Sitting of 18 April 1989

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

    Wages Councils
    Mr. Marlow: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has reached any conclusions on the future of wages councils following the public consultation; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. John Cope): My hon. Friend will have seen from the answer that I gave on 21 March to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that a decision on the future of the wages councils will be taken later this year.
    Mr. Marlow: In view of the Government's massive majority last night, does my right hon. Friend feel that he will be able to secure a majority to get rid of this further legislative relic of the decaying vegetation of socialism? Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that he has another secret and sudden Bill, dripping wet with printer's ink, to bring before an eager and expectant House?
    Mr. Cope: The only assurance that I can give my hon. Friend and the House is that no final decision has yet been taken, but that it will be taken later in the year.
    Mr. John Evans: Is it not a scandal that a number of employers pay their employees less than the wages councils' statutory minimum wage? If the Government abolish the wages council, what steps do they intend to take to protect people from such vicious exploitation?
    Mr. Cope: Last year about 97 per cent. of the workers in wages councils industries were paid at least the minimum due. That is the result of recent inspections. However, we must also balance job prospects and numbers of jobs, as well as the considerations mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Budgen: Was not the original idea of the wages councils to protect the weakest employees who might not be able to negotiate adequately with their employers, and wast not the compromise by which young employees were taken out of the wages councils a ridiculous and illogical one? Should not the Government now move towards straightforward abolition?
    Mr. Cope: It was a sensible thing to do at the time, but it is right to review the position now.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Recognising that there is once again a considerable head of steam among Conservative Members for the abolition of this so-called decaying vegetation of socialism, will the Minister explain why, in consultation exercises, virtually all those who responded from various industries were unhappy about the abolition of the wages councils?
    Mr. Cope: On the contrary, in the six largest councils, which represent about 94 per cent. of all workers covered by wages councils, a majority of the employer bodies wanted abolition.
    Mr. Gregory: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of the wages councils are anachronistic? Few Members represent people who work, for example, in the area covered by the ostrich feather and artificial fancy flower wages council?
    Mr. Cope: Yes, there are a number of small wages councils in rather exotic industries.

    Mines and Quarries Inspectors
    Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mines inspectors and quarries inspectors the Health and safety Executive had in place on 1 April.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): On 1 April 1989 the Health and Safety Executive employed 58 mines inspectors and 11 quarries inspectors.
    Mr. McKay: In what disciplines are the mines inspectors placed and where are the specialist services based?
    Mr. Nicholls: The inspectors are trained in specialties appropriate to their tasks. It may be of particular interest to the hon. Gentleman to know that in the past three years the ratio of mines inspectors to workers in British Coal mines has improved from one to 1,790 to one to 1,679. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a most welcome improvement.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister acknowledge that accident rates are higher among the employees of the private contractors in British Coal collieries, and higher still among employees in the private licensed mines? The proposal to abolish the statutory health and safety responsibilities of the pit deputy is utterly unacceptable and we are not prepared to see a reduction in health and safety standards with the increase in accidents and deaths that it must entail, to prepare the way for privatisation of the industry.
    Mr. Nicholls: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on the latter point, but I know of no such proposal. I also agree that the accident rate in licensed mines, which is running at a higher rate than that in the industry generally, is a cause for concern. It is difficult to discern any particular reason for it, but certain things a re clear—they tend to be smaller enterprises, in some cases technology and high technology may not be in use to the same extent, and the seams may be difficult to work. We share the hon. Gentleman's concern, and the inspectorate

    169
    has had a number of constructive meetings with the Federation of Licensed Mines to see whether anything can be done.

    Training and Enterprise Councils
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received from chambers of commerce on his proposals to introduce training and enterprise councils.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler): Since the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" was published on 5 December last year, almost 4,000 individuals and organisations have expressed an interest in training and enterprise councils. Of these, 87 approaches have been from chambers of commerce.
    Mr. Nicholson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that industry contributes some £15 billion per year in training employees and that the extra £3 billion from the Government, plus the direction of training being given to industry, will be a recipe for success? Does he agree, however, that the continuing support and working co-operation of local business as represented separately by bodies such as chambers of commerce, is also essential for success?
    Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with both the points that my hon. Friend, with his considerable experience of the chamber of commerce movement, has put to me. Employers are now investing more than £18 billion a year in training. That is a substantial increase, but I entirely agree that the success of training and enterprise councils will depend heavily on the support that they receive not just from employers but from everyone in the local community.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that the Secretary of State is anxious that the business men who come forward should be of the highest calibre, but is he not concerned that many of them, as a result of their success, will not have the time to devote to training? What quality control procedure will there be to ensure the standard of training provision is of a uniformly high standard throughout the country, and not patchy, with variations from area to area?
    Mr. Fowler: National standards of training will, of course, continue. That is crucially important. Training and enterprise councils, however, are concerned with the local delivery of training. I believe that our proposals will enable leaders of business locally to be used, as it were, as boards of directors while Training Agency staff can be seconded to the councils. In that way, we shall have the best of both worlds.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of training has been that the trade unions have helped to destroy the apprenticeship system, because they wanted young people to be paid too much of the skilled wage at the beginning? Is there any more accord now? Do the trade unions intend to help the scheme on its way so that people will be trained and have real jobs when they have finished that training?
    Mr. Fowler: I very much hope that that is the case. Training and enterprise councils have not been a matter of controversy between Government and trade unions or, indeed, with other organisations. One of the areas in which
    170
    the councils should work quickly and well is my hon. Friend's own city of Birmingham, where employers and unions have a good working relationship, and I should like to see that continue.
    Mr. Meacher: After the fiascos of the job training scheme, which achieved only a quarter of its targeted number of places, and employment training, which achieved only half the targeted number, why should the training and enterprise councils do any better when they have no extra funding, unbalanced and unrepresentative membership, and no public accountability for the public funds provided?
    Mr. Fowler: The most indicative thing about the hon. Gentleman is that he seeks to attack every training initiative that has been made over the past two years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I will give the hon. Gentleman the facts, so that he will know them in future. The fact is that some 180,000 people are now on employment training schemes. They have taken absolutely no notice of the hon. Gentleman's advice, and I advise the public to do the same.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in the east midlands during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): In the 12 months to March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands fell by 34,500 or 22·6 per cent. on a consistent basis. Unemployment in the east midlands is now at its lowest level for more than eight years, as it is in the country as a whole.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Has my hon. Friend noted the astonishing fall in unemployment in my constituency of Bosworth of 41 per cent. in the past 12 months? Does he agree that that success is partly due to the policies of Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, the Conservative-controlled council with the lowest rates in the east midlands? Does he further agree that that trend is reflected throughout the east midlands?
    Mr. Lee: I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. The civilian work force in the east midlands is 1,844,000 —the highest level ever.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister tell us the real unemployment figure, without the 19 different fiddles that he has introduced? When does he estimate that the unemployment figures will get back to 1979 levels?
    Mr. Lee: Unemployment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in the two years to March 1989 has fallen by 29·1 per cent.
    Mr. Boswell: Has my hon. Friend noticed that unemployment in the two years to March 1989 has fallen to a new low? Has he any explanation as to how that could have happened?
    Mr. Lee: I can only assume that it is a combination of the Government's economic policy and the very sound judgment of my hon. Friend's constituents when they elected him as their Member of Parliament.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the Minister aware that there have been a number of pit closures in my constituency of Ashfield because of his Government's policy? Is he aware that at Stanton Hill in my constituency the pit is to close in August and there is no other industry? What is the Department of Employment doing to convince the chairman of British Coal to back off and instead of selling that land for housing development let us have some industrial units? Nottinghamshire county council is interested in doing just that. The Minister should pull his socks up and do something about it.
    Mr. Lee: I wish that the hon. Gentleman, in his own inimitable style, would shout from the rooftops that in the two years to March 1989 unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 24·4 per cent.
    Mr. Aspinwall: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in the south-west of England.
    Mr. Lee: In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the south-west region was 1,965,000. That represents an increase of 213,000 or 12 per cent. since December 1983.
    Mr. Aspinwall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fall in unemployment of 213,000 reflects the strength of the small business sector in the community in the south-west? Is he aware that the Wansdyke enterprise agency in my constituency has made a considerable contribution to promoting small businesses? How does the Minister intend to support that and other enterprise agencies in the south-west?
    Mr. Lee: On the first point, my hon. Friend is right. Self-employment in the south-west increased by 82 per cent. between December 1979 and December 1988. I know how supportive my hon. Friend has been of the Wansdyke enterprise agency and I understand that he is the honorary president of that organisation. The Government consider that the Wansdyke enterprise agency is doing a good job. We have put in substantial amounts of pump-priming money, but the future for financing the enterprise agency increasingly lies with the private sector and we hope that the enterprise agency will be successful in raising more support from that source.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Of the 213,000 people who found jobs in the south-west of England, where there are a lot of Labour voters, how many were in part-time jobs and for how many was the pay so low that they had to inquire about family credit?
    Mr. Lee: It is impossible to answer that question.
    Mr. Harris: I very much welcome the figures given by my hon. Friend, but does he agree that training plays an important part and that the need for training is great in the south-west, especially in Cornwall? In that context, although completely rejecting suggestions that the Government are somehow to blame for the rejection of Cornwall county council's applications for the European social fund, will my hon. Friend nevertheless redouble his Department's efforts to ensure that those applications are reconsidered by the Commission in Brussels?
    Mr. Lee: We are, of course, supportive of training and we hope that there will be a satisfactory and keen response
    172
    from the private sector in the south-west—and especially in Cornwall—to the opportunity for the development of training and enterprise councils. I note what my hon. Friend says about European funding, but I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend last Friday.
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Fowler: Between March 1983 and December 1988, the work force in employment in the United Kingdom increased be almost 3 million to more than 26.5 million —the highest level on record in this country.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in west Norfolk unemployment has fallen by 18 per cent. —to 5·9 per cent.—as a result of the growth in enterprise and small businesses and that that will be enormously assisted by the recent announcement by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport that the railway line to King's Lynn is to be electrified? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the encouraging growth in self-employment locally has been reflected in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Fowler: There has been a substantial increase in self-employment, which has undoubtedly been one of the most important elements in the growth of employment. Between 1983 and 1988, there was an increase of about 840,000 in the number of self-employed.
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State know that all over the developed world there has been an increase in the participation rate, with more and more women coming into the labour force? Our record is worse than that of any other country in terms of the growth of low-paid employment. Almost the majority of our work force is now low paid. Does the Secretary of State not understand that our high participation rate is a measure of underdevelopment? There are now more young people in higher education in South Korea than in Britain. The figures are nothing to boast about—they are a measure of our decline.
    Mr. Fowler: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. International comparisons in the growth of employment show that the increase in numbers in employment between 1983 and 1987 in the United Kingdom equals that of the rest of the European Community combined. That is the measure of our success.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the proportion of the population of working age in employment in the United Kingdom is now 66 per cent.? How does that compare with other countries in the European Community?
    Mr. Fowler: It is higher than in the European Community. The point that the hon. Lady made about women in employment was equally dud. The participation rate among women in this country is much higher than in almost every other European country.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the unemployment rate in parts of my constituency remains more than a third, especially on major estates such as Braunstone, Beaumont Leys, Mowmaker, Stocking Farm and New Parks? Is he aware that on 4 May my

