For years we have been making a net contribution to the French. That is hardly targeting, bearing in mind that their gross national product is higher than ours.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, accused us of whingeing about the CAP. Until now I had believed that we were all against the CAP. I have heard Members from all sides of the House and in another place condemning the CAP out of hand. It is an absurd method of dealing with an agricultural policy. Apparently the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has been converted in its favour and we shall take note of that.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, if the noble Lord reads Hansard he will not find that I am converted to the CAP. I said that the form which it took was largely due to the fact that we were not there at the time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I undertood him to say that we were whingeing about the CAP. If one whinges about something one is opposed to it; if one accuses others of whingeing about it, presumably one is for it. However, I accept his explanation.
However, the fact is that we receive nothing from the CAP. My noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Jay have already told the House that housewives are paying an additional £13.50 per week in food costs because we are members of the EC. We have also been told that we are running an overseas trade deficit in manufactured goods of anything between £11 billion and £13 billion per year. In fact the total deficit since we joined the Common Market is running at £50,000 million. If we did not have North Sea oil we should now not only be bankrupt through being a member of the EC but we should be living at a standard equivalent to a third world country. That is the extent of the "benefits" that we are receiving from the EC.
We were told that we must join this great trading bloc because it would help us. However, if you are running a deficit of £13,000 million per year and you are going to do that every year, that is the road to ruin and not to riches, believe me. However, we were also told—and we heard some of the arguments again this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord BonhamCarter—that when we joined we would receive these

769
great benefits of additional wages, additional employment and so on which have not come to fruition.
However, even I, who have been opposed to our membership of the Common Market since it was promoted or projected, believed that the farming community would thrive under it. Is it thriving? Of course not. Farmers are now going out of business every week. Those who are not going out of business are being told that they must no longer farm and must take their land out of production; they are being paid for that out of the money which we are voting this afternoon.
Therefore, let us see where the benefit is. We have asked for a balance sheet to be produced of the benefits that we receive from the Common Market and the detriments. Nobody has yet been able to produce the benefits; I can produce the detriments. I have been doing that today. However, nobody has ever been able to say what are the benefits except in abstruse terms which ordinary people do not understand.
The Prime Minister has made a number of interesting speeches lately. Indeed, she has realised and recognised, perhaps not in time, where we are going. She is beginning to understand that M. Jacques Delors is not a joke and that this latter-day Napoleon is serious about his intentions to ensure that 80 per cent. of decisions, not only fiscal but also economical and social, are being taken in Europe. Let us make no mistake about that. If that comes about—and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, wants that to come about as he showed in his speech—this Parliament, this House but more seriously another place, will lose 80 per cent. of its sovereignty. Is that what your Lordships wish? I think not.
I must praise the Prime Minister for having the guts—because it needed guts—to make the statement which she did at Bruges, because she knew that to some degree she had to go back on previous statements which she had made in support for the single European Act which was forced though this Parliament. It took a lot of courage to do that. That is why I believe she should be given a fair hearing, and, where necessary to ensure the continued sovereignty of the Queen in this Parliament, she should be given support.
There are forces afoot. A Member of this House, namely the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, believes that M. Delors is right. We shall have to see exactly who wins in the long term. I hope that we shall have more debates about the Common Market. I wish that we had the same sort of system as the other place, because they have a six-monthly progress report on developments in the EC. The more we understand the Community, the more wary we shall be of what we do within it.
As I said at the outset, I believe that this is a bad Bill. It contributes to bad Bills and bad measures which we have had in the past. In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to reply to this question. It has been said that the arrangements made at Fontainebleau for our rebate will end in
770
1992. If that is so and new rebate arrangements cannot be agreed, the amount of money which we shall be paying over will he quite astronomical. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me and assure the House that the Fontainebleau agreements will not be overturned and that our rebates will continue, because to some degree that will mitigate and minimise the amount of money we pay over to an avaricious EC and the Commission which controls it.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there is no doubt that we have had an interesting debate this afternoon. That comes as no surprise to me having taken part in last year's debate on the financing of the Community. Noble Lords have referred to a number of aspects of this Bill, some of which I also touched upon in my opening remarks. However. I should like to try to answer some of the points raised this afternoon.
Perhaps I could first deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, as to why this is a money Bill. The Parliament Act defines a money Bill as a public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker contains only provisions dealing with all or any of a number of financial matters including taxation and the imposition of charges on the Consolidated Fund. As the explanatory and financial memorandum to this Bill makes clear, it allows payments to be charged directly on the Consolidated Fund and therefore falls clearly within the definition of a money Bill.
Some noble Lords asked, most notably the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, whether or not the budget is now on a sound financial footing or why the new spending controls should be any more effective than those agreed after Fontainebleau in 1984. Those are fair questions although I suspect that some noble Lords may have intended them to be rhetorical ones. There are a number of good reasons why the new arrangements are an improvement on their predecessors. Many of the concerns expressed have understandably focused on agricultural spending. The noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Bruce, referred to the high cost of food prices under the CAP. It was precisely because of the problems associated with the CAP that in the recent negotiations the Government successfully pressed for control of CAP spending and a reduction of surpluses.
First, there is the guideline limit on agricultural expenditure. Yes, there was a guideline before, but previously it was set out in informal Council conclusions. Now it is embodied in a legally-binding Council decision and it will in future grow at 74 per cent. of the rate of growth of Community GNP, compared to a rate of growth equal to the rate of growth of available own resources under the old system. Moreover, the 1984 arrangements allowed the guideline limit to be exceeded in the event of exceptional circumstances. The monetary reserve which replaces this provision is more limited and specific in its scope.
So much for setting the guideline limits. But how can we ensure that the guideline limit is adhered to? The Council's decision on budget discipline provides

771
not only that the Commission's price proposals should be consistent with the guideline but also that spending will be managed on a sector by sector basis to ensure that the limit will not be breached. Moreover, automatic stabiliser mechanisms have been built into the regulations on each of the main commodity regimes. These are generally designed to trigger price cuts whenever production exceeds maximum agreed quantities. These arrangements are now in force and have helped to ensure that spending on individual commodities has not exceeded budget provision.
A further improvement is in the handling of agricultural stocks. A new regulation has been introduced to provide for systematic depreciation of new stocks bought into intervention and specific sums have been set aside outside the guideline limit to provide for the costs of depreciation and disposal of existing stocks which had not been fully depreciated in the past.
For all these reasons, the Government are confident that the new arrangements will be significantly more effective in controlling agricultural expenditure than those agreed in 1984. In fairness, I should also point out that the economic conjuncture now is quite different from what it was four years ago. Because of higher world prices and lower than expected harvests, spending on agriculture this year is in fact now expected to be some 1 billion ecus below the budget provision for 1988. Indeed, world prices and other factors have also led the Commission to reduce its proposals for agricultural budget provision for next year by over 1.3 billion ecus. So the outlook for respecting the guideline limit on agricultural spending is for a number of reasons more favourable than in recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, suggested that the Commission would never propose a reform of the CAP. However, he appears to have ignored the fact that the fundamental reform of the CAP, including the introduction of legally binding budget disciplines and automatic stabilisers agreed at Brussels in February, were based on Commission proposals. The Commission knew very well that the United Kingdom would not agree to extra resources for the Community if budget discipline was not tightened and the CAP was not reformed. I think that answers the point raised by the noble Lord.
As I mentioned earlier, a number of measures have been agreed which will also help to control other areas of Community spending. The sub-ceilings on own resources will limit the total revenue available and the financial perspectives agreed between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament will act as ceilings on each main block of spending in the budget. Taken together I believe that these measures represent a significant improvement on the arrangements for controlling expenditure which it proved possible to negotiate in 1984.
A number of noble Lords referred to the speech of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister at Bruges. I am sure she will be pleased to receive support for her speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, also referred to that speech. I agreed
772
with most of what he said, particularly the fact that we should have joined the Common Market earlier. However, that is past history and I was only in short trousers in 1959.
The noble Lord suggested that my right honourable friend's speech threw into question the whole basis of the February European Council Agreement—or at any rate the Government's attitude to that agreement. I cannot accept that argument because it is not borne out by what my right honourable friend actually said. Perhaps I may quote a few of her remarks. She said:
"If we cannot reform those Community policies which are patently wrong or ineffective … then we shall not get the public support for the Community's future development, and that is why the achievements of the European Council in Brussels last February are so important.
"It was not right that half the total Community budget was being spent on storing and disposing of surplus food. Now, those stocks are being sharply reduced.
"It was absolutely right to decide that agriculture's share of the budget should be cut in order to free resources for other policies such as helping the less well-off regions and helping training for jobs".
Those are points which I should have thought would find acceptance with noble Lords opposite. My right honourable friend continued:
"It was right, too, to introduce tighter budgetary discipline … to bring the Community spending under better control".
Thus, far from there being any inconsistency between what my right honourable friend said in Bruges and the European Council package, she went out of her way at Bruges to commend the main elements of that package. I trust that noble Lords who share the views set out in that speech will accordingly support this Bill which endorses the European Council agreement.
Noble Lords opposite have complained about the cost to the United Kingdom of being a member of this club. if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, answered those arguments particularly well. A number of noble Lords made a comparison with the figure for next year which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, revealed to us as £1,970 million as if that were something new. It is not. It was published in the Autumn Statement.
Perhaps I should make one comparison. The noble Lord compared it with the costs of dental inspections, or whatever. I point out that the same Autumn Statement announced that we are to spend an extra £2 billion on the National Health Service next year—not a total of £2 billion, but an extra £2 billion, which is even more than the cost of the Common Market to us.
The noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington, Lord Stoddart of Swindon and Lord Jay, referred to the trade deficit. It is true that we have a trade deficit with the rest of the Community. However, that is a challenge we are facing. We are committed to maximising the potential of the EC market of 320 million people through completion of the Single Market in 1992.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Of course I understand that we should face up to this challenge. However, is the Minister aware that we have been facing up to it

773
since 1973? During that period a surplus in 1973 has been converted increasingly, virtually year by year, into this enormous deficit. In other words, the deficit has been increasing every year and not reducing as one would have expected.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we are committed to maximising the potential in 1992 through the completion of the single Market.
I should point out that our exports of manufactures to the EC last year showed a growth of 18 per cent. compared with an import growth of only 13 per cent., so we are moving in the right direction. We have a deficit with the EC because it is a major source of manufactured goods and most non-EC countries have traditionally been producers of raw materials. Almost half our exports of manufactures go to the Community and it would be hard to replace even part of that market.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, asserted—unfairly, I would say that we spend only half an hour or so on the Court of Auditors report. In fact it was at this Government's instigation that the report is now discussed each year in the Economic and Finance Council. The report is also the subject of an annual debate in another place. That reflects the fact that the Government take cost-effectiveness extremely seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, also queried the definition of a non-repayable advance. The fact that our contribution to the IGA has been called an advance does not mean that it is a loan in the normal sense of the word. It is simply a payment which temporarily takes the place of the contributions which we would otherwise have made had our new own resources decision entered into force.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in that case, why could it not just be called a payment and not a non-repayable advance?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord makes a good point. At the end of the day it obviously appears to amount to the same thing. There is another point of detail raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He asked why the own resources decision in the IGA could not be printed as a schedule to the Bill. I do not believe that there is any need for it to be so because both have been published as Command Papers; they are freely available to anyone who wishes to see them. Perhaps I should not say "freely available" but they are available.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, how much?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Lord queries it, the decision on own resources is priced at £1·60 net and the undertaking at a modest 50 pence. Of course the noble Lord would not have to pay that if he wanted a copy.
I turn to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. As regards our membership of the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS and his
774
comments on the possibility of a European central bank, the Government remain fully committed to playing a full part in Europe. We are ready to join the exchange rate mechanism when the time is right. As regards the question of the European central bank, the Prime Minister explained the position at Bruges. The key issue is not whether there should be a European central bank. The immediate and practical requirements are to implement the Community's commitment to free movement of capital; to establish a genuinely free market in financial services—in banking, insurance and investment; and to make greater use of the ecu.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, asked me whether the Fontainebleau abatement refund would end in 1992. It is not time-limited and it cannot be changed except by unanimous agreement with member states. The noble Lord quoted from The Times saying that we had got a bad deal in February. Perhaps I may quote from two other French newspapers. First, Liberation said:
"The British Prime Minister can boast of having preserved her cheque … and above all of having won the point that she was refused at Fontainebleau: the checking of the inflationary spiral of agricultural subsidies.
Le Figaro said:
"It is likely that in the plane on the way back to London the British delegation was exchanging knowing smiles and satisfied handshakes."
Those newspapers in that country knew that we had got a good deal.
I trust that I have answered the questions raised by noble Lords. In conclusion, I wish to summarise one or two of the points I made earlier. The Bill explicitly seeks Parliament's approval, first, for a new own resources decision that among other things preserves our Fontainbleau abatement which, as I have said, has been worth some £4½ billion over the past four years. Secondly, the payments under an IGA have put this year's Community budget onto a sound financial footing. Moreover, the Bill implicitly seeks endorsement of the package of measures agreed at the February European Council including the new legally-binding measures to keep within spending limits. That package needs to be seen as a whole. In the Government's view the package is good both for the United Kingdom and for the Community as a whole. I trust that your Lordships will share that view and that your Lordships will accordingly grant this Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 7th November), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
5.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the issue before us this evening which is at the heart of the subject of this draft order is one which has over many years raised deep emotions and led to strong arguments within the legal profession. This evening I shall try, with the assistance of all of your Lordships who will be contributing to this debate, as well as my noble and learned friend, to put the issue into perspective as well as to explain the reasons the Government believe that it is right to move now to allow courts and juries in Northern Ireland in certain carefully defined circumstances to draw such inferences as would be proper from an accused's silence under police questioning or in court.
Over a considerable period of time the Government have viewed with growing concern the way in which hardened, professional criminals in Northern Ireland, including terrorists and racketeers, have sheltered behind the protection provided for them by the law of evidence in criminal cases. This prevents inferences to be drawn from the fact that, when confronted with an accusation of complicity in serious crime, such lawbreakers choose to remain silent often in circumstances where innocent persons might reasonably have been expected to protest their innocence and draw attention to facts which would establish it.
Last year my right honourable friend put in hand within his department a confidential review of the law of evidence in Northern Ireland and the way it was being abused to thwart justice. The evidence of the need for change was and is impressive. The police and the prosecuting authorities confirmed that very many people whom they have good reason to believe are implicated in serious crimes have easy access to high-quality legal advice, are adept at resisting police questioning and have the protection of their own silence reinforced by the silence of witnesses brought about through fear. As my right honourable friend disclosed in another place on Tuesday of this week, the Royal Ulster Constabulary tell us that just under half of all those detained for questioning in connection with serious crimes in Northern Ireland refuse to answer any substantive questions at all.
The Government reviewed the arguments for and against change set out by a number of respected bodies and distinguished legal figures. Central to the Government's concerns were the powerful arguments in favour of change deployed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in its eleventh report published in 1972. That was a very distinguished committee indeed, which as your Lordships will be aware, was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and included among others Lord Justice Lawton, the late Professor Rupert Cross and Professor Glanville Williams. Its fundamental precept was that since the object of a criminal trial should be to find out if an accused is guilty, ideally all evidence should be admissible which is relevant. Thus its recommendations were aimed at reducing the gap between the amount of relevant evidence which could be given and the amount which is in fact given. These included provisions to abolish certain privileges of refusing to answer questions and provisions to discourage an accused from refraining from giving
776
evidence if, a prima facie case has been made out against him.
It is the Government's view that the CLRC's arguments and recommendations have much greater force and are even more relevant today than they were in 1972. The Government, on the other hand, are not persuaded by the arguments against change which a majority of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure deployed in its report in 1981. Its conclusion that only a very small proportion of suspects remained silent in the face of police questioning was based on a fairly limited research confined to just four police stations and that conclusion is certainly not the case now so far as concerns organised serious crime in Northern Ireland let alone England or Wales.
During its review of these matters the Government were made aware of the law on evidence in the Republic of Ireland, where Sections 18 and 19 of the Irish Criminal Justice Act 1984 permit the courts to draw adverse inferences in certain specified circumstances from the fact that an accused had remained silent when questioned by the police. Whether or not those provisions have subsequently been applied is a matter for the Irish courts, but the important and more relevant fact for the Government was that the Irish Parliament had recognised the need for change in the law of evidence in 1984 and provisions permitting the courts, where they so choose, to draw inferences in certain circumstances are now on the Irish statute book.
The Government concluded their review by deciding to propose to Parliament measures adopting two provisions recommended by the CLRC and two provisions having the same effect as those in the Irish legislation. Those having the same effect as the CLRC recommendations are Articles 3 and 4 in the draft order which I shall shortly describe in more detail, and those having the same effect as Sections 18 and 19 of the Irish Criminal Justice Act 1984 are Articles 5 and 6 qualified by Article 2(4) and 2(5). Article 1 brings Articles 2 and 4 into operation on the seventh day after the order is made. The other provisions, which deal with silence in the face of police questioning, do not come into operation until the expiration of one month from the day on which the order is made. This delay is to ensure that police instructions—including a new form of caution to which I shall return later—can be implemented so that suspects will be properly warned of the implications of their failure to explain material facts when questioned.
Article 2 explains the interpretation of expressions used in the order and sets out savings concerning the operation of other statutory provisions and the powers of the courts. I draw your Lordships' attention to the importance of Article 2(4) and (5) which have the effect of making clear on the face of the draft order that no one can be convicted under any of these provisions solely on inferences drawn from his silence.
Article 3 has the same effect as draft clause 1 of the CLRC's recommendations dealing with what we call the ambush defence. It provides that a court or jury may draw such inferences as are proper from the fact that an accused relied in his defence on some fact

777
which he failed to mention to the police when questioned or charged. This failure may be treated as corroboration of the evidence against him.
Article 4, which has the same effect as draft Clause 5 of the CLRC's recommendations, provides that if at the trial of the accused the court considers that there is a case for him to answer, then subject to certain exceptions the court must at the appropriate time call on him to give evidence; and that if he then refuses to do so, or if he refuses without good cause to answer any question, the court or jury may draw such inferences from the refusal as appear proper, and may also treat such a refusal as corroboration of any evidence against the accused.
Article 5, which qualified by Article 2(4) and (5) has the same effect as Section 18 of the Irish Criminal Justice Act 1984, provides that a court or jury may draw such inferences as appear proper where an accused fails to account to a constable for some specified fact such as a mark on his person or clothing or the condition of his clothing or footwear. There is a safeguard that such inferences can be drawn only if the accused was told in ordinary language by the arresting constable what the effect of failure or refusal might be.
Finally, Article 6, which again qualified as in Article 5 has the same effect as Section 19 of the Irish legislation, makes similar provisions to the previous article about the inferences that may be drawn from a failure or refusal by an accused when arrested by a constable to account for his presence at a particular place at or about the time the offence was committed.
Those noble Lords who have seen draft Clause 5 in the CLRC's report and who have compared it with Article 4 in the draft order will have noted that the draftsman who drafted the order has chosen at Article 4(1)(a) a more general formulation than that adopted by the CLRC. It ensures that the article will not apply in those cases where the accused's guilt is not in issue. But as the remaining provisions of Article 4 indicate, it does not displace the normal position that the accused may submit that there is no case to answer, and no question of his giving evidence arises at that stage of the proceedings.
Against the background of a sustained and systematic attack on the rule of law and on our democratic institutions, the Government decided after careful consideration that they must act promptly to restore the balance of justice in Northern Ireland. On an issue which has been debated exhaustively over the past 16 years and on which the legal profession will remain deeply divided, the Government decided that further formal consultation would not produce a consensus for change and proceeded forthwith to lay this draft order for approval by Parliament. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary also announced on 20th October his intention to bring forward legislation on this subject for England and Wales at the earliest opportunity.
The Government recognise the limitations of the Order in Council procedure, but in this case it is the appropriate instrument since much of the general criminal law in Northern Ireland is in legislation distinct from that of England and Wales and is
778
defined as a reserved matter in Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. Therefore this procedure applies in the absence of devolution. In recognition of the dissatisfaction with this procedure expressed by some honourable Members in another place, my right honourable friend offered to sit down with the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and others to see how the handling of Northern Ireland legislation can be improved until acceptable proposals for devolution are forthcoming from the representatives of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. But for the present this is the procedure provided for in statute.
The Government are aware that effective safeguards are necessary to protect the rights of persons detained in custody and to prevent the abuse of police powers. For those arrested under the terrorism provisions in Northern Ireland such safegaurds are already in place in the provisions of Part II of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987. The police are obliged to tell a person of his right to have someone informed that he has been detained and where he is being held and of his right to consult a solicitor. In certain circumstances—which are understandable in some cases of terrorism—and only on the authority of a senior officer, access to a solicitor can be delayed for up to 48 hours but must then be granted. I hope that your Lordships will understand that provision. However, for the general criminal law, similar safeguards which are already available in England and Wales will be provided for in the draft Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order, a proposal for which has been out for consultation during the autumn.
The draft codes of practice associated with the draft order will provide that a policeman will be obliged to inform a person of his rights while detained for questioning. If the draft order we are debating this evening is approved by Parliament, the codes will also contain a new form of caution or warning which the police must follow when questioning suspects.
As your Lordships will know, in England and Wales the form of caution to be administered by the police before questioning or charging a suspect was a matter for the judges until, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, it was provided for in a code of practice. Pending parliamentary approval of the forthcoming Police and Criminal Evidence Order for Northern Ireland, the Judges' Rules still apply there; and at the request of the Government the Lord Chief Justice and the judiciary of Northern Ireland are currently considering the appropriate procedures, including cautions, that would have to be followed by the police when questioning suspects if Parliament approves this draft order. Those recommended procedures would either be issued shortly to the RUC as an amended version of the present Judges' Rules or an administrative guidance.
I ask those noble Lords, or people anywhere, who say that these proposals remove a cornerstone of our traditional liberties to retain a sense of proportion. The measures we propose this evening do not reverse the burden of proof. The burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on the

779
evidence presented remains, and will always remain, on the prosecution. The right of a suspect to remain silent will not be removed. The proposals do no more than allow such inferences as are proper to be drawn from an accused's silence in the face of other substantive evidence linking him to an offence. As the CLRC said:
"Failure to give evidence may be of little or no significance if there is no case against an accused or a weak one. But the stronger the case is, the more significant will be his failure to give evidence".
The Government recognise that these measures on their own are not a solution to the problem posed by organised serious crime in Northern Ireland. But there is no doubt that they will assist the police and the prosecuting authorities in the fight against such crime by planting in the minds of law-breakers doubts as to whether their silence will protect them from justice in the future.
In asking your Lordships to approve the draft order before us this evening, I should like to conclude by commending the words used by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, in the Court of Appeal in England earlier this year when commenting on the use of what we call the ambush defence. He said:
"The balance of fairness between prosecution and defence cannot be maintained unless proper comment is permitted on the defendant's silence in such circumstances. It is high time that such comment should be permitted".
That is as much as I wish to quote from the Lord Chief Justice's comments in regard to that case in the Court of Appeal earlier this year. I believe that that is a suitable conclusion to my remarks in setting forward the proposals in the order which is before the House tonight. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th October be approved.—(Lord LyeII.)
6.12 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his full explanation of the terms of this important but difficult order. Perhaps I may say at the outset that we readily recognise the great difficulties facing the Government and their Ministers in Northern Ireland and the difficulties which face the police in the Province. We understand their sense of frustration as the emergency in the Province appears to be unending in the foreseeable future, or at all.
However, we regret that the Government have been manoeuvred into introducing this order which weakens and dilutes the right of a suspected person to remain silent. That is a right which has been a significant principle of English criminal law for about 300 years. We are not saying that the right is being removed; we are saying that it is weakened by the order.
In fairness, the Minister has acknowledged in his opening speech that the Government are aware of the unease which exists about the order—at least, I believe that there is that acknowledgment in his remarks. I should like to think that the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is taking part in the debate this evening is some evidence—indeed, I am sure it is—that he is aware, and perhaps more than aware, of the importance of the order.
780
I should also like to say that we are concerned about the fact that the order has been introduced on 24 hours' notice. I believe that that concern is shared by many Members of your Lordships' House. Those who were present in the House last week will recall how my noble friend Lord Blease protested that the housing order was introduced at short notice. One begins to wonder whether these two orders represent the beginning of a period of almost unannounced legislation for the Province.
As this order erodes and weakens an important traditional principle of law, surely the House should have had ample opportunity to know that it was on its way to the Chamber. Therefore can the Minister explain to the House where the fault lies for this state of affairs?
I should like to mention many grounds of concern about the order—I put it no higher than that. I have listened carefully to the Minister, but he really has not explained why it is necessary to change the law in Northern Ireland before the Home Office has received the report of the working group of officials which was set up earlier this year by that department. It was set up to consider all relevant aspects of change in the law which is being made by the order which is before us this evening. I ask: why the haste? Why the hurry?
On 18th May last the Home Secretary said that more careful work had to be undertaken before the Government could bring forward with confidence—I underline the words "with confidence"—a specific proposal for legislation in this area. Therefore as England and Wales are not to be burdened with speedy legislation in this difficult area, and possibly imperfect legislation, why is it necessary that legislation on such an important subject should be home and dry in Northern Ireland before the working group reports in a few months' time? It is not the case that the report of the working group is not expected for two or three years; it is expected early in the new year.
The Government have said, and indeed I think the Minister did also this evening, that the change must be introduced now in Northern Ireland. That is an assertion which we follow. However, can we have the Government's explanation for the hurry, bearing in mind that the working party will be reporting in a few months' time? Before I leave this issue, I should like to press the Minister for one assurance. If in the light of the working party's report, when it is produced, it is considered that some, or even all, of the provisions to be found in the order are ill-defined, or otherwise defective, can we have the Minister's firm assurance that the Government will promptly introduce amending legislation to put the order into proper shape or, if need be, to repeal it so that the law in Northern Ireland would mirror the provisions in England and Wales?
Again, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, it is very much to be regretted that the changes are being made by the procedure of an Order in Council, rather than by primary legislation. Even if we accept that there may be justification for modifying the principle of the right to remain silent—at least in respect of some offences—even if

781
we make that concession, then the House should have the opportunity of testing the legislation. There is really only one way of doing so and that is in Committee. One wants an opportunity to test the meaning of words and phrases and to test whether the provisions of some of the articles have been too widely drawn.
The order is concerned not just with the inferences to be drawn from the accused's silence in the courtroom after he has received legal advice, or in the police station; it reaches further back. It reaches a suspect's failure to answer a constable's questions in the street.
I should like to refer briefly to Article 3(1). Has not the net been cast too widely? It appears to me, and I am no expert on the criminal law, to have been widely drawn. Such inferences as appear proper may be drawn against an accused if he:
"at any time before he was charged with the offence, on being questioned by a constable trying to discover whether or by whom an offence has been committed, failed to mention any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings"'.
As I read the article, the provisions will apply even before the police have evidence that an offence has been committed by anyone. If a constable sees smoke, he will assume that there is a fire. It may be a non-existent fire. Is that fair?
Again, it will be lawful to draw inferences against the accused for a failure to mention any fact relied on in his defence even if the fact is peripheral and almost inconsequential. Is not that going too far? As I have said, to a layman it appears that Article 3(1) has been widely drawn. It is not immediately apparent why it is necessary to introduce Articles 5 and 6. The Minister has told us that they are similar to two clauses to be found in the Republic's criminal law. Is it not true that the clauses in the Irish Criminal Justice Act have not been invoked by the courts?
There is one point on the substance of the order upon which I should be grateful for clarification. How will the order affect the position of a person who, for a reason best known to himself or herself, tells the constable in the street or in the police station that he or she wants to consult a solicitor before answering the constable's question? Even innocent persons are worried about their protection in certain circumstances. People may fear that a constable is going over the top and they therefore will not answer a question until they have received a solicitor's advice. Could an adverse inference be drawn if as I walk along one of the streets of Belfast I refuse to answer a constable's question until I have consulted a solicitor and I give him that explanation for my silence? It is not clear how that position lines up with the provisions of the order.
I understand that it is the Government's case that the proposed derogation from the traditional safeguard of the criminal law will lead to more convictions and help to reduce serious crime, in particular, acts of violence committed by the Provisional IRA and the Loyalist paramilitaries. I accept that it may well lead to the conviction of some guilty persons who now go free; but some innocent people may be convicted.
782
I am not sure that the order will be as powerful a weapon against the hardened terrorist as the Government believe. I have been told by a friend who practises at the criminal Bar that henceforth, whatever may have been the position in the past, a hardened criminal will have worked out his alibi beforehand; and the person who may well be at risk is the young innocent alleged offender. Might not the order be counter-productive? Will it not (or may it not?) create or deepen the sense of grievance felt by some Nationalist communities in the Province? Will it not be a ready target for the Provisional IRA? Will it not represent it to be an oppressive measure to attract sympathy and support at home and abroad? If that were to happen, will the Minister explain what then will have been achieved by the order?
We on these Benches are unable to support the order because so many questions remain unanswered and we have reservations; but in accordance with the convention, we shall not seek to divide the House.
6.26 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am sure that Members in all parts of the House are grateful to the Minister for explaining the contents of the order. I hope that I manage somehow to retain my sense of perspective and proportion. I endorse the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who said that we all understand and have sympathy for the Government in the current difficulties that they have over law enforcement in Northern Ireland.
Having said that, I regret the fact that the order breaches a convention that has held for many generations. Parliament is being treated with something verging on contempt. The order was published on 20th October in its final, unamendable, form. Parts of it will become effective one week and other parts one month after it is made. When it passed through the other place, it received a mere two-and-three-quarter hours of debate. Consideration in your Lordships' House has been brought forward by four days. I regret that no one commented upon or objected when that was announced. Why is there all the rush? Why is the measure suddenly necessary after the emergency has continued in Northern Ireland for some 18 years and we have had nine-and-a-half years of Conservative government?
If the order is aimed at terrorism and racketeering by hardened criminals, why does it include all offences from petty shoplifting and traffic offences right the way on upwards? I have to ask again: why was there no consultation period although in the case of the housing order which was mentioned earlier there was a normal and lengthy consultation period? Surely in this case it would have been right to seek the considered opinion of the legal professions in Northern Ireland on the text. Why was the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights not consulted in advance?
The Minister mentioned the legal position in the Republic of Ireland. Why does the order go further than that on two major counts? I should perhaps explain that the Irish legislation creates presumptions only where suspects refuse to explain stains or