    173
    constituents there will show what they think of the Government at the county council election, when they will have the chance to express their views through their votes?
    Mr. Fowler: Like the hon. and learned Gentleman, I look forward to that election. He omitted to mention that unemployment in his area has fallen by 34 per cent. in the past two years.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are bright prospects for increasing employment in our traditional port areas arising from the abolition of the national dock labour scheme and that a dock strike would damage those prospects?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with both those points and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting in the points that he was prevented by the Opposition Front Bench from making last night.

    Environmental Assessments
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training and information has been given to the agricultural inspectorate on environmental assessment associated with the Food and Environment Protection Act.
    Mr. Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training and information has been given to the agricultural inspectorate on environmental assessment associated with the Food and Environment Protection Act.
    Mr. Nicholls: Prior to undertaking their enforcement responsibilities under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectors are given a week's specific training on the requirements and implications of the Act. This is supplemented as required by further local and national training.
    Mr. Vaz: What publications have been made available to the agricultural inspectorate to assist it with this important work?
    Mr. Nicholls: The full resources of the service are available to inspectors to enable them to equip themselves for the task. It is important to note that if they require specialised or specialist help in their investigations there are a number of agencies they can contact to provide that specific help.
    Mr. Hood: Is the Minister aware of the great public concern about the harmful effects of pesticide residues coming into our food chain? Knowing that, what are the Government doing to provide more resources to help the agriculture inspectors to carry out their extra responsibilities?
    Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to voice that public concern. It was to address that concern that the Food and Environment Protection Act and the structures under it were introduced. The resources now applied generally to the Health and Safety Executive compare in real terms as favourably, if not more so, with those given by the Labour Government.
    Mr. Paice: Is it not the case that without the development of a range of "responsible" pesticides in the
    174
    past few years this country might have gone hungry? Instead of condemning all pesticides, should we not concentrate on adequate testing to find out which ones may be damaging, if at all, either to people or to the environment and concentrate on weeding them out instead of building up an anti-pesticide hype across the whole spectrum?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am sure that my hon. Friend is entirely right. It is too easy to forget that the whole idea of a pesticide is to kill pests and that to that extent it must obviously be a dangerous and deleterious chemical. The effect of the advisory committee on pesticides is to ensure that only safe products are launched on the market and, perhaps more importantly, to ensure that the position can be reviewed as and when necessary in the light of increased knowledge.

    Service Industries
    Mr. John Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people have been employed in service industries in the north-west region in each of the last three years, expressed as a proportion of the labour force; and if he will give comparable figures for the south-east.
    Mr. Lee: In each of the past three years, about two thirds of all employees in employment in the north-west were in service industries, compared with three quarters of all employees in employment in the south-east.
    Mr. Evans: Does the Minister acknowledge that well-paid service jobs have mushroomed in the south-east to offset the decline in manufacturing, but that although manufacturing jobs have also collapsed in the north-west there has been no such growth in well-paid service jobs in that area? What plans does the Minister have to create a fairer distribution of those well-paid service jobs to areas such as the north-west?
    Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman is not being his usual fair and generous self. There has been a rise in employment in service industries in the north-west of about 7 per cent. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse the prosperity of manufacturing industry with the numbers of people actually employed in manufacturing. I take the example of Pilkington, a company that he knows well in his constituency and which he frequently and rightly praises. Employment in that key manufacturing company has fallen from 18,000 in 1980 to about 6,000 now.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that as part of the tremendous success of the Government's economic and employment policies, the position in the south-east has changed dramatically? Does he also accept that many people in the south-east would not mind at all if some Government jobs were moved further north? Will he assure us that he and his colleagues in the Government will look again at the south-east, which has for too long been regarded as the place with the highest standard of living in the United Kingdom but which is under enormous pressures for a variety of reasons and requires a new look to be taken at it?
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right. Curiously enough, yesterday, when I was in Oldham opening the fifth "Industrious Oldham Exhibition", I came across a

    175
    manufacturer who some years ago had moved his manufacturing plant from Kent to Oldham. He had no regrets at all about the move. He is prospering in the constituency of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond).
    Mr. James Lamond: The Minister was welcomed in Oldham, where he saw the Labour council's efforts to attract manufacturing jobs to the area. However, will he reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans)? It was difficult to follow the Minister, but perhaps he meant that the unfortunate result of investment in manufacturing industry—such as in Pilkingtons and in textiles—has frequently been that, despite the prosperity, the numbers of employed in those industries have fallen. If that is what the Minister is saying, does that not reinforce my hon. Friend's point that well-paid service jobs are needed in the north-west even more than they are in the south?
    Mr. Lee: I am glad to see that Opposition Members advocate the creation and support of well-paid service industry jobs, because that was precisely the point that I was endeavouring to get across. Perhaps, I did not completely succeed. I repeat that we must separate the prosperity of manufacturing industry from the numbers directly employed in it, which was why I gave Pilkingtons as an example. A service industry in the north-west that I know very well is the tourism and hospitality industry, jobs in that sector have increased considerably. Nearly 150,000 people are employed in tourism and hospitality in the north-west.
    Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfortunate that Opposition Members constantly talk down the north-west? Parts of the north-west, such as Cheshire, are booming because of the vast increase in service jobs. Certainly in my constituency, banks, insurance companies and a vast number of other firms are bringing many service jobs into the area. It does us no good to have the north-west constantly unfavourably compared with the south-east. In fact, parts of the north-west, because of prosperity, are exhibiting the same kind of strains as the south-east.
    Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend is right, but he should not, with respect, expect too much from the Opposition too quickly. We have at least now an acknowledgement that well-paid service jobs are important.

    Training
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide comparable figures on training in 1979 and estimated for 1988; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr, Fowler: In 1979–80 some 91,000 adults entered Government training programmes and 216,000 school-leavers entered YOP, of whom 31,000 were given off-the-job training. In 1987–88 about 887,000 adults and young people started on . Government training programmes.
    Mr. Favell: Will my right hon. Friend spell out the significance of those figures to the Opposition, who, like a pushmi-pullyu, one moment condemn every measure brought forward by the Government for training and the
    176
    next bemoan the lack of Government interest in training? Will my right hon. Friend say something about his plans for the training of the self-employed?
    Mr. Fowler: The business growth training programme is certainly being introduced for helping with the training of self-employed people. I believe that that will be an important innovation for them. On the question of training figures, perhaps the most important aspect is that more young people are now undergoing training than ever before in our history.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister not projecting a jaundiced picture when he talks about the number of people being trained under this Government? Is it not a fact that very often training is a convenient cover-up for the massive unemployment figures? Is it not also a fact that the apprentice training schemes, which we used to have in 1979, are now practically non-existent?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. According to the labour force survey, something like 328,000 people are covered by apprenticeships. What is of even more importance is the quality of the scheme for young people and the latest figures show that 85 per cent. of those who have completed YTS go into jobs or into further education. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: In spite of the impressive training figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that we still have serious skill shortages? With falling unemployment, does he agree that the best way to resolve that problem is to encourage people to stay at work longer and to cut out the tax breaks previously given to those who take early retirement?
    Mr. Fowler: One future development will be that more people will stay on at work for longer, if that is their wish. The policies of companies should be engineered to enable that to happen and to put more value on the experience of older workers.
    Mr. Fatchett: How does the Secretary of State reconcile his response, which was a typical exercise in self-congratulation, with the CBI's recent statement that there it an unprecedented shortage of skills in our economy and that, since the CBI has collected those figures, the situation has never been more grave? Is it not the case that the Government have always seen training as a means of massaging the unemployment figures rather than as a means of dealing with skill shortages and giving our people the skills that they deserve so that they can do proper jobs?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The CBI backs in full—I regret that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) does not—the training and enterprise councils, which are designed to create more and better training.
    I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said about training for employment, because of those people on YTS, 85 per cent. are now going into jobs or into further education. I believe that employment training will have a similar success.

    Labour Force Survey
    Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of the labour force survey; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions.
    Mr. Fowler: The 1988 labour force survey was published in March and since then I have received a number of communications on it.
    The survey results confirm that there has been a continued and strong growth in employment. Between spring 1987 and spring 1988 employment increased by 682,000, of which 60 per cent. was among full-time employees; self-employment grew by 160,000, continuing the upward trend of recent years and unemployment fell by more than ½ million and remained at a lower level than the monthly unemployment count.
    The survey confirmed the picture of rapidly falling unemployment recorded by the monthly unemployment count.—f [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be an undercurrent of discussion. Hon. Members should kindly listen.
    Mr. Stevens: I thank my right hon. Friend for that substantial reply. In the Employment Gazette did my right hon. Friend notice the figures that showed that 4·8 million people of working age received training and education courses in 1986 compared to 2·1 million in 1984? Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures, taken with the labour force survey, the International Labour Organisation and OECD estimates of unemployment, show that the claims about unemployment and training levels made by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to be just mischievous nonsense?
    Mr. Fowler: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. What the labour force survey reveals above all is that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has been fiddling the unemployment figures upwards for months.
    Mr. Leighton: How many people are now doing more than one job? I understand that more than 1 million people have either two or three jobs and that they are counted in the figures two or three times.
    Mr. Fowler: I do not have the full figures on that, but I shall seek to get them for the hon. Gentleman. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the labour force survey shows that 60 per cent. of the growth in employment is accounted for by full-time work and that in the past 12 months 75 per cent. of new jobs created have been full-time.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the information coming from the labour force survey shows very clearly how much Scotland has benefited from the policies of this Government and indeed, that there are more people in work today? In particular, the growth in high technology, the new satellite industry, leisure, recreation and tourism shows that the Scottish economy is in good shape.
    Mr. Fowler: Yes, indeed. There has also been a very substantial amount of inward investment into Scotland, and into other parts of this country, which has helped
    178
    create new jobs. It has been attracted into this country by the strength of the economy and the policies of this Government.

    Competent Persons
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will meet the chair of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss the role of competent persons.
    Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Many provisions in health and safety legislation require specified tasks to be carried out by competent persons. The Health and Safety Commission keeps these provisions under review. If the commission wishes to make proposals to my right hon. Friend which would affect the role of competent persons in any particular area, he will of course consider these proposals most carefully.
    Ms. Armstrong: Will the Minister tell us who makes the judgment that someone has achieved the level of competence to be recognised as a competent person?
    Mr. Nicholls: The reason why the concept of a competent person has been enshrined in our legislation for many years is that it puts the onus on the employer in those circumstances to ensure that the person is competent. I think that the hon. Lady will agree with me on reflection that to actually have a requirement of competency is often better than having a test of qualification. Whether somebody is competent is a matter of fact.
    Mr. Hayward: Will my hon. Friend explain how he can meet and discuss anything with a chair, please?
    Mr. Nicholls: I am tempted to follow my hon. Friend in thinking about that. Perhaps I misread the question; I thought it probably said "chairman".

    Health and Safety Executive
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's budget provision for the next three years.
    Mr. Cope: Gross provision for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in the three years from 1 April last is £118·3 million, £125·9 million and £133·5 million, as shown in the public expenditure White Paper. The provision allows for real growth in the executive's activities in all three years, including an increase in the number of inspectors, and of inspections.
    Mr. Pike: As the Government have also indicated that they will make additional funding available only in exceptional circumstances, will the Minister indicate, if the Government are committed to the Health and Safety Executives, whether a continuing rise in the accident rate would be one of the factors which would influence additional funds being made available?
    Mr. Cope: As with all public expenditure, it is kept under review from year to year, but those are the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked for this year and the next two years.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether he expects the Heath and Safety Executive

    179
    to submit evidence to Lord Justice Taylor's inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster? Does the executive's statutory responsibility to inform the public about safety matters or its liaison function with local authorities have any bearing on safety measures at football grounds?
    Mr. Cope: It is not part of the Heath and Safety Executive's direct responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act or other legislation of that sort, but it is advising on safety measures and will continue to give such advice as is required both to the authorities in charge of the football grounds and to the inquiry.
    Mr. Meacher: How can the Minister give such complacent answers about funding when his Department is continually extending the responsibilities of the Health and Safety Executive without providing any extra resources to implement them? How can he justify introducing the new and important Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations this year without providing extra resources to enforce them? Is it not pure gesture politics to will the end but to refuse to will the means?
    Mr. Cope: I have just said that we are increasing the resources and enabling the Heath and Safety Executive to increase its staff. The COSHH regulations are about much more than transport.

    YTS
    Mr. Franks: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the numbers of YTS trainees who obtain employment within six months of completing their training.
    Mr. Cope: A total of 82 per cent. of young people completing their YTS course obtain employment soon after.
    Mr. Franks: That figure will be welcomed by all hon. Members, or at least by all Members who sit on the Conservative Benches. Is it not the case that the youth training scheme was, and still is, opposed by the Labour party? Is not the Government's record in stark contrast with the hollow words and crocodile tears of the Labour party?
    Mr. Cope: The Labour party does not seem to be of one mind about YTS. Sometimes it supports it and sometimes the Labour party gets in its way. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the figures. In Barrow in Furness, 90·4 per cent. of young people who complete YTS obtain employment and that is even better than the national average.
    Mr. Ashley: How many of these trainees are disabled? What has been their comparative success rate in taking up jobs' after six months training?
    Mr. Cope: I cannot answer that without notice, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman and give him the figures.
    Mr. Wood: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of young people currently undertaking training on YTS.
    Mr. Cope: At the end of February 1989, 401,500 young people were recorded as in training on YTS.
    Mr. Wood: Is my hon. Friend aware that YTS has made a major contribution in Stevenage to many young people's successful transition from school to work? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the work in terms of the two year scheme is going well?
    Mr. Cope: Yes. It has made a major contribution and it is improving the training record all the time.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I have been asked to reply.
    This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed the conference on security and co-operation in Europe forum at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. This afternoon my right hon. Friend will attend the 150th anniversary of independence celebrations in Luxembourg.
    Mr. Cohen: Was a computer error which indicated plenty of space on the terraces one of the contributory factors to the Hillsborough disaster? Would not computer failure at turnstiles checking ID cards repeat the conditions which led to those deaths? Is that not a powerful reason for the Government to withdraw their Football Spectators Bill, await the inquiry report and have a radical re-think with the emphasis on safety?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said yesterday that it would be seemly to delay progress on the Football Spectators Bill for a short while in view of Saturday's tragedy at Hillsborough stadium. I do not wish to add to that statement and I think that we should allow a little time to elapse. However, the Government believe that the future of football in this country lies in a national membership scheme in designated grounds and now, it seems, in providing all-seated accommodation at major football grounds.
    Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have said that a European monetary union would lead to a European federation and a European Government. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remind my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the countries of the British Commonwealth and empire operated a single currency for more than 30 years under the guidance of a single reserve bank—the Bank of England—without ever coming near to a federation? Will he remind him of the guidance given in an old hymn:
    "I do not care to see the distant scene
    one step enough for me"?
    Would he also remind him of the opportunities which we lost with regard to the coal and steel authority and the Messina conference through too pedantic an attachment to phraseology?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be grateful to my right hon. Friend for his words and his wisdom in these matters. However, I assure him that any recent announcement with regard to the Government about a united states of Europe is simply not on the agenda.
    Mr. Hattersley: Having had 24 hours in which to appreciate the mood of the House and the country, are the Government now willing at least formally to suspend consideration of part 1 of the Football Spectators Bill until the Taylor inquiry has reported on the whole subject of safety at football grounds without the inhibition or pressure of concurrent parliamentary legislation?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Third reading of the Football Spectators Bill in the House of Lords was fixed for 24 April. That has been postponed, and no new date has yet been arranged. The Bill is an enabling framework. The Government have already given a full commitment not to implement the membership scheme within that framework until satisfactory arrangements have been worked out. That commitment still stands and, obviously, now embraces the lessons to be learnt from this tragic event.
    Mr. Hattersley: That answer is, I think, word for word, what the Home Secretary said yesterday and is equally lacking in meaning. May I put a wider point to the Leader of the House. Will the Government understand the advantages to the whole country of proceeding on this subject by co-operation rather than confrontation? Will the Leader of the House make it clear to the Prime Minister that, given goodwill on both sides, such co-operation is possible? It is absurd that this should become a party political matter. We do not want that to happen, and I do not think that the country wants it to happen.
    Mr. Wakeham: Neither do the Government want it to happen, but if there is to be goodwill on both sides the hon. Gentleman had better listen to the replies that are given. I was not repeating what the Home Secretary said yesterday.
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Butler: Will my right hon. Friend give a firm and clear commitment to retain the pound sterling, and not to trade it for some kind of European funny money?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear yesterday the fundamental and far-reaching nature of the proposals in the Delors report. I can assure my hon. Friend that the proposals for a united states of Europe are simply not on the agenda. There can be no question of future treaty amendments along the lines of the Delors report. We cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty that that implies. What we should be doing is pressing ahead with completion of the single market by 1992—a major task, to which the United Kingdom is totally committed.
    Mr. McAllion: I know that the Leader of the House will wish to join me in sending the sympathy of the entire House to the family and friends of the young Dundee girl who was killed by two Rottweiler dogs last Friday. The House cannot turn away from its clear responsibility to control and restrict the availability of licences for these and other powerful and potentially lethal dogs. Will the Leader of the House therefore consult his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with a view to the initiation of an immediate review of the no-licence situation and the
    182
    early introduction of legislation to ensure that these killer dogs are removed from, and safety restored to the streets of this country?
    Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly consult the Home Secretary. I have read about the recent tragic incident in Scotland. There has long been legislation to control dangerous dogs, and remedies are available once it is clear that a particular dog is dangerous. The breeding of dogs for sale commercially is already controlled by legislation. We do not think it sensible to try to extend these controls to private individuals who wish to sell the offspring of pets. We are therefore not contemplating legislation to control a particular breed or type of dog. However, I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April 1989.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Burns: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Chelmsford borough council on its "operation eyesore" this week for cleaning up litter blackspots in the area? If my Control of Litter (Fines) Bill is unsuccessful, owing to the absence of parliamentary time, will the Government be prepared to bring in legislation to give all local authorities the power to impose on-the-spot litter fines? Could shops, fast-food outlets and banks be compelled to keep the pavements outside their premises litter-free?
    Mr. Wakeham: I certainly congratulate the Chelmsford borough council on the steps that it is taking to combat litter. I hope to be in Chelmsford on Friday to have a look at it. Litter is everybody's problem, and we are all involved in finding solutions. Local authorities, in particular, have a valuable job to do. The Government are considering a variety of measures to back up litter abatement activities, including those provided for in my hon. Friend's Bill.
    Mr. Ashdown: Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that 7·5 million people in Britain now drink water with excessive levels of lead, and 5 million people drink water with nitrate levels which exceed the European standards? Can he deny that Britain is liable to be brought before the European Court for those infringements? What action do the Government intend to take to ensure that we are not prosecuted for failing to provide safe water for the people of Britain?
    Mr. Wakeham: I cannot confirm or deny the hon. Gentleman's figures, but I am glad to hear that he is supporting the steps that the Government are taking to improve the quality of water through the National Rivers Authority.
    Mr. Rowe: Will my right hon. Friend pass on to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister an invitation for her to visit Mid-Kent and other parts of Kent so that, with her considerable interest in the problems of the environment, she can see for herself the immense pressures to which that county is now subjected as a direct consequence of the success of her own policies?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will enjoy a visit to Kent when she can make it, and I shall pass on the invitation.