783
substances on their clothes or their whereabouts at particular times. It has in any case been said that the Irish law of 1984 has seldom been invoked against terrorists and racketeers. Mr. Mallon, the honourable Member for Newry and Armagh, even declared in the debate in the other place that this legislation had never been invoked by an Irish court and no one contradicted him. I challenge the Government to do so now if they wish.
This order applies to the potentially innocent as well as to the potentially guilty. It so happens that I have visited men in prison both in England and Northern Ireland who considered themselves innocent of crimes for which they were convicted. They believed, sometimes after many years in prison, that they were the victims of miscarriages of justice. This order increases that risk and therefore should have been presented as a Bill so that it could have been properly scrutinised, clause by clause and line by line, in both Houses.
We are told that there will have to be a Bill for England and Wales. Why therefore is Northern Ireland treated in this unfortunate way? As an Englishman I object to the measure being used as a paving stone to diminish my long established liberty. Will the Government give an undertaking that the Bill for England and Wales will also cover Northern Ireland and thereby replace this order, if it should be approved? What I ask now is somewhat parallel to the assurance that was asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
The order might be acceptable if certain conditions obtained but, alas, I do not think that they do. In 1981 the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in England drew attention to the lack of supervision and control over police interrogation. In Northern Ireland the Bennett Committee recommended measures in 1977 to prevent brutal and degrading treatment for suspects under arrest and in custody. If since then Her Majesty's Government had totally stamped out such maltreatment, this order might be acceptable. However, alas, police surgeons and even the High Court in Northern Ireland have this year recognised that such is not yet the case. If suspects were always questioned in the presence of a magistrate, as I understand is the practice in Scotland and France, in short, if we had in Northern Ireland a proper inquisitorial system, we could perhaps agree the order. Again, if suspects had an automatic right to legal advice before or during questioning, the order might be acceptable. In fact we know that for scheduled offences in Northern Ireland access to a solicitor may be refused for 48 hours. The Committee on the Administration of Justice has produced figures showing that in 40 per cent. of such cases access was delayed.
We also know that in Northern Ireland there is no system of duty solicitors available throughout the 24 hours as exists in England. Neither are there lay visitors at police stations to oversee the well-being of arrested persons. Will Her Majesty's Government extend these provisions to Northern Ireland?
It is a long-established fact of life that there are no simple solutions to be had in Northern Ireland. There
784
is little prospect of a military or police victory. There is therefore little chance of overcoming terrorism through the administration of justice. Yet in spite of this, the Government come forward with a trio of measures: this order, the denial of radio and TV appearances for certain parties and organisations and the proposed declaration at elections concerning the use of violence. At least in the last instance there has been a long consultation period. Otherwise I have to say with regret that these are cosmetic moves which may achieve little.
Her Majesty's Government would do better to devote their considerable energies to gathering usable information, to stopping rackets where they can and to making economic and social improvements, especially fair employment. What is needed above all and at all levels is confidence-building. That is why I welcome the recent White Paper on integrated education and the proposed extension of police and public liaison committees. I have given reasons why this order should be rejected. I only regret that the conventions of your Lordships' House apparently prevent us dividing upon it.
6.35 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, before him referred to the method of legislating for Northern Ireland. They spoke about the differences between the law in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic and referred to the problems which they acknowledge exist in Northern Ireland. Perhaps I could say that I agree with them both about the method of legislating. It is not satisfactory, as we all recognise. That is why I was particularly pleased when my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place two days ago made the firm offer of discussions, primarily no doubt with representatives of Northern Ireland but also with anybody who would care to join in, about seeking an improvement. I think this is a wise move on his part and I hope very much that the offer will be taken up. We all wish to see an improved method of providing law in Northern Ireland.
On comparisons of the law, as your Lordships know, I am no lawyer so I shall not make any comment on that but leave it to my noble and learned friend in front of me who will no doubt do so. Perhaps I may claim to speak with some knowledge of the great problems in Northern Ireland facing my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, my noble friend the Minister, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and everybody who lives in the Province. Their problems are very different from those in Great Britain.
In Great Britain, for example, persons accused of crimes, generally speaking, are accused singly or possibly in small groups. As a rule I think it is true that the crimes they commit are committed for personal reasons—personal gain, revenge or whatever it may be. In Northern Ireland what is being attempted by the terrorists and persons accused of offences of a terrorist nature is the overthrow by force of the Government, of the whole machinery of Government at all levels and its replacement by themselves, not only in Northern Ireland but in the

785
Republic of Ireland also. Their spokesman, Mr. Adams, made a great speech nine years ago, of which I have a copy. In it he declared that the aim of his organisation was the overthrow of both governments by force.
These people are prepared to use any means to achieve their aims. They are all unfortunately only too familiar with the desperately long list of atrocities committed week after week in Northern Ireland—the murders, the bombings, the shootings, the maimings of people, many of them wholly innocent and totally unconnected with the government which the terrorists seek to overthrow. Only this morning we read in the newspapers of the most recent bombing of a housing estate in Londonderry yesterday full of women and little children. It is very easy for us who live our lives in Great Britain to imagine that the maintenance of law, order and peace is much the same in Belfast as it is in Birmingham. However it is not. It is very different and it requires us to think very carefully about how best to handle it.
What is proposed here, it seems to me, is not in the least draconian hut, on the contrary, very modest. It is in line with common sense. I am not a judge; I am not even a magistrate. I have never sat on a jury but I think anyone charged with the duty of deciding the guilt or innocence of an accused person is bound to take into account everything connected with the case. That includes the words spoken or written in evidence of course. But when a witness's evidence is tested by examination and cross-examination the demeanour of the witness and the way in which he or she answers the questions or does not answer the questions are relevant.
At present, in theory, as I understand it, the judge, the magistrate or the jury are not entitled to take into consideration the fact that the accused will not answer questions. If he refuses to answer questions in court, they are bound to notice that because they were there and they saw it. For the life of me, I cannot see why they should not take that into account. Of course it can never be conclusive—indeed, the order specifically states that it cannot be conclusive—but it is one pointer that contributes to the whole picture they are considering.
I make one final point. It is quite clear that the terrorist organisations regard this facet of our law as being of the greatest value in helping their members who have committed horrific crimes to escape the consequences.
I, and I expect many other noble Lords, have seen the printed instructions, not to innocent people but to people who are setting out to shoot someone or to plant a bomb. Those instructions state what those people should do if and when they are caught. The instructions are headed:
"Whatever you say, say nothing".
The instructions contain detailed advice about how terrorists should conduct themselves when questioned. They know, and continually stress, that the refusal to answer questions is of enormous help to them because the courts can take no notice of it.
Those charged with the duty of preserving peace and quiet in Northern Ireland have a difficult enough
786
task. This proposal will not end the troubles, but it will help, as my noble friend the Minister said, by sowing doubts in the minds of some terrorists as regards whether their silence will protect them. If that means that next week even one person is alive who would otherwise have been shot or blown to pieces, this must be something we all desire. I urge your Lordships to support this order.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I wish to say a few brief words about two aspects of this matter: first, the way in which this legislation is being introduced for Northern Ireland; and, secondly, the substance of the order. On the first point, two days ago there were widespread protests in another place, from many parts of that House, about the introduction of this change by Order in Council rather than by a Bill. I think those protests were justified, despite the technical reasons which the Minister mentioned in his speech. I was very interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, who speaks with great authority on these matters, has just had to say on this.
I have only sat for four years in this House, but I have been impressed by the effectiveness of the legislative process in Parliament. During the debate two days ago on the introduction of charges for eye tests, the noble Lord the Leader of the House and others pointed out that Lords' amendments are often accepted. It has been my experience that the Government do listen to constructive criticisms, that sensible amendments, supported by cogent arguments, are often accepted in substance and that Bills are improved. Why then should we reserve the privilege of using their system for England and Wales and deny it to Northern Ireland?
For by adopting this procedure, the Government are denying us the opportunity of proposing any amendments. There will be no Committee stage and no Report stage. We are treating Northern Ireland in a way which we do not treat England and Wales—like a remote colony instead of what it is, part of the United Kingdom. That is surely wrong.
Moreover, in this case the change is not to be restricted to Northern Ireland. In winding up the debate in another place the Solicitor-General said:
"This Order is part of a reaction to serious crime generally… in England and Wales and Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/88; col. 219.]
So, why could there not be a normal Bill covering all three parts of the United Kingdom?
I cannot help thinking that the Government are proceeding in this way because they cling to what I believe is the mirage of devolution, whereas the logical, sensible thing to do would be to treat Northern Ireland as Wales is treated—as a full part of the United Kingdom entitled to the same rights as any other part. Those rights should not exclude the ability to vote for the major national political parties.
I too, however, was encouraged to see that in response to this criticism the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that he would be willing to sit down with Members of another place,
"and discuss the ways in which we proceed with legislation".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/11/88; col. 182.]

787
If that happens may I ask the Minister for an assurance that the needs of this House will be considered also, and that we too may have an opportunity of joining in the discussion.
I now turn to the question of the substance of the order. Here I fully support the Government. To me as a layman the case appears to be clear enough. It is surely based, as the noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, said, on common sense. Those of us who served in the last war were advised, if captured, to give our names and numbers but nothing else whatever. Terrorists and criminals are now adopting the same tactic and if, as the Minister tells us, nearly half those questioned about serious crimes in Northern Ireland choose to say nothing, surely something needs to be done.
A court must be able to draw an appropriate inference, being guided on that by the judge. A case still, as I understand it, needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and Article (4) makes it clear that silence by itself will not be enough to convict. I am impressed by the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice that were quoted by the Minister. The balance does surely need to be corrected, so that guilty persons cannot escape by ingenuity. I think therefore that the Government are entirely right to introduce this change.
6.46 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I was very touched when the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, made his reference to me at the outset of his remarks. I do not know whether or to what extent he will approve of what I have to say, but I shall preface my remarks by saying that I believe as strongly as ever in the importance both of the burden of proof and of the standard of proof. I echo exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, has just said. That is to say that a case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt against any accused, whatever he is accused of; whether it is going against traffic lights or murdering Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. The case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
But having said that, I must add that the creaking ox wagon with its artificial and specialised rules of evidence and procedure which constitutes English criminal law—I say English criminal law because I am not a Scots lawyer—is something which should have advanced rather more rapidly since Jeremy Bentham than it has been able to do. The Northern Ireland system of criminal law basically corresponds to the English model.
The chief enemies of advance have, I am sorry to say, been very largely members of my own profession. My mind goes back to the terrible debate in which almost every speech which has been made this evening could have been made. That debate concerned majority verdicts in juries. I had promises from eight or nine—I forget the exact number—members of my own profession on my own side of the House. We were then in Opposition in another place. Those members told me that they would back what the then Home Secretary, Roy Jenkins, was saying. He is now the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.
788
I told Roy Jenkins that I would back him to the end. I did, but every one of those who had promised me support ratted. I told them when they ratted that the first verdict would be a verdict of acquittal. Not only was the first verdict a verdict of acquittal, but in the case of Peter Haines he would have had to stand his trial a second time if it had not been for a majority verdict.
The truth about this ghastly business is that there are two theories of English criminal law. That was dinned into me by my father after he had been Attorney-General. One of the theories is what I might call the foxhunting theory. According to that theory, it does not matter what one does to the criminal provided he is properly hunted by 12 selected hounds presided over by a huntsman in a pink coat blowing a horn of a particular make. The criminal must not be chopped in cover. As long as the thing goes according to Cocker, or whatever the right term is, and Facey Rumford is in charge of his hounds it does not matter what one does to the criminal.
I take a totally different view. I take the Jeremy Bentham view of the criminal law. The purpose of criminal law anywhere is to convict the guilty and to acquit the innocent. I wish I could drum it into the heads of my colleagues in the legal profession that by ensuring the acquittal of a large number of guilty people one does not necessarily secure the acquittal of one innocent man by any rational system. I can name instances where time and again the artificiality of English criminal law and procedure has led to convictions of admittedly innocent people—for example, the case of Doherty, of Adolf Beck, and the case of Virag.
The essence of the matter is rationality. The two doctrines of English criminal law were well summed up in the battle between Blackstone and Jeremy Bentham. The Blackstonians were foxhunters to a man and Jeremy Bentham was the rationalist. I declare myself, for this purpose only, a Benthamite.
This is a very modest little measure, which I should have liked to have seen a great deal simpler. I should have liked to have seen it applied to the United Kingdom as a whole, but I exclude Scotland because I do not understand Scottish procedure. I should have liked to have seen it applied both to Northern Ireland and to England and Wales, and it ought to have been introduced about 25 or 30 years ago.
Why do I say that? First, my noble kinsman on the Cross Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, thought that there was some sort of immemorial right—which is called the right of silence—which was being taken away by this measure. I must correct that impression. We are dealing with three related areas of English criminal law. The first is the treatment of a person under interrogation; the second is the admissibility of confessions; and the third is the right of the accused to give evidence.
In the sense of the last of those rights there has never been a right of silence. I shall tell your Lordships why. Until 1898—which is only about eight years before I was born—the accused was not allowed to give evidence. He was prohibited from doing so. I have no doubt that a great deal of injustice

789
in the name of what is called fair play—which means foxhunting—resulted from his not being allowed to give evidence.
The rules introduced in the Act of 1898—which as I say is more or less my own lifespan plus eight years—still stand on the statute book. The rules provide that the prosecution may not comment upon the failure of the accused to give evidence, except…—and then follows a series of fox hunting rules. The judge may do so, and does so even now—and Lord Lane did so in the case which my noble friend on the Front Bench quoted. But the theory of the right of silence does not exist as regards the judge except in so far as it has been elaborated by the extraordinary complexity of the English legal mind.
In 1932, when I was a young man at the Bar before that right had been fully elaborated, there was a judge called Mr. Justice Swift. He was an amusing man with a strong Lancashire accent. If the accused did not give evidence he would say to the jury "You know, members of the jury, there's one man in this court who knows what 'appened. I don't know what 'appened, you don't know what 'appened. But there's one man who does know what 'appened. 'E 'asn't told us. I wonder why". That is what happened when I was a young man at the Bar. Of course he would not get by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division today with a summing-up like that.
Let us get down to brass tacks and say boldly and brutally, with the Edmund-Davies committee, that everything ought to be admissible which is capable of being logically probative and relevant with very few exceptions indeed. Among those things which ought to be admissible are silences and observations of any kind made in circumstances which are relevant to the issues of the trial.
Perhaps I may give some examples. I quite agree with my noble kinsman that there is no difference between terrorist offences and ordinary offences in this respect. Suppose a man is accused of incest with his daughter. The little girl is brought in and the outraged mother points to the man and says, "This is what she says you have done to her". If he tells lies, that can be given in evidence; he has chosen to break his silence. If he blushes, that can be given in evidence. If he shifts uneasily from foot to foot, hangs his head and turns away from his little daughter, that can be given in evidence and inferences can be drawn, and rightly. In those circumstances we trust the jury to come to the true conclusion. But if he says nothing, stands at attention and looks at the ceiling his silence cannot be used in evidence.
Suppose a man is found standing over the victim, who happens to be his worst enemy, with a smoking gun in his hand and a dead body in a geat pool of blood in front of him. That would ordinarily be considered a compelling case to allow a jury to convict. However, there may be an innocent explanation. It may be that he was trying to stop the man from committing suicide and took the gun away from him but it went off in the struggle. It may be that he was defending himself because he came in when the man was plotting some outrageous offence, he tried to take the gun away, succeeded and shot the
790
man in self-defence. But it would be rather odd, would it not, if he did not say so when asked? It would be odd if he remained silent and said, "Prove your case against me", with the gun smoking and the pool of blood on the floor.
What do we mean when we talk about this centuries old right? The truth is that it was called a thieves' charter by Jeremy Bentham, and Jeremy Bentham was right. My noble kinsman has a perfectly good point when he asks the Government why the order should apply only to Northern Ireland. The truth is that it ought to have been introduced 25 years ago for everybody.There are only two good reasons for treating Northern Ireland separately. One is that which my noble friend on the Front Bench gave; namely, the difference in law—which is not entirely homogenised by the order—between us and the Republic of Ireland. The order brings the law on the north of the Border more or less in line with that of the Republic. That cannot be a bad thing when there is a land frontier.
As my noble friend behind me said it is true that there is a difference between Northern Ireland and England. The terrorist organisations have coached their members, who are organised not only in a conspiracy to murder but also in a conspiracy to commit high treason, in the best way to defeat the police. I believe therefore that there is a case, although it is not the case that I should have liked to have been making, for selecting Northern Ireland for this order on those two grounds.
I hope very much that the Home Secretary will shortly bring in a Bill which will enable us to examine the whole subject of the so-called right of silence in the light of logic and common sense. It ought to have been done long ago and I hope that he does it very soon. Then we can examine any differences between this rather more complicated order that I should like and the law as the Home Secretary introduces it and homogenise the two. In the meantime and on the merits of this case, we ought to do it and do it at once.
7 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it is a great honour but yet a daunting and almost impossible task to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. There can be nothing left for me to say on the legal side. Thank goodness! I should like to say something about the practical problems as they occur in Northern Ireland. First, in general I should like to welcome this order and I thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for explaining it so clearly to a layman such as I am. I am sure it will help to improve the very difficult situation in Northern Ireland at present.
I realise that it is a basic principle of the British legal system that a suspect should have the right to refuse to answer questions or give an explanation for his or her behaviour. However, that principle has been systematically and with premeditation exploited to the limit by the terrorists in the Province. In support of that statement I should like to quote an extract from the 1987 report of the Chief Constable. At page 14 it states:
"Terrorists are well schooled in methods designed to impede investigation into their acts of violent criminality. They are educated to a high degree in the working of the legal system and use this