    Amazonia
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to her reply of 21 March, Official Report, column 511, if she will make a statement on the further proposals to help Brazil in research into forestry regeneration and allied subjects; and what resources are being earmarked for the conservation of the Amazonian rain forest.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    We have written to the Brazilian Government offering to finance further expert advice and research on the conservation and management of the Amazonian rain forests and on climate change. We have also offered more training in the United Kingdom in environmental disciplines. We have suggested sending soon to Brazil a team from the Overseas Development Administration to discuss those possibilities and any other proposals which the Brazilians may make.
    Mr. Dalyell: At the top of their list of resource requirements, the Brazilians put the need for four large cargo and two personnel carrying helicopters. Can we help?
    Mr. Wakeham: Assistance to the Environmental Protection Agency is one of the possibilities which I hope that the ODA team will be able to discuss when it visits Brazil, probably in May.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Prime Minister to make it clear to the Government of Brazil that there is no intention to internationalise the Amazon basin and that we respect their sovereignty, but, nevertheless, we expect the Brazilian Government to give a lead in conservation in that area and to make clear to the rest of the world the assistance that they require?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Brazilian Government are well aware of their responsibilities. We are working closely with them and that is the best way to proceed.
    Mr. Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will in no way support the funding of projects in the Amazon rain forest which lead to the destruction of that forest by either the EEC, the World bank or the international monetary fund? Will he also accept that the serious problem of the destruction of rain forests in Amazonia and elsewhere is partly caused by the debt crisis, which imposes an economic system on those countries which forces them to destroy the rain forest and thus damage the environment for the rest of the world?
    Mr. Wakeham: The Government are trying to assist in solving the problem and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should suggest otherwise.

    Engagements
    Mr. Favell: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, ahead of the Taylor inquiry, it is wrong to condemn the police for the Hillsborough disaster last Saturday? When I started going to Hillsborough football ground 40 years ago with my parents and my young brother and young sister, the crowd capacity was far greater than now, there were few policemen, fans were not segregated and people felt safe inside and outside the ground. In other words, if people only treated each other now as they did then, one policeman would not have been faced with the dreadful life and death decision that had to be made last Saturday and we may well have avoided the appalling loss of life.
    Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Why people died is a matter for the judicial inquiry to determine and it would be premature for me to comment now.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Leader of the House advise home workers in my constituency, who have just had their wages halved by F. K. I. Babcock, how they can survive when they have to pay soaring interest rates and manage with inflation running at nearly 8 per cent.?
    Mr. Wakeham: That is not a matter for me to answer at the Dispatch Box. If the hon. Lady wishes to write to me about it, I shall look into it.

    Africa (Visit)
    Sir Hugh Rossi: To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding her recent visit to Africa.
    Mr. Wakeham: I have been asked to reply.
    Since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's return from Africa, she has received numerous congratulations on the success of the visit.
    Sir Hugh Rossi: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister is to be congratulated on the part that she was able to play in Namibia, and that the decision, endorsed by Cuba and Angola as well as South Africa, for the withdrawal of SWAPO forces fully vindicated her condemnation of their cynical contravention of the United Nations plan and the Geneva protocol, and their attempt to dominate elections down the barrel of a rifle?
    Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend is right. SWAPO's initial action caused tragic and unnecessary loss of life. But the UN plan has survived a severe test. What matters now is that the proposed cease-fire should he made to work and that preparations should resume for free and fair elections. We are doing everything possible to help. The House will welcome the role that our signallers are playing in manning the assembly points in northern Namibia.

Toyota Plant (Derbyshire)
3.30 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on a major new investment by the Toyota Motor Corporation.
The House will be aware that Toyota has been considering setting up a car plant in Europe and that the United Kingdom was the lead candidate as a location for the project.
I am pleased to be able to report that the company has now made a final decision to proceed with the project in the United Kingdom. The president of the company, Dr. Shoichiro Toyoda, and my right hon. and noble Friend are today signing a document setting out the heads of agreement reached between the company and the Government, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.
Toyota has chosen a 280-acre site at Burnaston near Derby. The project will be in two phases. In phase 1, after a short period of pilot production starting in December 1992, commercial production will begin in August 1993 and will rise gradually thereafter to the maximum capacity of 100,000 cars per year. When economic and commercial circumstances allow, the project will move into phase 2, in which capacity will be expanded to 200,000 cars per year. The plant will then employ some 3,000 people, and will involve a total investment of about £700 million.
The company has decided to proceed with the project without Government financial assistance, and it is its firm intention to achieve a local content level of 60 per cent. from the start of commercial production in August 1993 and an 80 per cent. level within a further two years.
Toyota's project was probably the largest mobile industrial investment still to be won and it represents a major vote of confidence in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that it will make a significant contribution to the local economy in the area around Derby, to the United Kingdom economy and indeed to the European economy as a whole.
I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing Toyota every success with it.
Mr. Bryan Gould: Will the Chancellor accept that we welcome his statement and an investment which will mean valuable jobs and new economic capacity in the east midlands? Does he recognise that warm congratulations are due to all those, and especially to my colleagues in Derbyshire county council—[laughter.]—lwho have worked hard to secure this investment? For all those who laugh in such an ignorant fashion, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Derbyshire county council has agreed to put in £12 million of its own money but has been refused any increased capital allocation for this year? Is this not an example of a Labour county council being prepared to make an effort which the Government have refused to make?
Does he recognise that, welcome though this news is, we should not be blinded to its real significance? If it were really evidence of economic strength, should we not expect comparable investments to be made by British companies with British resources? Is it not now easier for industry, especially in the regions, to obtain investment from the far
186
east rather than from the south-east? Are we not now seeing the final stages of a process which has replaced an indigenous car industry with one which is owned and controlled from Detroit, Paris and now Tokyo?
What safeguards have been obtained about the meaning of local content? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, for this purpose, "local content" means EEC content? Is there any guarantee that the Powertrain will be manufactured here and that design and research will be carried out in Britain? How soon does he expect our balance of trade in cars, at present in deficit to the tune of £4·7 billion, to return to balance?
Mr. Newton: I welcome the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I am glad to note that he endorses the welcome that I and, I think, the whole House have given. A great deal of work has been done by all the local authorities involved, of varying political complexions and by the Department of Trade and Industry office in the east midlands, to secure this investment.
The hon. Gentleman's reference to Derbyshire's proposed investment must, I think, be related to reports that it has offered to invest £20 million from its pension fund in this firm. Whether that is accepted by the company is a matter for the company, but it is certainly not part of the project as it has been announced today, nor an essential ingredient of it.
If I heard the hon. Gentleman rightly, and his comment about the Government having refused help, I would make it absolutely clear that the company was well aware of the possibility of regional selective assistance, for example, in those parts of the country to which that applies, and specifically chose this location in Derbyshire, which is not an assisted area. To suggest that that is in any sense a refusal of Government assistance is an absolutely ridiculous and misleading proposition.
My answer to the hon. Gentleman's rather tendentious remarks about the replacement of an indigenous car industry is that import penetration of the British motor car market last year was almost exactly the same as in 1979. Between 1974 and 1979, it doubled. That was when the damage was done to the indigenous car industry, and we are now seeing some strengthening of it.
The hon. Gentleman asked about issues of local content. I confirm that local content means European Community content, as I am sure he understands. Toyota has made it clear that it intends to build up quite rapidly to the 80 per cent. figure which I mentioned. We hope that it will also decide to do research and development in this country, as Nissan has recently decided to do.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in south Derbyshire are absolutely delighted and pledge to build at Burnaston a showplace factory of Europe? Will he agree that Toyota chose Great Britain in Europe because of the atmosphere of encouragement for investment and top quality business created by the Government, and that it chose Derbyshire in Britain because of the first-class site, the excellent work force and the full co-operation, which became apparent in recent months, between all concerned? It is inappropriate and cynical for any individual to try to claim the credit. All concerned deserve it, and we hope that that co-operation will continue.
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is a striking fact about the confidence of overseas investors in Britain as a good place to do business that within the past week three major international companies with world names have made decisions which amount to investment in this country of over £1 billion.
Mr. James Wallace: I welcome the announcement and join the Chancellor of the Duchy in wishing Toyota and the people of Derbyshire well in this project. What time scale did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind when he said that "economic and commercial circumstances allowing", the project will move on to phase two? Will he also dispel fears that Britain in many respects is becoming an Airfix model kit assembly line? What design and engineering content will there be for British designers and engineers? Will they be involved in further development work by the Toyota group?
Mr. Newton: I must resist, on the basis of our experience with other major motormanufacturers here, including, most notably in recent years, Nissan, the suggestion that what is involved here is in any sense just a screwdriver assembly plant. I have made it clear that, when commercial production begins, local content will start at 60 per cent. and rise within two years to 80 per cent., which is rather faster than the build-up that has taken place at Nissan, which is now around 70 per cent. The precise make-up of that will be for the company to decide, but its initial investment includes a press shop, a body shop, a paint shop, a final assembly shop and a plastic moulding shop. I am encouraged by the experience of Nissan to suggest that it will not be long before Toyota is undertaking investment in design and development here in the same way as Nissan has found worth while.
Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two aspects of particular significance about this announcement? First, as the glum faces of Opposition Members testify, it is a tribute to our economic policy and the economic recovery of this country which is the place to make cars in Europe. Secondly, in the circumstances of the deficit—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Sir Hal Miller.
Sir Hal Miller: In the circumstances of the deficit on the visible balance of trade, we should be grateful, in a situation where Ford and Vauxhall accounted for the total increase in imports into this country last year, to the Japanese for increasing the vehicle build in this country and remedying that situation.
Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed; I very much agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is it not a fact that the attraction to the company was that Derbyshire county council offered £12.5 million in infrastructure and support, against which no extra capital allocations of any kind are made available by the Department of the Environment, and that it has recommended the £20 million investment from the pension fund in accounting that has been attacked systematically by the Government as a very poor example of attitudes towards confidence? Having paid that tribute to the county council and its leadership, is it not also a tragedy that people in this country, particularly
188
unemployed people from the motor industry, should have to look to foreign investment instead of seeing the money put in to build up our domestic product?
Mr. Newton: I have already made the point in response to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that, on any reading of the statistics, the principal difficulties of the United Kingdom motor industry in respect of imports occurred during the period of the last Labour Administration. What is equally clear is that the decisions about overseas investment in this country, not just by Japanese companies but in the recent decision by Ford to spend about £700 million on an engine plant in south Wales and just yesterday the decision by Bosch to invest £100 million in south Wales, reflect a significant strengthening of the United Kingdom motor car production and components industries, directed towards the difficulties of a longer period of decline, especially during the 1970s.
On the first half of the question of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I commented on Derbyshire county council earlier. Of necessity, various local authorities will need to work with the company in relation to infrastructure and access, and in other ways. The details of that remain to be sorted out.
Mr. Greg Knight: Is this not good news for Derby, not least because the Toyota Motor Company has an excellent record of not closing any factory that it opens? Is it not also true that Derbyshire is now a far more attractive county for inward investment, following the Government's excellent decision to introduce a uniform business rate? That means that the days of high business rates, due to the high spending of irresponsible Left-wing county councils such as Derbyshire, are numbered.
Mr. Newton: Certainly, I understand that Derbyshire is the second highest rated shire county in the country. One of the facts that Toyota may have had in mind is the Government's policy to ensure that businesses will not be penalised in the way that they were in Derbyshire and elsewhere.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Does not this decision vindicate the way in which elected members and officers of the county council, city council and district council have worked together for the benefit of the people of Derbyshire? Is it not a pity that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), that all-party pursuit of the interests of the people of Derbyshire has not been reflected by Conservative Members?
Mr. Newton: From what I heard, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South also recognised that there had been a co-operative exercise between all the local authorities involved—quite apart from their political complexion—and central Government, particularly as represented by my Department's office in the east midlands. Everyone involved should be well satisfied with the outcome of that effort.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Is it not the case that, if Toyota has been more successful than British car manufacturers, it is because it produces products that people want to buy? In the 1960s and 1970s, the British car industry was hamstrung by poor labour relations and management, and the unthought-out and irrational