791
knowledge to their advantage. Training in interrogation resistance, with lectures and practical demonstrations, is standard procedure to all so-called volunteers [of the terrorist organisation)".
Noble Lords may well expect the Chief Constable of the RUC to say that in support of the argument for an order such as this one. However, I now quote from a proponent on the other side—An Phoblacht/Republican News of 7th July 1988. The headline reads:
"Interrogation—Whatever you say say nothing".
The article continues:
"Interrogation is like walking a dangerous tightrope; the only safety net one has is to maintain absolute silence from the moment of arrest until the moment of release.
The most important right you have is the right of silence. It is the only guarantee you have of being released without charge".
That is the teaching and it indicates the value of this criminal evidence order to our security forces which are defending democracy in the Province.
Perhaps I may now offer your Lordships a couple of examples out of many hundreds of cases in which suspects have exercised their rights to remain silent. Those examples make that right sound ridiculous. In a sectarian attack, a man was beaten to death by four others in a bar. Police arrived quickly on the scene and found bloodstains on two of the group. A witness confirmed that all four men had attacked the man, but the witness withdrew his statements because of threats. The suspects did not speak to the police, and on withdrawal of the evidence by the witness they were released without charge. In the second example, acting on information police approached a block of high-rise flats in order to carry out a search of a specific flat. A few yards from the flat in question they met five well-known terrorists coming from the direction of its open door. They stopped the men to question them. At that time a radio transmission was received from police on the ground that three firearms had been thrown from the window of the flat in question. The terrorists refused to speak when arrested and as none of them was a resident in that block of flats, charges did not succeed. Those examples show the ridiculous situation which at present exists in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords may find it surprising that a suspect can sustain his silence during a period of seven days of interview. He may sit with his head between his knees or stare at the ceiling. Suspects have lain down under the interview table. The interviewer has then had to lie down beside him in order to conduct the interview. To attempt to move him or her onto a chair would constitute assault, and one remembers that there is closed-circuit TV in use. There was one occasion on which a suspect said only one thing in seven days—a few words; enough to ask for a glass of water.
I should like to return for a moment to the basic rights that people have under British law. What basic right did the terrorists give to the innocent people who were murdered and injured in Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday last year? I knew many of them and their families and I am very glad that this year soldiers from the Fourth (County Fermanagh) Battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment will be taking part in the Festival of Remembrance at the Royal Albert Hall. All of them, men and women,
792
were present that day and for their actions after the explosion some of them received awards which varied from a Mention in Dispatches to an MBE. We are grateful to the people who saved the lives of so many who were injured on that day.
On that same day the terrorists had planted a second bomb, which failed to go off, at a second remembrance parade in Tullyhomman, only 20 miles from Enniskillen. What basic right did the terrorists give to the girl Gilliam Latimer who was on a school bus which was blown up Lisnaskea?
If those events seem far removed from this House, perhaps your Lordships will turn your thoughts to the soldiers and relatives of those soldiers in the 1st Battalion Light Infantry, who were murdered in Omagh when in a bus on their way back from leave. Those were soldiers of the Crown and, more than that, most of them came from England.
I put to your Lordships' House that had this order been in place during the past year or, as some previous speakers have suggested, for many years previously, the terrorists might never have carried out such murderous deeds for fear of conviction. In conclusion, I give my earnest support to this order.
7.7 p.m
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I should like by way of preface to make two remarks. First I think that tonight we have had a typically engaging and robust speech, which we all enjoyed, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It was a formidable piece of advocacy. I agreed with a great deal of what he said, although not in all respects. I shall come to those points in a moment.
By way of introduction, I should say I agreed with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord PrysDavies, at the beginning of his speech. I think that it is extremely unfortunate that we have had such very short notice of this debate and that we are having it in a Chamber which, admittedly, is rather fuller than I thought it might be at the end of a Session. Secondly, I must say that I do not like the Irish argument, if I may so describe it; namely, that if something is done in the Irish Republic, it follows that it is perfectly right, sensible and desirable to do the same thing in the United Kingdom. That was the argument used for the broadcasting ban, which I thought was a foolish decision, and everything that has happened since then has demonstrated how ill judged it was. We have also heard that argument repeated tonight.
Of course I understand that in debates within the island of Ireland it is a persuasive argument to say that we have done no more in the North than they already have in the Republic. And I also see that the argument could be put in the United States when we are under criticism. Nevertheless, I believe that these substantial powers which we are now debating, have to be justified in their own right.
I must make my position quite clear. I am sure that the majority of my noble friends oppose the ending of the so-called right of silence in criminal trials in the United Kingdom. No doubt some would do so more emphatically than others. But I have little doubt that a decisive majority would be against it.

793
However, I must confess that I am a heretic on this matter, as indeed was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, on the issue of majority verdicts when he disagreed with the majority of his own party when he was Home Affairs spokesman of the Conservative Party in the House of Commons. I supported the view, when a Home Office Minister, that the prosecution and the judge should have the fight to comment on the decision of an accused person to remain silent when questioned by the police. Of course I certainly believed that such a change in our law should be most carefully considered to ensure that the accused had proper rights. I think it correct to say that with everything that has happened since then I have not changed my position in any way. I find it disagreeable in the extreme to take one view when one is a Minister and immediately one is in opposition to take suddenly exactly the contrary view.
Having said that, I must make it clear that if there was a vote tonight I would without question vote against the Government so far as this order is concerned. I should like to explain why that is so. First of' all, I think we all recognise—as I am sure, if I may say so, does the noble and learned Lord—the significance of the decision that we are being invited to take this evening. It represents a major change in our system of criminal justice in this country. It flies directly in the face of a majority recommendation of a Royal Commission and, as we all know, it is highly controversial, as the noble and learned Lord said, among members of his profession and no doubt among the wider public.
In such a situation—and in this I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said—I believe that Parliament has a clear obligation to examine the issue in detail; to have a Bill which would have a Committee and Report stage in both Houses of Parliament, with the opportunity of having amendments tabled and, if necessary, voted upon. However, what have we been presented with tonight? We have not been presented with that. We have had an order debated in the last day or so in the House of Commons for a period of two hours and 47 minutes. In that debate virtually every speaker complained in the strongest terms about the way in which this matter had been handled by the Government, including a significant number of members of the Conservative Party—not wets, if I may say so, but some of the drier Members of the House of Commons.
The debate in the House of Commons, as unhappily is often the case with Northern Ireland orders, took place with little more than a score or so of MPs in the Chamber. A few moments later the Division Bells rang and, with the Government having the majority they have in the House of Commons, they of course got their way.
In this House tonight we have a Chamber that could hardly be described as packed. We are having this debate, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers, in a situation in which our conventions dictate that we do not vote against a government order of this kind. In short, that solitary two and
794
three-quarter hours debate in the Commons is the only challenge that it has been possible to make to the Government's proposals. I believe that that is a deplorable abuse of the procedures of Parliament. It comes dangerously close to legislating by decree. I say this as someone who has had experience of dealing with highly controversial criminal justice matters both when personal assistant to my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead and a Home Office Minister for live years.
A few moments ago the noble and learned Lord reminded us of the issue of majority verdicts. If I may say so with both respect and affection for the noble and learned Lord, he was not a popular man among some of his parliamentary colleagues at that time, and that no doubt understates the case. He indicated to the Home Secretary that he would support him through thick and thin, and he certainly did so. He was opposed by the two former Law Officers on the committee and by a formidable number of his parliamentary colleagues when the Bi11 reached the Floor of the House of Commons for Report stage.
We were at that time opposed by the Criminal Bar Association and by a substantial number of national newspapers, including The Times, which indicated that by introducing majority verdicts we would be destroying fundamental civil liberties in our country. But the point of all this is that we had that debate in the House of Commons, we had the Standing Committee, we had the debate on Report, we had the debate on Third Reading and it was debated in this House as well. What I find objectionable about this procedure tonight is that we are having to take it or leave it, and so far as this House is concerned and its conventions we just have to leave it. I do not like that approach, and I think we are involved in making a serious error of judgment so far as this is concerned. And I repeat, I have made my view on the principle of the matter already wholly clear.
Why are we prepared to do it in this way? Of course a critic will say—and I do not associate myself with this view—"Well, it is only Northern Ireland, and so therefore it doesn't really count". That is a dangerous view, and I am afraid that we give some support to that view by behaving as we are in the process of doing. It may be said, "Well, here is a matter of great urgency. It involves terrorists". But with great respect I have heard former Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office and senior officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulary make their views known on this matter for the last five, six or seven years. Therefore the suggestion that we must legislate within a week, two weeks or three weeks in such a situation is frankly preposterous.
If full, normal parliamentary procedures had been involved a Bill giving the Government powers so far as Northern Ireland is concerned would probably have been on the statute book by Easter. At least I believe that in those circumstances there would have been a chance that it would have been rather better thought through than is the position we are facing this evening. For instance, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who asked about the precise meaning of paragraph 3(1)(a) when he mentioned this use of the language,
"any fact relied on in his defence in those proceedings".

795
He pointed out that in these circumstances negative inferences could be drawn from a defendant's refusal to make a statement to the police.
Then there is the expression "any fact". I wonder how much time a Standing Committee of the House of Commons would devote to an issue of that sort. There is a whole series of references in this order which one would want to have thoroughly debated, but of course we cannot debate these issues because we are precluded from doing so by the procedure under which we are operating.
There is also the question of the Home Office working party. What will happen if that working party makes recommendations significantly at variance with the contents of this order, as I suppose is likely? I hope I am going to get a direct answer from the noble Lord on this: are we then to have a second Northern Ireland order which might establish greater opportunities for a defendant than is the position under this order? What then about the people who have been convicted as a result of this order? Are they to have the opportunity of having their cases reconsidered? There are formidable problems associated with this approach.
Then there is another matter. What about the police disciplinary procedures affecting the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Are they to be changed? There has been criticism—in my view foolish criticism—that the current police disciplinary arrangements in the United Kingdom should be changed in such a way that policemen should be obliged to answer questions when their conduct is being investigated by their own officers. It seemed to me when such a proposal was made that it was monstrous; how could such an approach be perfectly all right so far as the police were concerned but wholly unacceptable for everybody else? But if we are changing our criminal procedures in Northern Ireland, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell us the implications for the police.
Then there is the question of the mentally handicapped. That is dealt with in part in the order. The noble Lord will be reminded no doubt of the case of Maxwell Confait, which led to a major judicial inquiry into exactly this question, the position of mentally handicapped defendants. There are clearly substantial implications so far as this matter is concerned. I shall be grateful to hear what the Government propose to do about this.
One could go on giving further illustrations of what will arise as a result of enacting this major change in the law by means of an order. However, I wish to come to a point that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The whole discussion this evening has been about terrorists in Northern Ireland, but there is no reference to terrorists in the order. We are talking about all criminal defendants in Northern Ireland. We are talking about the frightened housewife who, as she goes out of Marks and Spencer in Belfast. is stopped in the street and accused of shoplifting. We are talking about a situation in which a man gets drunk and is involved in a charge of ABH or something of that kind.
The point has been made about a duty solicitor scheme in Northern Ireland. What is the answer to
796
that? We have duty solicitor schemes in Great Britain. What do the Government propose to do in this regard? It would be a very serious matter to introduce a change of this sort without having an effective duty solicitor scheme in operation in Northern Ireland.
Let me ask another question. This is not about terrorist cases, where as we know from what was said by the Solicitor-General last night that the interviews will not be tape recorded for reasons that we all understand, but about all ordinary criminal cases where interviews will be tape recorded. The absolute silence of an accused person is fairly rare in England and Wales. What normally occurs in such a situation if an accused person is determined to be as difficult as possible is a tape recording that will contain periods of silence, expletives, comment on matters that may be entirely immaterial and the answers to some questions and not to others. What precisely will happen in Northern Ireland in such circumstances? I speak here about non-terrorist cases where tape recordings will be used. Is it intended that the full tape will be played in court or will some passages be edited? If so, who will have the responsibility? That is one of the questions that the current Home Office working party will no doubt be looking at.
We are of course legislating in advance of a consideration by that committee of these issues. They seem to me to be important matters. As the Government are asking us to grant them the powers tonight, I hope that we shall get answers to some of these questions tonight.
I return to the question of the caution, an issue that was raised, as the Minister will recall, 48 hours or so ago in another place. We were told by the Solicitor-General—the Minister has repeated it tonight—that the matter is now being considered by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, in whom I think we all have immense confidence. Is it not strange, however, that we are being invited to support the order without knowing the terms of that caution? Of course the terms are of decisive importance. We are all familiar with the contents of the present caution in criminal proceedings. The contrast with the new one will be pretty striking.
Let me give an example. A colleague of mine, Mr. Barrie Irving, director of the Police Foundation, has worked out a possible caution that I suppose could be applied in non-terrorist cases in Northern Ireland. It would run something like this:
"You do not have to say anything in answer to the questions I am going to ask you, but all of our conversation will be tape recorded and the recording may be used as evidence in court. If you do not answer my questions this will also be recorded and you may have to explain your silence now in court".
That is just one shot at it. Other forms of words will no doubt be suggested by others. It may well be that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland already has a proposal in his mind. That form of words indicates the decisive change in our system of criminal procedures in Northern Ireland under the order.
As to the principle of the matter, as I have indicated, I do not share the view that a withdrawal of the right to silence is the end of civil liberties as we know them—I have expressed that view with some

797
emphasis—but I believe that it is a profound error to rush major changes in criminal procedure virtually undebated through Parliament. That is what we are talking about tonight. There has been no line-by-line consideration of this proposal. I think that that is a grievous error. I believe that the Government will come to regret it.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, 1 associate myself immediately with the concluding remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in his criticism of the way in which the order was introduced.
I believe that a major change is taking place in relation to our legal constitution. Representing Northern Ireland for a number of years as I have and living in Northern Ireland as I do I have always felt, in the on-going tragedy of Northern Ireland as it existed over the past 20 years and in the continuing escalation of the number of deaths and injuries, that security and the problems that arise with it should be non-partisan. The luxury of Opposition politicians and Opposition parties should not be engaged in for the sake of opposition. Both a Labour Government when in office and the Conservative Government now in office have found themselves in great difficulty in trying to grapple with the murderous onslaught being waged in Northern Ireland.
When the restrictions on television were announced only a fortnight ago, I was able to predict what the objections will be to any security initiative being promulgated under this Government. I sat at the other end of this building the other day when this order was being debated. It was with a feeling of sickening despair that I heard again the series of arguments rehearsed that said that the Government should do nothing. I have heard this repeatedly. I take serious objection to it.
The debate that took place in another place was too short and limited. I need quote only some of the sentiments expressed in the course of the debate to illustrate how my argument is reinforced. First, the Opposition spokesman said that the Opposition would support the Government in their introduction of security initiatives that they thought would be effective. That leaves the Opposition in the position to determine what initiatives they think will be effective. Obviously they think that this one will not be effective.
The argument one hears rehearsed over and again is that the introduction of this order, which affects the right of silence, will not go down very well in America. One spokesman said:
"At the moment when the American people are exercising their democratic rights, the Government are adopting measures that inspire a great deal of hostility towards Britain in the United States and throughout the world".—(Official Report, Commons, 8/11/88; col. 193.]
Is that correct? Are the American people so hostile to this Government and to the British people in their attempt to find some way to lessen the increasing toll of murder in Northern Ireland? I can remember the American people only a few years ago being faced with terrorist attacks on their citizens, wherever the
798
attacks might have taken place. The overwhelming majority of the American people supported a bombing raid on Libya. The President of the United States at that time had overwhelming support from a whole broad section of the American people in that retaliatory attack against the Libyans. I did not support it, but I say that to indicate that the whole of America and the so far unnamed other people might take offence and be hostile to Britain because of the introduction of the order.
The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, in his remarks telescoped exactly what my feelings are and have been. If the introduction of this order will prevent one murder or one maiming in Northern Ireland, I am inclined to support it. Another speaker in another place, and indeed in the Prayer as we read it today, said that this will diminish any support that there is for the police forces from the minority population in Northern Ireland. Indeed it was said in the House this evening that the introduction of the order will alienate sections of the nationalist population. Why should it? Why should any section of the nationalist population be alienated by an order which is attempting to stop murder and mayhem on the streets of Northern Ireland?
The order is not aimed at the nationalist community. It is aimed at criminals arid terrorists in both communities. There may be people in the Royalist section in the community who are hostile to the order; but anyone who is antagonistic towards the Government because of the introduction of the order is already firmly in that camp at the moment. Nothing will change that. That section of the nationalist community which will be hostile to the order is already part of the Sinn Fein constituency. They are the people who give protection to murderers. They are the people who give succour and solace to people who are engaged in murder. The same or perhaps a smaller element exists in the loyalist community so we shall not be very worried about the objections those people may have against us.
I should like to see the day come when it will be unnecessary to tamper with longstanding bulwarks of our judicial system that have proved to be so effective over many years. Another speaker said in the course of a debate in another place that bringing in legislation such as this will not stop the violence. We have to increase support for the RUC and the security forces and make it possible to do away with this type of legislation. I fully subscribe to that, but it will be a very long haul politically before we can bring about total support. We may never reach that stage of total support for the security forces in Northern Ireland. That again is the gospel which says, "Do nothing".
I listened to a Labour Member on television when he was objecting to the introduction of the restrictions. He was asked by an interviewer in the television studio on breakfast time TV what he would do in these circumstances. He was asked what would he his answer to terrorists having ready access to television and the media. He said: "It is just to go down into the trenches and face a long hard slog". What does that mean? It means absolutely nothing. It is pure, absolute rhetoric.

799
I believe that this Government—and I hope sometime that there will be a Labour Government—are entitled to the support of the Opposition, whoever that opposition may be, in their attempts to bring the tragedies in Northern Ireland to an end. This carping criticism that I have witnessed over this past year is a betrayal of the people in Northern Ireland who are hoping that this Government, or whatever government are in power, will take whatever steps they can to bring the tragedy to an end.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, this evening we have heard some notable comments and speeches. The House and the Government will be immensely grateful for all the comments that have been made in studying this complicated and to me difficult order, although it has been described in different ways by my noble and learned friend who (I think I have quoted him correctly) said that it was a modest measure. That was not necessarily the view taken by the noble Lord, Lord Harris; but all the arguments we have heard have been highlighted and rehearsed, and your Lordships who are involved in legal affairs and criminal evidence debates in this House as well as another place will be very familiar with them.
It has been a constant thread throughout the debate this evening that the objective of the trial process is that justice is to be done. The innocent should go free; but the guilty should be convicted. The arguments for and against change, certainly in carefully defined circumstances such as those contained in the order, have until recently failed to take account of the opportunities that these rules of evidence provide for the hardened professional criminal—including but not totally concerned with the terrorist—to thwart justice. The Government have a duty, and this has been accepted by everybody in your Lordships' House, to see that the rules designed for the protection of the innocent are not simply exploited as a shield for the guilty. It has become the growing practice of the professional criminal in England and Wales as well as the hardened terrorists and the racketeers in Northern Ireland when questioned in connection with a suspected offence simply to say nothing. Yet however reasonable the question, however much common sense might tell the jurymen or the court that an innocent person might have sought to give a reply or offer an explanation, no inference whatever may be drawn from the failure to do so. We believe that that is no longer right and that it ought to be corrected.
At the outset I stress the provisions in the order and what the order does not do. The order does not shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence. Secondly, it does not render the refusal of the defendant to answer questions at any stage a criminal offence. In no circumstances—
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, will the noble Lord just have patience? I shall be coming to all the points that he raised.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to have patience until I finish this paragraph. He spoke for a considerable time and I hope that he will give me the courtesy for another few seconds while he thinks of another point.
Thirdly, in no circumstances can anyone be convicted on the basis of his silence alone. The order makes this specifically clear, although it would be clear in law, even if it were not so expressed. That was a constant thread of my remarks earlier this evening. It was a constant thread in the remarks made by my right honourable friend in another place as well as by my honourable and learned kinsman the Solicitor-General in another place. I yield briefly to the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that nobody has challenged him on any of these points during the whole of the debate this evening?
Lord Lyell: Not specifically, my Lords, but possibly when all of us read in the morning the comments that have been made, and some of the very tactful points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we may have our own opinions. I shall come to the points that have been raised by the noble Lord. Indeed the thrust of what I said at the outset is true. They have been challenged all round and in another place and it is right that I should make the points.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked why the law is being changed in Northern Ireland in a separate way and ahead of whatever my right honourable friend the Home Secretary may propose for England and Wales. The matter also interested the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. We are dealing with two jurisdictions so that much of the general criminal law of Northern Ireland is, in legislation, distinct from the law of England and Wales. The review of the law of criminal evidence in Northern Ireland began last year, well before the establishment of the working party referred to by several noble Lords. The review body concluded that the Government should move quickly to amend the law for Northern Ireland in the light of the grave challenge from continuing terrorist violence and other serious crimes, particularly racketeering.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the provisions in a draft order and asked whether they might be amended. That matter also concerned the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We must all wait to see what is proposed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as a result of the work of the review body which he set up. Both noble Lords will know that an official from the Northern Ireland Office is a member of the working party on the right to silence. In strict legislative terms there would be no difficulty in eventually bringing the law on criminal evidence in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the interesting spectre of himself being stopped in the

801
street and questioned by a constable. I assure him that any inference which the court may be entitled to draw from the silence of the noble Lord, even though he may have explained the reason for it, would depend upon the questions. I am sure that the noble Lord is aware that in Section 18 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 certain obligations are placed upon any person who is stopped and questioned by a constable or member of Her Majesty's Forces on duty. It will also depend upon whether the court was satisfied that that person—and I cast no aspersions upon the noble Lord—had been properly warned by a constable or a member of Her Majesty's Forces, in uniform and on duty, of the implications of his silence.
The noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Harris, raised the fact that only short notice had been given of the debate on the order this evening. I regret the lack of notice and offer my apologies and those of the Government to your Lordships for the breach of courtesy. It was forced upon the business managers in your Lordships' House by the timetable required for bringing the provision into effect.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to Article 3(1) of the order which is particularly wide. The inference that is mentioned in Article 3, as well as in Articles 4 and 5, can be a proper one only in the case and as considered by the court. The less cogent the circumstances of the accused's silence, the less the court will be inclined to draw any inference from the silence. That will go a long way towards explaining the Government's considerations on the persons who may be detained for questioning after what was thought to be a shopping excursion, or a crime of that order.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised two points. The first was the question of consultation. The issue has been debated exhaustively over the past 16 years and the legal profession remain deeply divided. However, the Government decided that further formal consultation would not produce a consensus for change and proceeded forthwith with the draft order.
The noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Harris, raised the question of confining the order to serious crime. If the inferences which we find in the order are there to be drawn I believe that any legislator, and any judge and jury in any court, will agree that they should be drawn. It will be evident to noble Lords that a court may view silence on the part of a low-level petty criminal as a different matter from silence on the part of a person accused on substantial grounds of serious crime. Those two factors weigh heavily.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised a problem in respect of the safeguards for persons detained for questioning in police custody in Northern Ireland. I should like to stress the reasons why we believe there are sufficient safeguards. In respect of any person arrested under the terrorism provisions, Section 15, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 obliged the police to inform the suspect of his right to inform someone that he has been arrested and where he is being
802
detained and also to inform him of his right to consult a solicitor in private.
The draft Police and Crinminal Evidence Order and its associated codes of practice, which will shortly be laid before Parliament, will propose important safeguards for suspects held in custody under the general criminal law. The police will be obliged to inform the suspect of his right to consult a solicitor. Suspects who arc detained for more than six hours will normally be taken to police stations specifically designated for that purpose. They will come under the protection of uniformed custody officers whose primary function will be to ensure that the suspects' rights are safeguarded. The maximum period of detention without a court appearance will be reduced from 48 hours to 36 hours. Within that period the need for continued detention must be periodically reviewed by supervising officers.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked whether your Lordships could be consulted when discussing better ways of handling legislation in Northern Ireland. The matter was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. We should welcome constructive suggestions from your Lordships and I shall raise the point with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, raised a number of issues. The first major issue related to the virtue of Articles 5 and 6 which he considered to be dealing with the Irish Criminal Justice Act. It is not merely that the provisions which we have in Articles 5 and 6 of the order before the House deal with Irish Criminal Justice. I am sure that our friends and colleagues in Northern Ireland appreciate the fact that Articles 5 and 6 enable a person to be charged on the basis of silence and other evidence. The last three words are most important; other evidence must also be present. If in committal proceedings the accused stays silent those measures can assist the magistrate in concluding that the case should be sent for trial. Articles 5 and 6 assist in bringing a case to court where Articles 3 and 4 would not do so. Eventually the decision will be made by the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked about police disciplinary procedures. At present, the Government have no plans to propose changes in the disciplinary procedures for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If police officers face criminal charges the provisions, if approved, will apply. However, once again I shall draw the specific attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
The noble Lord asked about the right of silence in police disciplinary proceedings. As always, police discipline charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The law of evidence is broadly followed but the principle here is that the proceedings must be fair to the officer. There would be nothing unfair in the future as regards disciplinary procedures if comment can be made and inferences drawn on the same lines as we have in the draft order before us this evening.
The noble Lord had one query about tape recordings in non-terrorist cases. We intend that the codes of practice under the proposed Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order will