189
reorganisation policies of successive Labour Governments? Is it not also true that the real reason that Toyota has come to Derbyshire is the excellence and skills of the local work force, combined with the new economic climate that makes manufacturing attractive in Britain? It is totally ludicrous for one county council, or county council leader, to muscle in and try to claim all the glory for what was a co-operative effort by the Government and a range of local authorities.
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend that the fundamental reason for the decision of Toyota, and other overseas companies, to come here, is the dramatic improvement in the climate for doing business—including that of industrial relations—in this country. Without such a climate we certainly would not have received the flow of major new projects into this country.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Does the Minister recognise the professionalism and businesslike nature of the prospectus put forward by Derbyshire county council? The fact that it also runs a highly successful and professional pension fund means that money is available for investment, which will produce returns for the pension fund and make it viable. Will local suppliers have access to provisions in the area, or will the free market knock out some of the potential which exists in Derbyshire? Will the markets in the EEC be open to Toyota or will we be confronted by the problems that recently arose with Nissan in France? Will the east midlands line be electrified in order to transport the goods produced, through the Channel tunnel into the European market?
Mr. Newton: The subject of the hon. Gentleman's last question will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, and I have no doubt that he will note it. On the question of local content and access to the European Community market, the understanding signed between my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the company today specifically indicates the commitment of both Toyota and the Department to ensure that the project contributes to the development of long-term collaboration between Toyota and the local components and other supplying industries.
As for access to European markets, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. and noble Friend made a statement yesterday about the outcome of our representations to the Commission on the import of Nissan cars into France. The Commissioner has just replied saying that he has now received a formal assurance from the French Government that Nissan cars manufactured here will be allowed to enter France independent of the level of car imports into France from Japan. Given that the local content arrangements are expected to be the same as Toyota, I see no reason why the outcome should be different.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the news that he has announced this afternoon is a tremendous coup for Britain? Is it a great success for Britain to have landed the two biggest motor car firms for investment within the EEC, and it will give our component manufacturers and
190
many thousands of small firms a wonderful opportunity to bid for the business. That will provide employment and added wealth for this country. We should be welcoming it, not carping like Opposition Members.
Mr. Newton: Yes. It indeed seems likely that the spin-off effect on jobs in the components industry, and other related industries, will be at least as large as the employment directly generated by the Toyota factory. Over a period we may expect 3,000 or more jobs, apart from those in the plant itself, to be created as a result of this investment.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Does the Minister agree that part of Toyota's reason for deciding to come to Britain may have been that it noted that the highly skilled workers in the north-east were building a better version of the same model of car in Washington than is being built in Japan—which is recognised by people in Japan? As a result, Nissan has brought the European technology centre into Britain—and, I hope, into Washington—recognising that that will create 250 jobs for highly skilled designers and engineers in Britain. The Nissan development is creating up to 4,000 jobs for people who desperately need them, and is also giving pride to highly skilled engineers, far too many of whom are on the dole.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he speaks for many people in the north-east in recognising the great value that Nissan has brought to the whole economy of the north-east, and the way in which decsions to invest, for example, in design and development have followed its experience of success in manufacturing here. That is why I am hopeful that the same will happen to Toyota.
I am also glad—and I am sure that I carry the hon. Gentleman with me—that the decision by Fujitsu, which I announced last week, to undertake a major investment, again in the north-east, also reflects the growing acknowledgement in Japan of the success of its companies here in Britain.
Mr. Peter Rost: Is it not remarkable that, whenever there is good news for Britain, confirming that the present Government's policies have made the United Kingdom the most attractive country in the Community for inward investment, all that we get from Opposition Members is whingeing, carping and sulking?
Mr. Newton: I do not know that I would have put it quite like that, but I think that the answer is yes.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has not the Japanese takeover more to do with the fact that the Japanese have an £80 billion balance of payments surplus, as opposed to the £15 billion deficit that we have in this country? Can the Minister give any guarantee that all car trade unions will be allowed to recruit? Will they have the right to strike?
Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why the Japanese decided to come to south Derbyshire is probably that they misread the newspaper reports? When they read that "Currie had been sacked", they thought that she had gone for ever.
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that the question of how to conduct its industrial relations is, in my view, for the company to decide. As for the first part of his question, we all know that the Japanese

191
economy is successful because of the success of many of its companies. That is why it is so encouraging that those companies are deciding to come here to do business.
Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our warm welcome for Toyota extends not only to the manufacturing sector—including the component industry scattered throughout the west midlands, where new opportunities arise—but to existing car manufacturers? Nothing stimulates success more than good competition.
Is my hon. Friend aware that, compared with the £700 million that Toyota will spend in the next few years, Rover Group will spend £1,000 million on new products and new factory capacity? We say to the people of Derbyshire, "We shall build a better car than you will, and everyone will benefit."
Mr. Newton: I am glad to note what my hon. Friend says and the confidence with which he says it. I shall pass on to hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench his reminder that rising investment in United Kingdom motor car manufacture and components is by no means confined to firms in foreign ownership.
Mr. Jack Ashley: I do not begrudge the investment in Derbyshire, but when the Minister discusses investment with Toyota or any other company, what consideration does he give to cities such as Stoke-on-Trent which, on any sensible criteria, need Government assistance but are refused all Government assistance and therefore need encouragement through investment? How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to help those cities?
Mr. Newton: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take some encouragement from the fact that Toyota decided to go to Derbyshire without Government assistance, as I said in my statement.
Mr. John Redwood: Does the Minister agree that the excellence of Toyota systems is reflected in their accent on complete quality, training, speed of product throughput in the factory and total manufacturing concepts, including mass customisation? Those are all things from which British industry could benefit and learn, and that is another bonus for Toyota coming here.
Mr. Newton: Yes—and the effect on components suppliers in the United Kingdom in helping them to increase their competitiveness is an advantage throughout the United Kingdom motor industry and increases our chances of component exports.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: While recognising the satisfaction of hon. Members representing constituencies in Derbyshire and the midlands, the House will recognise that we are tinged with a little disappointment that Wales missed out on the project because of the failure of the Secretary of State's blandishments to the company. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy recognise that, if a company such as Toyota, in making a major investment, can afford to ignore Government incentives, perhaps the Government are pitching conditions on selective financial assistance and other incentives too high to have any meaningful regional policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the conditions that apply to such investments and ensure that a real regional policy is applied to such investments?
Mr. Newton: I simply draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the help given recently to a variety of projects, including Fujitsu last week, Bosch, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales yesterday, and the Ford engine plant in south Wales to which I referred earlier. I think that we are doing pretty well on regional policy and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, can complain about the share that Wales has.
Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: May I add a welcome from Nottinghamshire to the welcome from my hon. Friends representing Derbyshire for my right hon. Friend's statement and share their distaste at the sour grapes we have heard from Opposition Members? Will my right hon. Friend, his Department and related Government Departments look at one issue that may help the project become even more successful—the provision of a freight terminal at Toton on the borders of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire? The site is tailormade for the project, but I understand there may be some planning problems. If my right hon. Friend can help us overcome those problems, he will have helped Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire to make the project even more successful than I know it will be.
Mr. Newton: I do not think my hon. Friend will expect me to venture into intervening off the cuff in a local planning problem, as he delicately describes it, but I shall certainly ensure that his remarks are drawn to the attention of my appropriate right hon. and hon. Friends.
Mr. Harry Ewing: I congratulate the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on his command of the pronunciation of the names of Japanese companies, which is obviously a result of so much practice. When does he think that he will come to the Dispatch Box to announce a major investment in Britain by a British company?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) said a few minutes ago. I answered by saying that a significant amount of investment was being undertaken by companies of various national ownerships.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will be warmly welcomed in Wolverhampton, where there are many important accessory manufacturers? But does my right hon. Friend agree that the choice of site is a lesson to hon. Members of all parties—and even to one of his Cabinet colleagues—who argue that decisions about where manufacturing sites should go are decided wholly by the generosity of the taxpayer through regional grants and subsidies?
Mr. Newton: The point is that it is sensible to have, as we have—especially through regional selective assistance —a policy that enables us to take account of what is required to achieve given outcomes in particular cases. In the other cases to which I have adverted, where regional selective assistance was paid or offered, it was, in our judgment, necessary to secure the project. In this case it has, happily, proved not to be necessary and I welcome that.
Mr. Bob Cryer: The right hon. Gentleman has given the time scale for the development of local content in the production of the car. Has he a similar time scale for the development of jigging tool and design manufacture in this country?
The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges the lead achieved by Japanese manufacturing industry. Does he think that it is because Japan has invested massively in manufacturing industry and spends less than 1 per cent. of gross national product on defence, whereas we spend 5 per cent. and are pouring £11,000 million into Trident? Does he think that there is a serious and important lesson to be learned?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to prejudge the commercial decisions the company may take on the aspects to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is asknowledged to be the case throughout the House that one of the difficulties of this country over many years was inadequate investment in this and other industries. Therefore, one of the most encouraging signs of the past few years has been the dramatic rise in investment, especially in manufacturing industry.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend need have no fears that the people of Wales will begrudge a slice of inward investment to their fellow citizens in Derbyshire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that inward investment has come as a result of the Government's policy of low company taxation and good labour relations, and not purely as a result of regional investment programmes? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) might be more generous in his view of the single market in Europe than he has been in the past few years, and that he should welcome this positive encouragement for European investment?
Mr. Newton: Yes, I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Paul Flynn: One alternative favoured site was at Duffryn in my constituency, and another was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). In our disappointment, we want to congratulate Derby and offer our best wishes to Dr. Shoichiro Toyoda that he and his company will be happy and prosperous in Derby as many other Japanese companies are in Newport and Gwent. The significant point about the announcement today is that the overall level of unemployment for Newport is 9·1 per cent., whereas for Derby it is 7 per cent.
We are not seeing today a failure by Newport. It has great pulling power in attracting new jobs and will be brilliantly successful again in attracting new jobs. We shall miss these jobs because they are the missing piece of the jigsaw in the Newport economy—blue-collar work for male workers. It is a failure for regional policy.
There was another missing piece in the announcement. Have the engine plant and the plant for manufacturing gearboxes yet to be allocated to Derby or is it still possible that they will be allocated to Newport?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I will add further to what I have said about Wales. The company is still considering plans for the engine plant. The Government, and I am sure all others involved, will do everything possible to encourage the company to locate that plant in
194
the United Kingdom. As I have said, our experience with Nissan suggests that we can be reasonably optimistic about that.
Mr. Andy Stewart: My right hon. Friend's statement today will be widely welcomed in the east midlands, and especially in my mining constituency of Sherwood. In view of the fact that the mining industry is running down its manpower and so that the company is successful in attracting the right type of employment, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the miners have ample facilities for retraining to take the opportunities that the company will make available?
Mr. Newton: I have no doubt that this company, like the others to which I have referred, will want to place heavy emphasis on the importance of training and will contribute to it. Training will be one of the things to which the local authorities will also be directing attention. I very much hope that the company will provide new job opportunities for those whose opportunities are unhappily shrinking in the mining industry.
Mr. George Foulkes: May I also assure the Minister that I join in congratulating Derbyshire on a welcome increase in its number of jobs? However, may I point out that we in Scotland have noticed that there has recently been new inward investment in the midlands, in the north-east and even in the south-east of England—and especially in Wales —whereas over the last few months we have noticed a lack of new inward investment in Scotland which, in my view, has been caused by the substantial disarray in Locate in Scotland which, in turn, has partly been caused by rumours that have appeared in many newspapers that the Minister's Department wants to dismantle Locate in Scotland? Will the Minister scotch—if the House will excuse that expression—those rumours and give an absolute assurance that his Department has no intention of cutting or dismantling Locate in Scotland in any way?
Mr. Newton: All of us concerned with these matters —myself, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—are concerned to ensure that regional policy produces a spread of prosperity in all those places where it has not yet reached the level of the south-east. The precise mechanisms for achieving that are a matter in this case for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Derek Conway: My right hon. Friend will recall that, although Shrewsbury is not an assisted area, our town was in the final four for this inward investment. While we clearly envy Derbyshire's success, we in no way begrudge it. I am sure that my right hon. Friend and the House will be interested to know that, despite the fact that that 250-acre site in Shrewsbury will not now be occupied by Toyota, there is still considerable interest in that site, not only from foreign investors, but from a considerable number of British investors. The Toyota deal is neither the first nor the last involving sizeable investment in our area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a sign of the underlying strength of the economy and that it can be judged by foreign and British investment and not by the niggling sour faces of the Opposition?
Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed, I have noted and will draw to the attention of the people concerned with the Invest in Britain Bureau what my hon. Friend has said generally about his own location.
Mr. Tony Banks: Is it true, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) claimed in the Sunday newspapers, that she nagged Ministers into supporting Toyota's bid for the new factory? If that is so, would it not be better if we sent the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South, who has a bit of time on her hands these days, on a nagging tour of British industrialists so that they can start investing in British manufacturing industry?
Will the Minister tell me why, when there is still demand among domestic consumers for cars made in this country, our motor vehicle industry is being taken over more and more by foreign investors and foreign imports? Has it got something to do with the way in which the Government have continually sold out manufacturing industry since 1979?
Mr. Newton: I hesitate to weary the House by repeating the point that I made at the outset about the period in which import penetration into the British motor car market really grew, which was when the Administration that the hon. Gentleman supported were in office.
Having worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) in another capacity for some time, I would never have accused her of nagging.
Mr. Tony Banks: She said it herself.
Mr. Newton: What I would simply say is that she is never backward in coming forward in the causes that she espouses.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will call the four hon. Members who have been rising regularly, and I ask them to make brief contributions. I call Mr. Wardle.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Is it not the case that the prospects for this excellent project will be greatly enhanced if Toyota can negotiate a single-union agreement? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the interest of Mr. Bill Jordan of the Amalgamated Engineering Union in that regard? In spite of the silence on this from the Opposition this afternoon, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would serve the trade union movement well to bear in mind and to learn from the lessons of the fiasco of Dundee a little while ago?
Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend's last observations, but, having said clearly to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that the question of how to conduct its industrial relations is for the company, I must say the same to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Will my right hon. Friend point out to the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who do not appear to understand, that this is not a takeover, but an extremely welcome inward investment? It is the result of successful negotiations conducted by my
196
right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State, who are to be congratulated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the basic reasons for that success are the strength of the British economy, the industrial revolution that has been achieved and the access to the Continent through the Channel tunnel? Those are all achievements of this Government.
Mr. Newton: It is the clearest single message, not just from the announcement today, but from other recent announcements—not least in the past week—that this country has become the favoured location in Europe for investment by many overseas investors. That is a tribute to what the Government have achieved in the British economy.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend has stated that the Toyota company was attracted to make this important investment in this country because of the dramatic improvement in the economic climate. An important feature of that improvement has been the reduction of our corporation taxes to among the lowest rates in the world. Does that not demonstrate the virtue of continuing to drive the rates of corporation taxes down, so that companies are left with more money of their own creation to spend on research and development, on training and on the all-important capital investment?
Mr. Newton: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that the policies that the Government have pursued for industrial relations, both personal and business taxation and, indeed, national insurance, have made an important contribution to bringing about those decisions.
Mr. Michael Brown: As one whose constituency was also being considered for this project, I add my congratulations to Derbyshire on securing this investment. Is it not clear from what the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said that the part played by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) was not insignificant and that the House and her constituents should congratulate her on what she has done to pull all the parties together? Is not another conclusion that we can draw from my right hon. Friend's statement the fact that the case for regional financial assistance is now no longer necessary?
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I do not quite go along with the latter, as I indicated in one or two of my earlier comments. My hon. Friend's remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) were characteristically generous. I am sure that she will have been characteristically pleased by his reference to her.
Mr. Speaker: Application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall take the Standing Order No. 20 application first.
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising from the statement.
Mr. Speaker: That may be, but I shall take Standing Order No. 20 first.