803
include the detailed provisions on the tape recording of interviews and, so far as possible, will be fully in line with the code of practice on tape recordings which applies even now in England and Wales. I understand that the code for England and Wales provides for the making of an interview record which will be compiled in writing and will accurately report what has been said at the interview. A written record is provided to the defence and, if agreed, is entered in evidence. However, if nothing is said then there will be no record.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Colnbrook, who has very great experience of the enormous responsibilities of acting as Secretary of State in Northern Ireland. I shall read carefully his comments on the legislative procedures in Northern Ireland, his forthright comments on the order that we have this evening as well as what he believes are the inferences which will be drawn in Northern Ireland.
As regards my noble and learned friend, his remarks and his speech this evening take me back 11 years when I was on the other side of the House and my noble and learned friend allowed me to open the case for the Opposition in the Unfair Contract Terms Bill. I was in the middle of very erudite lawyers, and my noble and learned friend has lost nothing of his skill, ability and fire since then. We are very grateful that he has come here this evening to support the order. I believe that many of his comments will bear further reading. I particularly enjoyed his comments on the coaching of suspected terrorists. I have the manual referred to by my noble and learned friend before me.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Brookeborough for drawing to our attention the report of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as well as drawing to our attention the appalling pressures which apply to every member of the security forces in Northern Ireland—not just the brave soldiers and lady soldiers of the Ulster Defence Regiment but every single member of the security forces in the Army, the Royal Navy, and the Royal Air Force as well as in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his forthright comments at the end of the debate. All of us will read what he said and I should like to pay my tribute to the tremendous courage shown over many years in Northern Ireland by the noble Lord.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I thank him for his remarks this evening. We are more than grateful for his support for what the Government are trying to do for everybody in Northern Ireland.
I should like to conclude by saying that the Government believe that the majority of reasonable and decent people here and in Northern Ireland will welcome the measures which I have set out in the order as evidence of our firm resolve to bring the perpetrators of evil to justice.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Amendment No. 4 Order 1988
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 31st October be approved. [36th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the background to this order needs little introducion to your Lordships. The Government's measures to control movement and slaughter of sheep from the restricted areas affected by the Chernobyl radioactivity by means of monitoring and marking sheep with green, blue and apricot paint used in rotation have been the subject of previous debates.
I shall accordingly confine my remarks to an exposition of the changes made by the order. First, sheep marked with apricot paint are no longer subject to the slaughter restrictions. Comprehensive monitoring of those sheep, all of which were in unrestricted areas, has shown that the levels of radioactivity in their bodies are now acceptable.
Secondly, it is time to change the colour used to mark the sheep coming forward for monitoring under the mark and release scheme. The colour to be used to denote contaminated sheep coming from a restricted area is now blue which replaces green. Sheep marked with either of those colours remain subject to the movement and slaughter restrictions and no such sheep may be slaughtered unless it successfully passes a remonitoring test for radioactivity and is identified with a special ear tag which shows that it has passed the test.
Thirdly, marking with red paint is introduced in Scotland. Red paint is being and will be applied to sheep, mainly breeding sheep, going from a restricted area and liable to return there, most commonly after wintering. That is designed to meet the criticism made by the agricultural committee in another place that the procedures in Scotland were inherently less rigorous than those being applied in England and Wales.
The order also makes clear that sheep which have passed the monitoring test and leave a restricted area unmarked are not subject to the slaughter control and that only unmarked sheep and red-marked sheep may be brought into a restricted area. Of course, sheep marked apricot and blue cannot be brought back into a restricted area. Breeding sheep, by definition, are not intended for slaughter and entry into the food chain. Those animals can go into a restricted as well as a non-restricted farm for breeding purposes without posing any threat to health. Once back in the restricted area, the mark and release strictures on movement and slaughter would again apply.
We thank the farmers in the restricted areas and their union for their co-operation and help in the exercise of our control measures. Perhaps I may assure your Lordships that those necessary controls on the movement and slaughter of sheep from the restricted areas will continue for as long as necessary to protect the public. Therefore, I commend the order to the House and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 31st October be approved. [36th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has explained this rather complicated order which concerns the paint used for the sheep. I should like to refer to the report of the Select Committee in another place which stated:
"We received conflicting evidence about the paint used to implement the Mark and Release arrangements. 'The worst paint I had ever used in my life,' said one farmer. 'It had no tar in it and was too watery'.".
The report goes on:
"We believe that teething problems were inevitable in an exercise of this kind and that the type of paint used has not incurred sufficient criticism to be an object of major concern. In view of the importance to the Mark and Release arrangements of having reliable paint, however, we believe that MAFF should conduct further research into this matter, with a view to building up emergency stocks of tried-and-tested paints for use on different species in similar situations".
I should like to ask if that has been done.
The Minister also referred to the criticism of the procedures in the DAFS where the report pointed out that the procedures were inherently less rigorous in Scotland than for England and Wales and they should be brought into line in the interests of consistency. As I understand it, that has now been done.
I should finally like to quote from that excellent report prepared by the Select Committee in another place. There has been considerable concern about radiation and about the possibility of contaminated animals entering the food chain. The report concluded:
"We believe that the Government should examine how the facts about radiation can be most clearly explained, and misconceived or exaggerated fears laid to rest".
From this side of the House we hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government have taken on board the helpful suggestions set out in the Select Committee's report.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome for this measure. As regards his last point, I confirm that the observations in the Select Committee's report are being taken on board.
The noble Lord referred to the inadequacy of the paint. The problem is that the paint had to be used promptly and it was the best that was available. However, I can assure the noble Lord that MAFF is now looking into the position.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1988
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 16th August be approved. [35th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, first I must apologise for the fact that we are having to consider these small restrictions on eligibility for farm diversification grants on set-aside land separately from the main regulations on set-aside. It would of course have been more convenient to consider the two at the same time. Unfortunately, this was not possible because of the well-established legal principle that one order cannot refer to the provisions of another which has not yet been made. In other words, while the set-aside regulations were still awaiting parliamentary approval, we could not bring before you another order referring to the set-aside regulations as if they were in force.
That said, the order before us today makes a very small change to the farm diversification grant scheme. I need not detain us for long. The main lines of the set-aside scheme are, I am sure, familiar to us all. Today I will briefly mention only those aspects of it which are relevant to the order before us. Under set-aside, farmers who enter the scheme—and of course it is voluntary—agree to take at least 20 per cent. of the land they use for growing arable crops out of agricultural production for five years. The scheme allows them to use the land which they set aside in three ways. They can leave it fallow. They can convert it to farm woodland or they can put it to a permitted non-agricultural use. It is on this third possibility that we need to concentrate in considering the order before us.
We have deliberately defined the permitted nonagricultural uses of set-aside land very widely. All of those activities which can qualify for grant under the farm diversification grant scheme are included. Only mineral extraction, industrial processors, housing and hotels, offices and retail developments are specifically excluded. Given that the farmer is likely to make some income from the non-agricultural use of set-aside land, annual payments have been fixed at the level of £130 per hectare in less favoured areas and £150 per hectare elsewhere. This compares with payments of £180 and £200 for permanent fallow from which the farmers will derive no direct income.
As I have mentioned, not only are we now offering annual payments for land set aside for non-agricultural uses but we also have in place a farm diversification grant scheme which offers modest grants to assist capital investments on farms needed to set up non-agricultural businesses. Clearly we have had to think very carefully about the relationship between those two schemes and whether, in particular, farmers should be able to benefit from both of them at the same time. I do not, I am sure, need to remind the House that it is a well-established principle that farmers (and indeed everybody else) should not receive government payments from more than one source for exactly the same thing.
In considering this we have come to the conclusion that the objectives of the two schemes are both complementary and different. The set-aside scheme essentially compensates producers for the short-term withdrawal of their land from cereals production. The farm diversification grant scheme, on the other hand, encourages the establishment of new on-farm businesses by grant-aiding capital facilities with a long life.
If we take as an example a farmer who decides to use his set-aside land to put up a farm shop and install a car park next to it, it is clear that he is unlikely to put that land back into agricultural production at the end of his set-aside agreement. He has thus not only met the objectives of the set-aside scheme in that his land has come out of cereals for five years, but he has also met the rather different objective of the diversification scheme in that he has successfully established a long-term non-agricultural business on his farm. We therefore see no reason to deprive him of eligibility for the modest FDGS grants which are available to help him make those long-term investments in what I might describe as hard facilities.
There is, however, a small category of work which is eligible for grant under the diversification scheme but which does not produce changes which would be difficult to reverse in the short term. I am thinking here of grants which help in the preparation of farmland for conversion to a sports pitch or recreational area. Those include field drainage, land levelling and grading, reseeding and regeneration and the laying of turf and other surfaces. Another category which can attract grant is the clearing and landscaping of land in preparation for a nature trail.
Those are activities which, although they would make it easier to install a football pitch or set up a nature trail, would certainly not prevent the land going back into agricultural use at the end of the five year set-aside agreement. Indeed, they might even have the effect of enhancing the agricultural potential of that land. In those circumstances we concluded that it would not be right to offer a grant towards the capital works at the same time as the set-aside payment was available.
To make the position clear, a small amendment to the farm diversification grant scheme is required. That is the origin of the order now before us. I must apologise if my explanation of it has seemed a little technical and complicated. Matching together the fine detail of our various schemes is inevitably a complex matter. Therefore, I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved. That the scheme laid before the House on 16th August be approved [35th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for explaining this order. As he said, it is a simple measure, but it required some explanation, which he did very well. I see no need to say anything other than that I cannot imagine anyone who has put down a golf course ploughing it up after five years. Apart from that, I am content.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Research and Development: Funding
8.7 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter rose to ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis government-funded agricultural research and development in excess of £30 million has been identified as near market to be funded by the
808
agricultural industry and how they propose that the necessary funds should be raised.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, almost exactly one year ago, on 4th November, I tabled an Unstarred Question asking the Government to outline their future policy on agricultural research and development. I asked whether the Government planned to reduce staff in the agricultural research and development sector.
I do not propose to go through the whole debate we had then, but it may assist your Lordships if I remind you of what the Minister said on that occasion. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, said:
"I said that there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work … I repeat that the emphasis is on the balance of funding as between the public and private sectors and the priorities that we should adopt".—(Official Report, 4/11/87; col. 1072.)
That policy has now evolved in at least one respect. We have the Barnes review on agricultural research and development. However, it is still evolving in another respect. We have the Packer review of ADAS. Is that review completed and when will the outcome be announced? There is of course a strong R&D component in ADAS.
Having considered the Barnes review, I have no reason to change the view that I expressed in this House on previous occasions when I compared the review with that undertaken by the Government in the National Health Service—conducted behind closed doors at breakneck speed and designed to produce the answers that the Treasury and the Cabinet Office want. If I intended to be very rude—and I will not—I would describe it as a combination of knee-jerk and ideological spasms. It is no way to organise and review a major scientific effort.
We should set the debate in a wider concept and refer to the science and public expenditure survey of last year from the advisory board. Referring to the health of the science base, it said:
"The science base exists to serve national needs: it is the essential seed-bed for future marketable technologies and trained scientific manpower.
These needs have become more pressing in recent years, and the pressures are continuing to grow, in large part from industry. We welcome this; the nation's future economic success hinges on it. International competition has increased, both in scientific research and in commercial exploitation. We must invest in the science base at a level which will help UK industry to meet this challenge, and which will keep our best scientists in the UK. Society's more widely based aspirations as articulated in the Government's policies, for example, better health, and a cleaner environment at reasonable cost depend in the short and longer term upon research undertaken by the science base."
We have to remember that all this follows the 20 per cent. cuts in R&D implemented between 1985 and 1987. The same report on science and public expenditure that was before Barnes says:
"The AFRC envisages that some 20 existing research programmes will need to be significantly reduced and in some cases competely eliminated … New urgently needed research to develop farm forestry, and on materials science in food biotechnology and processing, will remain unstarted. The planned further increase in research grants to universities will not be possible".
This was before Barnes. The National Environment Research Council remarked:
"The volume reduction implicit in current planning figures will, however, prevent redeployment to high-quality new research programmes on agriculture and the environment".
It must be said that R&D in agriculture has been very good value for the taxpayer and the consumer when one considers the 80 per cent. increase in agricultural productivity compared with the 20 per cent. increase in the economy as a whole. I believe that the Government have given themselves a considerable problem with the definition of near market research and the attempt to squeeze projects into the near market definition. Perhaps the most cynical definition of near market that I have seen was given to me by a research director who described near market as intended to measure the length of the piece of string that the Treasury and the Cabinet Office allow MAFF.
Perhaps I may show briefly what are the practical difficulties from the coal face, as it were, from letters that I have received from directors of two research institutes. One letter states:
"In many respects, the work identified as near market has been identified in what appears to be an arbitrary manner, and in present discussions with representatives of the agricultural industry, they often fail to recognise where the claimed benefit lies. For example, fundamental research on the computer modelling of agricultural systems is said to be near market, perhaps because it is confused with commercial management packages.
Even if the near market concept is accepted, there remains a degree of naivity about implementation. The underlying assumption that you can withdraw 50 per cent. or even 10 per cent. of the funding for a commissioned programme unit and still expect the remainder to be viable does not bear close examination. Any part of a programme demands the presence of all the relevant facilities to function and the maintenance of the infrastructure draws on overheads from the full income. Belatedly, MAFF seem to be recognising this, but are now making ominous noises about restructuring the remaining programmes to ensure more efficient use of funding. The combined effect of the above make forward management of research look like a form of Russian roulette".
If it is hard enough now to define near market research, what will happen in the future? The second letter states:
"Regardless of the merits of the near market concept as a means of determining the broad balance of R&D funding between government and industry, it will generate debilitating uncertainty if applied on an ongoing project-by-project basis henceforth. For instance, MAFF has observed that the near market part of a project may fluctuate considerably from one year to the next. Additionally, research of great fundamental importance may have a substantial near market component. If the latter is of lesser interest and fails to attract industry support it may nevertheless call into question the viability of the former".
I had a very interesting letter from a farmer who is himself the chairman of an experimental husbandry farm. In it he said, as regards a meeting he attended:
"A point I raised that I felt was not dealt with properly was that it had been comparatively easy for Chris Barnes to have done his current exercise. All he had to do was to go through the list of projects and to decide within his interpretation of near market where cuts could he made on work already in progress. What I think will be much more difficult is how to allocate funds in future. For every project that gets taken up by the industry, there are a good many that may have looked originally to be runners but for one reason or another fall by the wayside. What I want to know is who will decide at quite an early stage which will be the runners. Also at what stage, when and by whom will the decision by made that they are to be defined as near market?
810
I feel that those are a series of vital question; that need to he answered. The future competitiveness of UK agriculture will rely on the answers to those questions just as much as who is paying. I have always felt that negative answers were equally important as the goers. What worries me is that if commercially-financed work comes up with negative results, we will probably be none the wiser. This is already happening with silage additives. Several have evidently been shown to he a waste of time and are still being promoted and sold".
I ask who in future will decide on the boundary between the basic work, the strategic work, the work for the public good and the near market research. This is a very hazy and constantly moving line. When one goes through the list of projects that are supposed to be near market, some of them beggar belief. I shall not attempt to read them all. Some of them optimise fertiliser inputs in cereal production to minimise the risk of pollution. There is work on the pesticides, herbicides and the residues, all of which have a very strong consumer interest. All these have been listed as near market.
In the context of the work which involves pollution I remind the Minister of a remark made by the Prime Minister during her speech at the Royal Society. She said:
"we are left with pollution from nitrates and an enormous increase in methane which is causing problems".
I am sure that the Minister will tell us about the meeting she has had with sector groups. I have done a little research on the experience of the people who have been to the meetings, some of which were called at less than 48 hours' notice; some with less than a week's notice. Some were called in August when people were on holiday or on their combine harvesters. Information was requested but it was not forthcoming. The interested parties wished to know how the products were identified and costed, when they began and who authorised them.
One director of a farm co-operative who went to such a meeting said that if he had to ask his board of directors for support there was no way that that request could be formulated on the information provided. When it came to discussions on how to raise the money, the discussion just fell to bits. One of the most serious aspects of the whole matter is the question of job losses of trained and scientific manpower. Again in the Prime Minister's famous speech to the Royal Society she said:
"Everyone here, and no one more than myself, will support Whitehead's statement that a nation which does not value trained intelligence is doomed".
How does this attitude square with the projected job losses? I am sure that the Minister will be familiar with the figures. From the AFRC there will be 740 job losses; from MAFF itself there will be 625 and from Scotland and the colleges and research institutes, 147. That is a total of 1,512 over and above the job losses resulting from the cuts between 1985 and 1987. Does the Minister agree that if the required £30 million is not forthcoming, job losses on this scale will result? Only yesterday I was told that the top man in this country and perhaps in the world on the storage of fruit was on an aeroplane going to America where he has taken up a job because of the uncertainty in this sector at the moment. I am told that many more research workers are considering such a move.
We have the danger of trained and high-quality scientific manpower being lost not because of the quality of their work but because of the particular way in which their projects happen to be funded. I mentioned earlier the R&D component of ADAS. I have seen one forecast which suggests a loss of five experimental horticultural stations, four experimental husbandry farms and one R&D unit, with a total loss of 540 staff. There is another aspect which suggests that ADAS may lose £11 million of funding for near market work. I ask the Minister whether she can tell the House when the industry will know the Government's plans for the future of ADAS, particularly its R&D component, and how this relates to the Barnes review.
There seems to be no guidance from the Government on the crucial question of the funding of near market research. How is the money to be raised? In answers last week to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Minister, Mr. MacGregor, raised doubts about the raising of levies from the food industry. This seemed to leave the door open for levy funding from the agriculture industry. The noble Baroness will be aware that mechanisms exist to collect levies on virtually all produce.
Is she also aware that in the case of industrial funding other countries give substantial tax breaks for investment in research and development? In Australia there is a tax break of 150 per cent.; in the United States it is 100 per cent. There is an average of 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. in many other countries. France funds R&D largely by statutory levies and direct expenditure by government. The French equivalent of the AFRC is 90 per cent. funded by government. In Germany it is done by a combination of federal and local taxes. It is fair to say that in other countries in Europe the funding is on a 50/50 basis between industry and government. With all the importance of 1992, we should not be put at a competitive disadvantage. Compulsory levies are the fairest way to raise the money required, despite the present parlous state of farm incomes.
I ask the Minister to consider the objectivity of research funded by private industry and its credibility in the eyes of the public. This is not to impugn the integrity of the researchers, but will the public believe in research funded by those with an interest in the outcome of the work? An extremely important point was put to me only last week by the research director of one of the largest multinationals in the food industry. He said that if industry is asked to fund part of the work that is now done in the public sector, the total and the quantum of the research will not be increased. He will be given a fixed budget by his board of directors. If he has to use part of that to fund research in the public sector, he will be saving jobs in the public sector but losing jobs in his own company. However, the total amount he has to spend will not be increased.
We are told that the Government intend to save £30 million. They intend also to put back into strategic research, as they define it, some £7 million. What will happen to the remaining £23 million? Will it be fed back upstream into the total civil research and development budget which can then be bid for by
812
the agriculture R&D sector, or will it disappear into the Treasury? If the latter is the case, it is a scandal.
The presented funding from industry and agriculture seems to be of the order of £7 million to £9 million. It appears that the Government wish the industry to increase this by threefold or fourfold in only three years. I ask the Minister to understand that the Government must give the industry longer to work out how to raise the money and to set up the mechanisms to do so. The timescale is crucial. Many of the research directors wish to be given a timescale of five years rather than three years. Once the figure in each sector has been agreed they would hope to fund the money by one-fifth each year. That is not feasible on a three-year timescale.
There is another reason for lengthening the timescale. The industry is now confused. We had cuts from 1985 to 1987. We are still awaiting the outcome of the Packer review of ADAS. There is a proposal, which I support from the Science and Technology Committee of this House to merge the AFRC with NERC, and now we have the Barnes review. The Government must be prepared to give the industry time to digest all this.
This exercise shows the need for a body to promote a long-term strategic view of agricultural R&D. This would be similar to the ACOST procedure in the rest of civil research. We need a review of the whole of the commissioning procedure for R&D and some proper and carefully considered proposals for industry funding. Above all, we need openness. This must not be conducted behind closed doors and at a breakneck pace. We are dealing with the long-term future of a great industry and a magnificently successful research and development effort. The whole effort involves 1,512 of our best scientists. They must be given some security and long-term basis for their work. If the noble Baroness were a bright young graduate in the biological sciences, would she go into United Kingdom agricultural R&D, or would she look abroad or at some other industrial sector?
I shall conclude with the words which I used to conclude a debate last year. I said:
"Lastly, I hope that the Minister will undertake to ensure that both Parliament and the industry will have the chance to discuss the proposals and that they will not be presented with a fait accompli".—[0fficial Report: 4/11/87; col. 1057.]
8.26 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Carter for asking for the debate and also to the Minister who was most anxious to be here to respond. I am grateful to her. We all understand that she has had to undergo some problems of a personal nature over the past few months. My heart, and I am sure the hearts of her many friends in the House, goes out to her at this time.
The debate takes place against the background of the Question which I asked on this issue when the House resumed in October. Therefore, we are in the process of building on knowledge. I have two interests to declare. First, I am proud to be the president of the Institute of Meat. That gives me a general interest in this matter. Secondly, I play a

813
prominent part in the affairs of the Co-operative movement, a consumer movement with 8 million or 9 million members. While I would not be so presumptuous as to speak on behalf of the consumer, the views of the consumer should be heard in this debate. I wish to assure the Minister that if she is concerned with value for money, cutting out waste and making more effective R&D efforts, she will have no enemies in this House. However, it appears to us that she is being advised to go about it in the wrong way. I cannot believe that this exercise is being handled in the best interests of the industry and in the best interests of relations between industry and the Government.
We want protection for the consumer. We want a responsible industry and a government responsive to the needs of health, safety and security. We shall not get those if the Minister and her colleagues persist in their present handling of these matters. In answer to my Question of 10th October the Minister indicated at col. 582 of the Official Report that there had been "discussions in depth". To me "discussions in depth" means that everybody with a view on the issue is consulted. In a discussion on food I should have thought that the Minister would want to hear views on refrigeration and refrigeration methods. Yet the Institute of Refrigeration wrote to the Minister on 10th October and said that it was deeply concerned about the proposals.
The institute certainly was aghast because at that stage, although it may have been put right since, it was not really party to the various consultations that were going on. I know that whatever list is drawn up there are always some people who will say, "You have left me out". However I hesitate to think that the Minister would agree that a proper body to be left out, when one is talking in terms of food, is the Institute of Refrigeration, because it plays such a massive part in the food industry.
The institute is concerned that decisions have apparently been taken which affect the funding of refrigeration research without any discussion having taken place with it. I think that the Minister is entitled to comment on this, and indeed she is supported tonight by the biggest Box of advisers that I have ever seen. In fact, when they came in I thought that they were a spill-over from some of the debates we have had in the House where people come from long distances in order to help us in our discussions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, perhaps I may just reply to the noble Lord on this point. He said that we had not consulted everyone. I can assure him that the presence in the Box shows just how many different sectors and organisations we have consulted.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I only hope that we do not get "the frozen mitt" from the people who would like to tell us about refrigeration. I am quite certain that all the ladies and gentlemen that I saw trooping in are well familiar with this place. However I am grateful that they are here, not just to
814
assist the Minister but also to assist the House better to understand the background to the matter.
If we have a situation where an important body like the Institute of Refrigeration is able to say well into the consultation process that it has not been consulted, I think that the Minister is entitled to comment. Moreover, I shall read another little bit from the institute's letter which will keep the Box busy:
"It appears from comments in the press that the government considers that research at these Institutes and research stations is carried out for the benefit of food producers and focd processors. This is at best less than half the truth. Major benefits in quality improvement accrue to the consumer from the work of these organisations. Changes in industry practice for the long term benefit of the consumer are often engineered by these Institutes".
So I should like the Minister to tell us about the consultation with those organisations. In another part of the letter the institute says:
"It takes many years to build up effective research teams such as those which exist in Bristol and Aberdeen. These teams can be destroyed and scattered within a few months if morale is allowed to drop beyond the point of no return".
My noble friend Lord Carter gave us a personal illustration of that situation. Further, I know that the Minister in a parliamentary reply said that the reason for the speed is to get the decisions quickly and stop the rumours and the confusion. However, I do not think that at this stage she is helped in that matter.
I look now at the points which especially concern me on this issue. I have asked the people I consulted. "What will be the effect, if we accept the near industry categorisation of some of the things which are being talked about as being near industry if they are withdrawn?" I shall tell the House what I was told, especially in respect of salmonella and the manner in which we all recognise that it is of crucial importance as regards poultry and poultry products.
One of the near industry projects or proposals that is on the table is that relating to the use of specific organisms to inhibit the growth of pathogens, if necessary using genetically-engineered microbes— for example, by lactic acid bacteria in fermented food products—to prevent attachment or carriage of salmonella in poultry. If it is true, as I am told, that this project is scheduled for the chop—I hope that term is acceptable, because I speak on behalf of the meat industry, so I think I may use it—by March of next year, I am aghast and horrified. The Minister will put my mind at rest and, I am sure, millions of other people's if she can tell us that such projects are not due to be terminated as a result of some diktat from the Treasury that money must be saved at all costs.
I turn now to the other aspects which I should like the Minister to comment upon. I should like to know whether she is concerned about taking the many elements in the industry along with her in such matters. Perhaps I may tell her what Mr. Chris French of the National Farmers' Union said in September. He spoke on behalf of 40 national agricultural organisations. They had expressed their united opposition to the Government's plans to cut, they say, more than £32 million, and so on. He said:
"We need time to consult farmers to discover which sectors will he willing to pick up the bill which the Government is leaving, and to examine the whole structure of farm and horticulture R&D in this country. We are at one"—

815
that is 40 organisations; not firms or individuals but organisations—
"in deploring both the extent of the cuts proposed and the extraordinary haste with which they are being pressed upon us".
I am sure that the Minister will understand that it could be seen to be procrastination. For instance, the Minister offers a timescale and someone says, "Well, let us have a bit more time". We understand that kind of situation. However, if the Minister wants to keep friends in the industry and wants the industry to help her and her advisers to work out the best means of reducing the amount of public money which is spent, she must answer two questions.
Let us suppose that she tells the industry that it must do something and the answer she receives is, "We are not inclined to do it". In that case I hope that she will reflect upon what she has said. I have with me a letter from her to a parliamentary colleague in which she said:
"If the work is not judged to be important by industry then the Government should not be supporting it".
Therefore let me ask the Minister this. If the industry considers that something as vital as research into salmonella is not important to it, is she really saying, "We shall not be supporting it either"?
My noble friend Lord Carter raised issues about the timescale and the strategy and importance of these matters. I should like the Minister to tell us what she and her friends have in mind if they stick to a view that certain things are near industry and the industry, which is expected to pick up the tab, declines to do so? Where does that leave us as regards public safety?
I can tell the Minister that in conversations which I have had with two very large retailing organisations they have said that they are disinclined to pay directly as an organisation in order to subsidise this kind of research. They fully recognise that ultimately their industry, or their firm, is likely to be the beneficiary. However, there is a point at which there will be a dispute as to whether they are going to pay.
I asked them what they would do if the research establishments came to them and said "We need a subvention". Let us say that it was a £1 or £2 million. They said that they would examine very closely whether they could get the products they wanted from some other place, for instance, another country, which may be a penny or two cheaper.
The Minister knows that in the harsh economic world of 1988–89—never mind about 1992—in the food industry and in many others they are looking at slivers of a penny. I say to the Minister that she and her colleagues are in grave danger in the next few months of earning the reputation of being more concerned about saving public money than ensuring public safety and public health.
The point has been made more than once by my noble friend that we are not just talking in terms of sense and sensibility; we are also talking in terms of jobs. Because I was president of the Institute of Meat I went down to Bristol and watched what they were doing. I have also been to other meetings with the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. Indeed, I attended a function only last week at the Worshipful Company
816
of Butchers where I took the opportunity of discussing with those in the meat industry what their concerns are. Quite frankly, there are many people who fully understand the need for their industry, as well as any other, to be examined critically in order to ensure that they are not wasting public money.
In the exchange a month ago the Minister told me that no decisions had been made. I am glad to see the nod of her head. I hope that before decisions are made she satisfies herself that the proposal is not only viable but practicable and that all the elements of the industry are willing to make it work. If they are unable or unwilling to make it work and the Treasury saves a few pounds, a great many people's future health and happiness will be put at risk and the Minister will have a great deal to answer for.
8.40 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to add my sympathy to that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to my noble friend. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for initiating a debate on this important subject. I very much support his views and those of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on the definition "near market" and the other reservations they have expressed relating to R&D funding in agriculture. As a landowner and active farmer I must declare an interest. I have also talked to the Ulster Farmers' Union to discover its views on the subject.
I note that we are talking about the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Barnes report refers also to Northern Ireland. In the rush to implement the reduction in R&D funding the Government seem to have overlooked or ignored the problems in Northern Ireland that will have to be faced. The first is the legislation (the industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947) which enables the collection of levies on industry. However, that legislation applies largely to Great Britain only and not to Northern Ireland. How do the Government intend to get round that point? Will an Order in Council be produced—I remind your Lordships how unpopular they are in the Province—or will primary legislation be prepared? If the latter choice is to be taken up, how will the Government cope with the delay incurred?
Assuming that that hurdle has been overcome, there will then be an additional delay of up to two years before sectoral development councils could be established. If the Great Britain legislation is followed in Northern Ireland, the establishment of such councils would have to be preceded by a poll of producers in the appropriate agricultural sector. In addition, there will be a requirement for detailed and formal consultations about the use of the funds to be raised. In that respect, will my noble friend give an assurance that those consultations will include the Ulster Farmers' Union, the legitimate voice of the industry in Northern Ireland? How will the Government sort out all of that to keep up with their intended timetable? There are more problems to come, unique to Northern Ireland. To save time, I shall not go into detail on each sector of agriculture, but I shall give one example.

817
We are the only part of the United Kingdom with a land border with another country (the Republic of Ireland). In the case of livestock, for instance, will there be a levy on the abattoirs and, if so, how will the Government cope with the livestock exported and slaughtered across the border?
In general, the farms are much smaller in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain and, dare one say it, less profitable. Should the measure be introduced in its entirety at short notice and in one go, it will have an unfairly disproportionate effect in the Province.
I should like to turn briefly to an anxiety felt by the industry and those involved in R&D. At present all research and development results are made available throughout the industry in the United Kingdom. However, work carried out in different areas, and specifically from my point of view in Northern Ireland, will surely be, as a result of those who fund it, the property of that area's agricultural industry. Does my noble friend expect that information to be freely available to others in the remainder of the United Kingdom, is it to be sold or will industrial spying have to play a part? As an example, I point out that the Agricultural Research Institute for Northern Ireland, and Dr. Gordon in particular, is a world authority on research into grassland management. Its findings are of great benefit to those farmers involved in grassland production in the remainder of the United Kingdom. I appreciate that Northern Ireland would be in the reverse position in many other agricultural fields. The other areas will no doubt have the same questions to ask about what will happen to the researches that they have funded.
The United Kingdom is working towards the open market in 1992. During the run up we must endeavour to put ourselves and the industry into the most advantageous and competitive position possible. The industry and government were making determined and successful headway in that direction. However, an intention to reduce government funding at such a crucial time seems to be near suicidal. I am sure that the industry would have looked favourably upon a request from government to raise extra funds in addition to those available at present to help put it on an even better footing by 1992 rather than have, as we have at present, a percentage reduction running up to that time.
I realise that in many countries the practice of funding near market R&D by the agricultural industry is well established, but what a time to introduce it here and cause a massive hiccup during our preparations for the open market. In addition, it is being done at ridiculously short notice with little consultation, preparation and planning. Will my noble friend inform the Minister of Agriculture of the strong and informed opinion expressed this evening from both sides of the House and in particular of the problems relating to Northern Ireland?
8.47 p.m.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, reference has been made this evening to the fact that sub-committee I of the Science and Technology Committee is undertaking an inquiry into the future of agricultural
818
and food research, including its links with other biological sciences. The Government's intention to cease funding near market research in those areas in anticipation of industry funding it is of great interest to the committee, and its final report will consider those matters.
I do not wish to anticipate any views which the committee might express in its report, but if I draw attention to some of the views put forward by witnesses in evidence to the inquiry I hope that that might give my noble friend the Minister an opportunity to explain how government policy will be implemented. In particular, we have a considerable interest in the discussions, which have already been referred to this evening, that my noble friend has been holding with sectors of the agricultural industry affected by the change of policy.
The Agricultural and Food Research Council has said that it is:
"adamant that because most AFRC research is basic and strategic rather than at the near market level, little if any cuts should be passed on to AFRC".
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, the AFRC has suffered considerable and severe cuts in the past few years. As a result there have been dramatic staff reductions.
Much of the resulting rationalisation is widely regarded as a good and necessary development, but Professor Stewart, the secretary of the council, has said that a period of stable funding is now essential if strategic planning is to be successfully undertaken. The AFRC will say that the rapid removal of these funds at this stage will make it hard for it to maintain an integrated research and development programme with the right balance between basic and strategic research on the one hand, and applied work on the other.
Professor Stewart has said:
"I cannot believe that a Government which appreciates the importance of the Research Councils will allow the Council's budget to be reduced in this way. If they do it will have a major effect on the totality of the biological sciences base of the country".
I hope therefore that the Minister will he able to inform us this evening what effect the Government's "near-market" policy is likely to have on the income and the work of the AFRC. Are funds saved on near-market research to be redeployed on basic research in the biological sciences?
Other witnesses, including the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and the Home Grown Cereals Authority, have emphasised the damage that could be inflicted on the research base by further cuts in government funding. They suggest that whole areas of research may have to be abandoned and establishments closed. The IPCS also suggest that financial support from industry or individual projects will not provide that continuity that public funding can provide and could make it difficult to attract high quality staff and maintain expensive facilities.
The short timescale over which the 'Government intend to implement the policy has also, as has been mentioned tonight, been strongly criticised as being unrealistic and almost certain to mean that industry is unable to organise a response in sufficient time to prevent some projects from being completely lost.

819
The AFRC says that the damage would be reduced if cuts were phased over several years. The council, of course, has a good record in this respect, having quadrupled its income from non-government sources to £14 million—that is to say 12 per cent. of its total income—in the last four years. Again I have to mention that the lack of consultation in formulating the policy has been widely remarked upon.
Other witnesses have suggested that the Government are taking a narrow view in assuming that research which industry will not pay for can reasonably be dispensed with. As has already been mentioned this evening, industry is only likely to take an interest in research which will lead to increased profits, while research for what might be termed public good is likely to be neglected if government funds are not forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what is the Government's intention for support of research in, for example, areas such as animal health and welfare, the environmental effects of agricultural practices and the reduction in levels of inputs such as agrochemicals.
Finally, the National Farmers' Union explained to us why it is difficult for the industry to make a substantial additional contribution to research. The obvious point was made that agriculture is a diverse and fragmented industry with many small producers and with differing requirements and commitments. Organising a co-ordinated response will therefore be difficult and contain many problems. Farmers and growers have in any case considerably increased their support for research in recent years through, of course, the sector organisations such as the Milk Marketing Board and the Apples and Pears Development Council. In some commodity sectors, the mechanisms have only recently been established. Demands for members to increase their contributions substantially before they have experienced any benefits from their new involvement in funding research can act as a deterrent. The National Farmers' Union also points out that farmers have recently been faced with charges for the advice and other services of ADAS and therefore are already meeting the costs of work formerly financed out of the public purse. As I said at the outset, it would not be proper for me tonight to consider what may well be recommended in the report of the committee. I hope that in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Carter's Question, the Minister will be able to comment on the concerns and difficulties which have been mentioned by our witnesses. She may be able to tell us what progress she has made in her discussions with those sectors of the industry which are now very concerned about this policy.
8.56 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I wish first and foremost to endorse what noble Lords have said about the attendance of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, here tonight. I thank her for her tremendous courtesy and the attention she has given to what I have said over the many years during which I have faced her across the Dispatch Box. This is my last appearance as Front Bench speaker on
820
agriculture and I thank her for her courtesy. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Carter for raising this issue.
I do not propose to go into any great detail since the four previous speakers have made a very strong case and I see no reason why I should try to emulate what has already been said. I have no illusions about the Government's intentions. I think my noble friend Lord Graham put the matter properly when he said that it is a case of money saved at all costs. I am a little worried that a tremendous amount of work must have been done, one way and another, in producing all the details that were circulated which I have received on the various cuts and the numbers of people who might or might not be made redundant.
Over a long period in politics and in the Ministry for a while, I have found that once a major survey of one kind or another has been undertaken it is very difficult to stop. I hope that what has been said tonight will have some effect in trying to prevent the cuts or perhaps not so much the cuts as the effort to move the funding of agricultural research and development in the direction which the Government wishes. The loss of about 1,500 personnel which has been emphasised by other people is something which we must watch carefully. As was said, well-educated first-class research workers in all fields are scarce in this country.
It is quite remarkable what research over the past 40 years has done for our industry. I do not wish to take sides, but I always put plant breeding at the top of the list. Many other research institutes with which I have been associated have done a tremendous job for agriculture. The effect of it has been an enormous increase in production to the benefit of the country in so many different ways which have already been emphasised. I wish particularly to mention the matter of raising the £31 million, or so, to replace the Government's funding. It will not be possible to obtain that sum from the industry today. There is no question that most agricultural projects are feeling a financial squeeze. Farmers do not know what is going to happen in the next two years, but they are in no mood to dish out money without a very good reason.
I wish to make the same plea as all the other speakers have made for much more time to carry this out. I have no illusions about what the Government are going to do. They will carry their intention out, but I should like them to take a close look at how this money can be raised in the industry in five years' time. That time span has been mentioned, I believe.
Looking at the scheme simply, if we take 31 million acres of ploughable land, the money comes to £1 an acre. But that would be an unfair levy because a 1,000 acre cereal farm would have to pay far more than a 200 acre dairy farm with 100 cows. I throw the following out as an idea, but it might be possible to impose a fiat rate levy of, say, 50 pence an acre and then place a monetary emphasis on various projects such as dairying, and raise the money that way. It will take time to work such a scheme out, but I do not see any reason why that should not work. Therefore the contribution would become an overall contribution from the industry. If that could be done reasonably quickly, we might be able to carry on with present research.