British Coal Science Laboratory (Closure)
4.13 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision by British Coal to close the science laboratory at Wath upon Deanne."
The matter is urgent, because British Coal announced the decision to close this laboratory yesterday afternoon. It is serious, because the effect upon my constituency and the neighbouring areas will be severe. We have suffered a series of devastating economic blows in the past five years. Great effort is being made to secure employment and economic revival and the existence of this successful establishment serves as a most useful and valuable pointer to the fact that we can and must successfully accommodate high-tech development.
For British Coal to transfer the work of this laboratory to a locality that is further from the major coal-producing areas and where economic need is much less severe is regrettable. It will be a cause of some bitterness, because the decision will be seen as a brutal disregard of obligation by British Coal.
There is further anxiety, because much has been achieved at Wath regarding the identification of the origins of coal samples. That research, which is extremely effective in identifying cases of cheating in imported coal supplies, has not been properly admired in some of the quarters where it should have been.
Many of the scientists, who are highly qualified, now face either unemployment or the prospect of uprooting, changing their lives and ending the happy local contact which springs from their successful operations in south Yorkshire.
Last Monday, in Energy Question Time, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, although he was, in part, most reassuring, made it clear that the responsibility for the decision rests entirely with British Coal.
198
I suggest that this matter is one which the House should consider immediately to allow deep anxiety or anger to be expressed. In that way, a view could be formed about this regrettable and serious decision.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision by British Coal to close the science laboratory at Wath upon Dearne."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said. As he knows, my sole duty when considering an application under Standing Order No. 20 is to decide whether it should be given priority over the business set down for today or for tomorrow. I regret that the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised does not meet the requirements under the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Point of Order
4.15 pm
Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for interrupting his important Standing Order No. 20 application.
My point of order is simple, Mr. Speaker, and no doubt you will find it easy to deal with it. As you know, the rising sun is now playing an important part in British industry. In order not to offend our good friends in Japan and the Japanese Government could you refer to the House authorities the need for some structural changes to be made so that the rising sun is never again shut out of the Chamber by closing the blinds? I believe that that would be an appropriate step to take.
Mr. Speaker: If I interpret the rumours aright, when we have television—if we have television—the blinds will be permanently drawn. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must not pre-empt what may be done.

Football Spectators (No 2)
4.16 pm
Mr. Alan Meale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a statutory liaison body for the sport of football, to include in its membership the various footballing authorities and their agencies, football league clubs, the Sports Council, football supporters' organisations and other necessary bodies and to make provision for changes in the organisation and function of the sport and for connected purposes.
The enormity of the tragedy which took place last Saturday at Sheffield's Hillsborough stadium—where many football fans either died or were seriously injured —still lies fresh in the hearts and minds of the British people. I take this opportunity to place on record again the thanks of all hon. Members particularly those who are members of the all-party parliamentary football committee, and to all those who helped the injured or the dying in their time of need or who are now helping in whatever way they can to comfort the living.
So that there may be no misunderstanding or speculation about the reason for this Bill, I place on record the fact that the right to introduce it on the Floor of the House was gained some considerable time ago under the rules which govern the acquisition of a ten-minute Bill opportunity in this House.
The Bill has the objective of establishing a statutory liaison body for the sport of football, with a membership which includes the football authorities, their agencies, league clubs, the Sports Council, football supporters' organisations, local authorities, and others. That body has been widely recognised in this House and elsewhere as an alternative to clause I of the Government's proposals to introduce legislation to establish a system of compulsory ID registration for football supporters.
A measure of the strength of the Bill's proposals is demonstrated by the fact that it has considerable cross-party support, including support from the Government Benches. The Bill is supported in name by all the officers of the all-party parliamentary football committee. The Bill is also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), in whose constituency Anfield football ground is located, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) in whose constituency the tragedy occurred on Saturday. It also contains the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr.
200
Howell), who is regarded by many in this place and outside as the most respected Member of Parliament in terms of sporting authorities.
My colleagues and I are both mystified and saddened by the Government's decision yesterday to continue with the measures contained within section 1 of their Bill. We feel they are out of touch with the lessons of Sheffield, and the advice they have been given by nearly everyone in football. Further, I cannot personally understand the logic in proceeding with such legislation, particularly at this time. I also feel it is time for a rethink and a different approach to the needs of football—a view shared by almost everyone connected with the game.
I echo the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) that any decision should be delayed until the findings of the independent inquiry into the Hillsborough tragedy and other related matters are available.
Because of these views, Mr. Speaker, and out of respect for the bereaved families and loved ones of those involved in the recent tragedy, I have decided to withdraw my Bill at this stage in the hope that the Government will see sense.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid the hon. Member cannot do that. If he looks at "Erskine May" on page 383 —I believe he has been so advised—he will see that he must proceed with this motion, having moved it.
Mr. Meale: In that case, without further ado, I formally move.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alan Meale, M r. Denis Howell, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Jim Lester, Mr. Tom Pendry, Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. David Blunkett, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Peter L. Pike and Mr. Don Dixon.

Football Spectators (No 2)
  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS (NO. 2)
  Mr. Alan Meale accordingly presented a Bill to establish a statutory liaison body for the sport of football, to include in its membership the various footballing authorities and their agencies, football league clubs, the Sports Council, football supporters' organisations and other necessary bodies and to make provision for changes in the organisation and function of the sport and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday and to be printed. [Bill 118.]
Opposition Day
  [7111 ALLOTTED DAY] [FIRST PART]

    National Health Service
    Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    4.22 pm
    Dr. David Owen: I beg to move,
    That this House rejects the Government's White Paper on the National Health Service as the basis for legislation; notes the rejection and reservations expressed by the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians through the Joint Consultants Committee, the British Medical Association, the health service unions and the Institute of Health Services Management; believes that practice budgets for general practitioners and self-managing hospitals will lead to financial restrictions being imposed on the doctors' right to prescribe medication and treatment for patients on the basis of what is clinically necessary, to the separation of general practitioners and hospital consultants irrevocably damaging the growing links between home and hospital care and reducing the quality of the overall service available to patients; urges the Government to conduct pilot studies and experiments in relation to these proposals before introducing legislation and thereby to leave time for extensive consultations with the medical and nursing professions which did not take place before the White Paper was published; and also demands that the Government announce that they will not further extend tax allowances for private health insurance or allow the cost of private medical and surgical treatment to be offset against tax since these measures would lead towards a two-tier system of health care.
    The National Health Service is an issue which goes to the heart of the vast majority of the people of this country. This is therefore no ordinary debate and no ordinary subject. Ninety-five per cent. of the people of this country use their family practitioner services; in any one day, nearly two thirds of a million people consult their doctors. An issue as important as this must therefore concern all Members of this House. It is also, of course, important that more than a million people are employed by the National Health Service.
    It is not new for Governments to be in conflict with the medical profession, but it is extremely rare for a Government to find themselves at odds with such a very large group of people concerned with the National Health Service. A White Paper was introduced at the start of this year without any consultation with any of the professional bodies in the National Health Service. That in itself is unique. It is thus not unduly surprising that there has been criticism—what is serious, however, is the level of the criticism.
    The royal colleges, which speak for the profession not in terms of salaries but in terms of education and science and professional ethical standards, are not notorious for political criticism and most Governments have been able to find some support among the royal colleges when dealing with the National Health Service. On this occasion, however, all the royal colleges—including the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians through the joint consultants' committee—have criticised the proposals. Indeed, they have gone further and rejected
    202
    them as a basis for legislation for the future of the National Health Service. The British Medical Association and the Health Service unions have also criticised the proposals. The Health Service managers have also criticised them, although in somewhat muted terms.
    Taken at face value, the Government's proposals are supposed to benefit patients, but all the patients' organisations have expressed serious concern about them. It is a matter of pride and pleasure to the Social Democratic party to have the first debate on the proposals, although no doubt it is but the first of many. Hon Members of all parties have been confronted in their constituencies with a level of criticism and concern about the Government's proposals which has led Conservative Members to be deeply worried about them. I should be surprised, although perhaps not too surprised, if Conservative Members were able to support the Government amendment to the motion. The Government seem incapable of realising the depth of opposition to their proposals.
    I want first to consider the central objections to the proposals. I do not believe that the Government are proposing a genuine internal market. If they were, I should be more enthusiastic about them. Rightly or wrongly, inadvertently or otherwise, the Government have produced proposals for the commercialisation of health care in its entirety. They are not even privatising it—they are commercialising it. Furthermore, they are creating not an internal market, but an open market.
    The criticism of the proposals which is heard from every lip is that they involve the fragmentation of health care. Over the decades during which the NHS has operated, an important aspect of the service has been the way in which general practitioners and hospital consultants have gradually come together to provide an integrated pattern of care from home to hospital and from hospital to home. Until the White Paper was produced, it appeared to be common ground among the political parties to support that process of integration of health care—of doctors involving nurses and nurses working in hospitals and in the community, integrating community care and hospital care as part of a continuum. Suddenly, however, without any consultation, the Government have produced proposals which separate hospital health care from family practitioner care.
    The proposals refer to the "self-governing" hospital. The Government seem to be trying to incorporate in the Health Service the same principles as they have applied to schools. The terminology is similar, with references to "opting out", and the marketing arrangements are also similar. But a hospital cannot be regarded as a self-contained unit. Let us examine the parallel with schools. A comprehensive school caters for pupils aged from 11 to 16 and often to 18. The school knows what is coming through, so it can plan and project, but it is impossible for a hospital to do that. It is also extremely wasteful to consider acute hospitals as separate entities.
    One of the most important developments recently has been the policy to use acute hospitals intensively and on occasions to transfer patients from acute hospitals to community hospitals as a halfway house before going home. The services provided in the home—meals on wheels, health visitors, practitioner nurses and community nurses—are also an important part of the continuum of care. If provision in those areas is insufficient, people have to stay longer in hospital. If there is high-quality care in the