821
I am not suggesting that there should not be changes and that different emphasis should not be placed on certain research projects. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is present. I am sure that he would agree with me on this matter. The Agricultural and Food Research Council, of which he is chairman, controls research projects. That body changes, where necessary, the emphasis on research projects. It does that very well indeed. If a research project will result in savings to the industry, or if a project requires more money, the research council will deal with it.
I hope that we shall give the industry time to decide whether it will agree to the scheme. We must not upset the industry.
Some bodies within the industry have been threatened with losing men; some of them have been threatened with closure altogether. That is a tragedy that we should avoid at all costs. I appeal to the Minister to consider that.
I must admit that a difficulty arises as regards overlaps in research. An instance of that is research into the production of milk and everything to do with milk itself. But there is also research carried out into the machinery to provide food for that industry. In that case there is an overlap between arable farming and stock farming. I am not in any way suggesting that there will not be difficulties in following what I am suggesting. But I hope that the Government will give it thought. Whatever the Government decide, I hope that they will give the industry and the research and development institutes time to prepare themselves for this very radical change.
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this debate has been characterised by quality, if not quantity. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords have raised a great many issues this evening. I shall do my best to deal with them as fully as possible in the time available.
I wish to say how grateful I am for the personal note introduced by my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord John-Mackie. One of the nice things about this House is that it does not matter whether we are facing each other or whether the enemy is from behind; we are all good friends. I am sure I speak on behalf of all noble Lords here when I say that it is indeed sad that this is the last appearance of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in the particular place which he has adorned with great distinction over a long period. He has so much experience in the field of agriculture.
However, the fact that the noble Lord is moving his seat back a range or two will not mean, I am sure, that I shall not suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune marked at me with unerring aim by the noble Lord for many years to come. I wish the noble Lord very well in the future on behalf of those present. I am sure that many other noble Lords share that feeling.
I should like to begin by emphasising that, while the Autumn Statement has been made, final decisions on the future level of Government funding have not
822
yet been taken. We are consulting the industries concerned in order to establish their willingness to fund near market work which will in future not be funded by the Government. Only when these discussions have been completed next year can further Ministerial decisions be taken on the level of public funding in the longer-term.
Perhaps I may just say here to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough that I am most grateful to him for giving me prior information as to the contents of his speech. I am equally grateful to him for agreeing that I may write to him concerning the specific points he made which affect Northern Ireland.
We are striving to strike the right balance between minimising the period of uncertainty for research staff and maximising the time industry has to decide which R&D to support. Accordingly, on my return from West Africa, I was dismayed to find the Institution of Professional Civil Servants publicising its views on job losses and closures in considerable detail. When no decisions have been reached or can be reached until the position on increased industry funding is known, I think it most unhelpful for the IPCS to claim to have identified definite job losses and site closures. There will need to be rationalisation of facilities as programmes change to take account of the Government's future needs and industry's requirements. But I cannot yet say what the impact will be until our discussions have been concluded.
The review of the agriculture department's research programmes and its commitment to stop funding near market R&D is not a sudden change of course on our part, but rather a development of our initial moves towards greater industry participation which began nearly four years ago. We announced in January 1985 that planned expenditure by the agriculture departments was to be reduced by £20 million over two years to reflect the Government's aim that the industry should make a greater contribution to R&D from which it benefits. We had discussions with agricultural organisations and gave them every encouragement to increase the rate of industry funding, including for example facilitating the establishment of a horticultural development council, as has been mentioned this evening. I recognise the very considerable efforts made since then by producer bodies in raising funds for R&D.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, will appreciate that no government could, then or now, enter into longterm commitments over future priorities for public expenditure. But it would be equally wrong to suggest that, because industry had demonstrated that it could raise funds, the Government are now seeking to take advantage by cutting back their contribution. My noble friend Lord Butterworth will be aware that the philosophy behind the recent review of funding of R&D is that for work which is close to commercial application industry is in the best position to judge what research should be undertaken. That view is not confined to agriculture alone: it is a policy which runs across all government-funded R&D programmes.
Last year, in the White Paper giving the Government's response to the first report from your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology, we accepted the Committee's view that responsibility for funding applied work of direct

823
benefit to industry should rest mainly with industry itself. For work which is close to commercial application, industry is in the best position to judge what research should be undertaken. We also announced in that White Paper that we had begun to undertake a searching review of R&D priorities across the whole field of government, with a view to increasing the contribution of publicly-funded R&D to the efficiency, competitiveness and innovative capacity of the UK economy.
That is the background against which we commissioned the Barnes review. The Government remain committed to supporting basic and strategic research, as well as work of a public-good nature in support of statute or policy in relation to issues such as environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety. But we do not believe that it is right that the taxpayer should be asked to continue supporting work which directly assists the industry at which it is aimed to gain an economic benefit. Only by seeking industry support for such work can we ensure that it is properly targeted to the needs of agriculture, fisheries and food now and in the future. We have also made clear that, if industry does not wish to take on the funding of particular programmes or projects, the Government will not continue to do so.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? I appreciate that she has confirmed what I had said were her views. But will she answer the following question? She is seeking the support of industry to take over some of the funding of R&D and she has just said that if industry decides not to do so the Government will not do it. Is she not saying that in such crucial areas as the illustration that I gave, research into salmonella in poultry, and in areas of public safety, health and hygiene the public health will be at grave risk?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord has taken the words right out of my mouth. Much as I respect him, I think that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. There is no intention to cut funding for work related to food safety, particularly with regard to salmonella in poultry, which he mentioned. The Government are extremely sensitive to concern about salmonella. That work will not be cut. I hope I make myself clear.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I go on? Perhaps then if I have not explained myself sufficiently clearly the noble Lord can come back to me.
For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I should like to repeat that we shall continue to fund work in the public-good category. I am aware that some people are claiming otherwise, but that is a misunderstanding. The Cabinet Officer's annual review of government-funded R&D shows that over the past five years the proportion of MAFF's externally commissioned research in agriculture and food which is carried out for policy and statutory
824
purposes has risen from 10 per cent. to 35 per cent. That trend will accelerate over the next three years as we progressively concentrate our resources on public good and strategic research.
It is at best mischievous for the IPCS to claim that our withdrawal from near market R&D will have devastating consequences for animal welfare, public health and the environment. For instance, it is incorrect to claim, as IPCS do, that research into reducing the use of nitrogen is to be cut. The true position is that work aimed at investigating losses of nitrate to ground water is being maintained as well as work on other pathways of loss such as the volatilisation of ammonia which has been implicated as a contributory factor in the formation of acid rain. Nitrogen studies which are aimed at increasing the efficiency of production on the other hand have been identified as near market and accordingly will have their public funding withdrawn within three years.
I do not want to dwell over-long on this topic but I should like to stress that we are maintaining and strengthening our research efforts into such areas of public good as the development of integrated and biological control of outdoor crops; the assessment of the impact of agrochemicals on wildlife habitats; the development of environmentally safe measures for the control of weeds, pests and diseases; the development and evaluation of humane and effective stunning and slaughter place procedures to improve animal welfare; the development of methods to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of viral and related verterinary products; the development of housing systems for livestock which safeguard the health and welfare of the stock and the farm workers; investigating metabolic disorders in poultry such as lameness, broken bones, broiler sudden death syndrome and digestive heart failure, and of course BSE.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is the example given by the noble Baroness about the application of nitrogen just an illustration of the difficulty of distinguishing between near market and basic research? If work is done on the optimum supply response to nitrogen, one will be told that one's crops will increase if one puts on more nitrogen; and that is near market. If one does work on the leaching of nitrogen, one will be told that if the application of nitrogen is increased, one will increase the loss of nitrates. Just how does one distinguish this work?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that it is an extremely complicated matter for me to go into now. Noble Lords will have to look at what I have said, and perhaps if they are not satisfied perhaps they will ask me to write to them and I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library if they so wish.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I want to assure her that those who advised me of their interpretation and their conclusions after discussions will not only be grateful for what the Minister has just said, which is on the record, but will feel that they must have attended an attributable briefing at which the tape recorder broke down.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I was not there, either. I must say to the noble Lord that the Government fully accept responsibility in relation to public safety and public health. However, I would remind the noble Lord that industry has responsibility too.
The Barnes review itself examined carefully and thoroughly the research and development programmes and projects funded by the agricultural departments. It identified that work which offered the prospect of commercial exploitation or application within a reasonable timescale, whether as a product, process or system—and thus near to the market and suitable for industry funding. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that, in conducting his review, Mr. Barnes held extensive discussions with those responsible for commissioning and undertaking R&D, as well as with industry.
I understand that industry needs time to consider our proposals before it can reach conclusions but I cannot accept your Lordships' criticism of the handling of the consultations. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that we have in fact consulted the Food Manufacturers' Federation, retailers and food research associations to ensure that all views are in perspective. We are entirely ready to listen to consumers' views. I must tell the noble Lord that we consulted some 80 organisations. We had absolutely no intention to leave out in the cold the refrigeration body; I apologise and will write and contact it if it feels aggrieved.
We have gone to considerable lengths to explain both the rationale for and the detail of our proposals. We have issued a good deal of information at programme unit and project level, and I know that the formal discussions have led to further bilateral contacts between representatives of industry and people from the research establishments involved. We have not acted with undue haste but we have had to bear in mind the uncertainty among the staff affected.
What we have sought to do is to indicate at the earliest possible opportunity the type of work from which funding will be withdrawn and to provide a guide to the value of that work so as to give industry as much time as possible to prepare for the public expenditure reductions on near market R&D. That has unfortunately meant that the discussions have had to be held at a time of year when many farmers were busy harvesting. However, it was of great importance in my view to give the research in question a better chance of continuing without a break by sounding prior warning of the need to increase industry's contribution to its funding.
Speculation on the outcome of the Barnes Review and continuing uncertainty about its impact on individual research establishments is of course unsettling for research staff. My right honourable friend the Minister in another place and I are well aware of this, and yet another of our principal aims in undertaking the speedy consultations with industry was to minimise the length of this uneasy period for research personnel. But equally important, we are conscious of the need to give industry as much time as we possibly can to consider what R&D they wish to fund. I must stress that the effects on research
826
establishments of government withdrawing funding from near market research and development cannot be assessed until the extent to which industry will fund its own near market R&D can be estimated with some degree of confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how we propose that the necessary funds should be raised. This is a matter primarily for industry itself. While there is very good progress by producers in funding R&D, the total expenditure by the farming industry is still under £20 million annually, which is small compared to the public funding of some £170 million. Indeed, total expenditure by the Government on the R&D related to the areas for which agriculture ministers are responsible is in excess of £200 million annually, a substantial sum by anyone's standards. The scale of the problem is very different in food research in that about 80 per cent. of all R&D is already funded by industry, but the same principles apply.
I accept that for farmers and growers to increase their spending on near market R&D the appropriate funding mechanisms will be necessary. This is something we are discussing with industry in the consultations to which I have referred. In practice a number of arrangements already exist together with an opportunity for farmers to comment on whether they want levy funding and on what scale. As your Lordships can imagine, I am thinking of such bodies as the HDC, the Apple and Pear Development Council, the Home-Grown Cereals Authority, and the Meat and Livestock Commission.
These are backed by statute, and functioned in this way only after consultation with the industries concerned whether by poll or other means, and of course a number of other bodies such as the Milk Marketing Board and the Potato Marketing Board also fund R&D. A system of funding already operates across a substantial proportion of agriculture using a variety of mechanisms. In the past two to three years the contribution to R&D that has come through these mechanisms has been increasing and is projected to increase still further. The United Kingdom is not out of line with our major competitors according to the Treasury report on taxes in other member states in 1986.
MAFF and DAFS R&D expenditure has been reduced by £5 million for 1990–91, and by £14 million for 1991–92. Together with the reduction announced last year of £5 million in 1989–90 and £10 million in 1990–91 that produces a cumulative reduction by 1991–92 of £24 million. To relate the PES outcome to the illustrative figures contained in the detail papers which form the basis for our consultations with industry (copies of which can be found in the Library) costs which fall outside the agriculture programme need to be included—for example, superannuation. That produces a reduction by 1991–92 of £30 million at full economic cost.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Butterworth will appreciate that the Government have to determine their priorities across the whole field of research and development, civil and defence, in the knowledge that the total funds available are not unlimited. A great deal of attention has been focused on our intention to withdraw

827
funding near market R&D because we believe it to be industry's responsibility, not government's. However, less attention has been paid to our intention to increase funding for the science base. The large increases in expenditure on basic science announced in the Autumn Statement are to be funded in part by our withdrawal from the financing of near market R&D.
As can be seen, it is not simply a one-way process. The Government intend to fulfil their responsibilities. We hope that industry will meet its responsibilities.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister said "in part". I asked what would happen to the £23 million that would be saved—£30 million less £7 million—for strategic research.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I hate to correct the noble Lord against myself; but the figure is £5 million, not £7 million.
Lord Carter: My Lords, £2 million and £5 million total £7 million.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is £5 million, not £7 million as the noble Lord claims. It is what one might call a reverse point scored. That money will go back into general funds to be decided for future use.
Lord Carter: My Lords, research funds or the Treasury?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Treasury.
Let us return to our onions. The noble Lord asked about the future, in particular how we shall define near market work. For the future the increasing emphasis of our research programmes on public good, and strategic work to meet statutory and policy needs will continue as will research geared to provide the underpinning platform on which industry can build. Exciting new work will be undertaken in areas such as biological control, farm woodlands, land use, the greenhouse effect and air pollution. Money saved
828
from elsewhere will be part of that. We intend to give greater emphasis to MAFF-industry programmes in pre-competitive R&D. Advice from the Priorities Board for R&D in agricultural food together with the regular review cycle of the agriculture and fisheries programme provides a strategic view of national research needs of these industries. However, we shall wish to discuss the future strategy for R&D sector by sector with industry so that together public and industry funding can support co-ordinated and integrated programmes.
Funnily enough the subject of horticulture, which is very near and dear to me, did not arise in the debate. I have been speaking for a long time. I should like to make it clear gratuitously that I am aware of the concern expressed by growers over the high proportion of horticultural R&D involved. I understand the worries of horticulturalists, who feel that they have been singled out for special treatment. In fact, the treatment was the same in every sector. It just happens that horticulture uses a great deal of near market research. I pay tribute to its efforts to raise money to pay for R&D. I hope that the future will be secured in the form of the HDC going on and gathering strength.
So many points have been raised that I think I had better write to noble Lords. I accept that there is pressure on farm incomes and that farm businesses are often one or two person business operations. In most cases the near market R&D from which public funding is being withdrawn represents less than one fifth of 1 per cent. of the value of output of the sector concerned. If viewed in isolation the total funding to be withdrawn by government from near market R&D looks large, but in terms of each agricultural sector and of individual contributions from farmers the amount is relatively small—not insignificant but not large either. So each and every farmer must realise that he holds the key to the future of commercial R&D in his own hands.
House adjourned at half-past nine o'clock.

  DRUG TRAFFICKING: LAUNDERING OF PROCEEDS
  DRUG TRAFFICKING: LAUNDERING OF PROCEEDS
  GOVERNMENT LEGAL SERVICES: REPORT
  GOVERNMENT LEGAL SERVICES: REPORT
  SURPLUS HEALTH SERVICE PROPERTY: USE OF SALE PROCEEDS
  SURPLUS HEALTH SERVICE PROPERTY: USE OF SALE PROCEEDS