    203
    community and at home, it is possible to have more day surgery—something that is increasing all the time—and shorter stays in hospital, thus cutting costs.
    One of the absurdities of debates about the National Health Service that is all too often apparent in the House are the great boasts about the number of people treated in hospital. The number has increased significantly, of course, because we have been able to increase the throughput in hospitals and to shorten the time that patients spend there. That is highly desirable, but it adds to hospital costs and additional hospital personnel are needed.
    It is essential to see the Health Service in the round, as a whole. This is where the fundamental flaw in the Government's proposals arises. They have us talking about the self-governing hospital, when what we should be talking about is the self-governing district health authority because it is the district health authority which provides the continuum of care. We talk about general practice budgets as though the budget of the general practitioner could be separated, as though it existed in isolation from hospital costs and social services costs. When in the past such distinctions have been proposed there has been sufficient flexibility in the Health Service to take account of them.
    For example, some years ago it was decided that a cash limit should be placed on hospital prescribing—I remember this because I was actually prescribing in hospitals at the time—so instead of the epileptic clinic prescribing for three months for a person being seen on a three-month cycle, one prescribed for two or three days and shunted the rest of the bill off to the general practitioner. The patient did not mind tremendously, although the general practitioner objected slightly, and we overcame the problem simply by shuffling the hospital pharmacy budget on to the general practitioner. In reality, it cost the Health Service more because hospitals prescribed cheaper drugs bought in bulk, while general practitioners prescribed drugs from the local pharmacy.
    Mr. John Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman is being rather negative. Can he tell us how his internal market would work? How is it possible to have an internal market without doctor choice as to consultants, without patient choice, and without some differentiation in style of hospital?
    Dr. Owen: I will deal with that when I come to it in the course of my argument. I prefer to develop first the logical case that general practice costs cannot be separated from hospital costs and that hitherto there has been a thoroughly reputable movement to bring the two together, rather than to separate and fragment them.
    To return to the analogy of pharmaceutical costs, if a limit is put on the family practitioner's budget as well as on the hospital budget, there will be no way out because there will be no flexibility. That is rightly seen by general practitioners as limiting their clinical freedom to choose the type of treatment that they think best for the individual patient, so if the Government insist on it they will be starting to challenge a very fundamental aspect of medical practice.
    These ill-thought-out proposals come at a moment when a large part of the Health Service agrees that there is a need for medical audit. There is now not only a great deal of consent to medical audit within hospitals but a growing
    204
    recognition of a need for medical audit within general practice and of the need for the medical profession to be held accountable for the costs that it incurs. It is beginning to be recognised that one cannot have a narrow concept of medical freedom—freedom to prescribe exactly what one wants, and to treat exactly as one wants—because that works back. As there is an overall limit to the amount of money that any Government will put into the Health Service, one has to accept some restriction on one's freedom to treat all patients as ideally as one would wish.
    Medical audit—the concept of being held accountable for costs—is accepted by the medical and nursing professions and there is a growing understanding of the techniques involved, so why have the Government brought in a blunderbuss in the form of the White Paper? Why do they seek to legislate for those proposals to be applied across the board without a pilot study for a practice budget or any real understanding of self-governing hospitals other than that gained from six experiments, which have wisely been undertaken, in resource management in hospitals?
    It is important to remember that, in five out of six hospitals, those responsible for the experiment in resource management have all said that it is far too early to move to self-governing hospitals and that many more lessons need to be learned. They have asked that their hospitals should continue with the experiment and not be diverted by the question of self-governing hospitals. It is not surprising that those five hospitals—the exception is Guy's —which have pioneered new techniques and want to continue the experiment, and which are going with the trend of modern medicine and modern management, should be coming out in criticism of the Government's proposals. Those who manage the Health Service say that the Government's proposals are ill thought out, with consequences that are difficult to foresee, most of them deeply damaging to the NHS.
    It is not as though that was always what the Government intended. The proposition for an internal market, which the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) asked me to discuss, was put into the public domain by Professor Alan Enthoven of Stanford university more than six years ago. Those proposals were bitterly criticised, often by the Department itself, as impractical and undesirable.
    It is well known that the Social Democratic party thought that there was considerable merit in the application of an internal market as proposed by Professor Enthoven, but he did not propose self-governing hospitals or general practice budgets—he suggested that district health authorities should be given far greater autonomy to manage the district health authority, free from regional control, and that there should be a modest market between the district health authorities, with some element of patient choice.
    We argued then, as we argued today, that the first step towards an internal market is for patients to be given choice so that, faced with a long waiting list in a district health authority—as sadly happens all too frequently, particularly in elective surgery—they should have the right to go to another district health authority with a shorter waiting list, confident in the knowledge that the bill for that will not be taken up by the district health authority which has reduced its waiting list but by the district health authority whence the patients came. That gives an incentive to districts with shorter waiting lists to take

    205
    patients from other districts, and acts as a financial discipline on district health authorities with long waiting lists.
    If a district health authority decides that it does not wish to build up its expertise or be self-sufficient in a particular speciality, it will be prepared to accept the cost, knowing what that cost will be. In such a system, the money really does follow the patient. The patient makes the choice, advised by the general practitioner who will need information about waiting lists in neighbouring district health authorities.
    Not every patient can move. To put a young mother in a hospital 50 or 60 miles from her home creates a major social problem, quite apart from the considerable costs involved. Although that is the most effective way of dealing with the immediate problem of waiting lists, introducing a welcome measure of patient choice, to be realistic for poorer families it must be accompanied by generous help with the cost of going to hospital and of a minimum visiting programme. We already encounter that problem with perinatal care. Where there are not full facilities for dealing with the highly specialised treatment of prematurely born children, the mother and child have to be taken to a specialised unit. The family then faces very heavy costs for a period of six weeks or more with practically no financial support. That aspect must be dealt with.
    Such a system, which is the true internal market that has been discussed for the last five years and criticised by the Department of Health, is now being thrown out of the window as being of no significance and we suddenly have a new proposal for self-governing hospitals. Where did the proposal come from? What great genius created it?
    If, as is clear, the medical profession objects, as does the Royal College of Nursing, and if the Institute of Health Services Management foresees considerable problems, do the Government still intend to shunt the proposals through? Are we to have the Official Secrets Act all over again? Will Tory Members behave like Lobby fodder and vote for the proposals? There will be a test of that later today.
    How can any Conservative genuinely vote for the Government amendment? Perhaps I should read it out to them. It seeks to leave out from 'House' to end and add
    "expresses full support for the proposals set out in the White Paper 'Working for Patients' and believes that these will lead to a Health Service that is more responsive to the needs of patients".
    I hope that general practitioners in the constituencies of Conservative Members who vote for the amendment will ask a few questions tomorrow. If consultation is to mean anything, surely the Government could have phrased it better and said:
    "expresses the belief that this forms a reasonable basis on which to progress, in consultation with the medical profession".
    We are already being told by the Minister of State that there are to be no Dr. Noes and no change in the proposals. We are told that they are to be pushed through. [Interruption.] The Minister has been widely reported as saying that there will be no Dr. Noes. If he did not say that, I am only too delighted.
    The Government need to face the fact that there are serious problems in the Health Service. It has caused deep resentment in the Health Service that the White Paper did
    206
    not in any section address underfunding. By any standards, that must be one problem. I agree that the medical profession always wants more money. The Government cannot blame it for that. The teaching profession always wants more money, too. Everybody always wants more money. But it is a fact of life that in comparison with the service in almost any other industrial democratic nation, our National Health Service is asked to carry on with a lower percentage of GDP devoted to it.
    The figure in this country is 6 per cent. The average for OECD countries is 7·5 per cent. In the United States the figure is 11 per cent., and in France and Germany it is 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. We are told that the White Paper is to bring about the most radical change in health services since the National Health Service Act 1946. Yet it does not even address financial under-investment. It is no wonder that people who work in the Health Service are asking themselves, "Can the Government really be serious about these proposals?"
    Only a few days ago, Bassetlaw district health authority produced an interesting proposal. Instead of asking for its hospital to be part of a self-governing unit, it put in a detailed proposal to the Ministry that it should be allowed to form a National Health Service trust and that, within the National Health Service, the whole district—hospital and community care—should be allowed to be self-governing. It also proposed that the regional health authority should hold the budget and should be the accounting officer. The district health authority went to Price Waterhouse for an assessment of its capacity to do that.
    That is the internal market that is really being suggested, and I believe that a pilot study should be conducted into it. Although I am deeply committed to the whole concept of an internal market, the SDP has always argued that it cannot be introduced overnight, that pilot studies must be carried out to prove that it can be done and that the information system on which the management of an internal market critically depends does not exist in the NHS at present. We have argued that it will take many years to develop to its true sophistication before we have an internal market, such as that which I suggested at district level, operating throughout the country. Despite that, however, the Government have introduced proposals for self-governing hospitals, which people do not want. The Government want 200 to 300 of them operating by 1992. What world are they living in? It is certainly not the world in which the majority of people using and operating the NHS live.
    There are technical issues. The problem with the White Paper is that of an underlying dogma which is far more ominous. With the Finance Bill we are seeing the first step towards the more dogmatised, ideological basis of the Government's reforms—health insurance tax relief for those aged over 60. Many Conservative Members voted for that proposal, but I hope that before it is implemented, and later extended to the whole of the working population, they will think through the implications. Since the original Tory opposition to the 1948 legislation, it has been a Right-wing dream to have tax relief on health insurance.
    One of the more amusing issues in recent months has been the criticism of the doctors. Department of Health Ministers have claimed that if the doctors had had their way originally there would not have been a National Health Service. They forget to mention that if the

    207
    Conservative party had had its way, there would not have been an NHS either because Tory Members of the day voted against the legislation.
    Mr. Ray Whitney: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the 1944 White Paper which set out the basic principles on which the NHS was founded? The Health Minister at the time was a Conservative.
    Dr. Owen: Mr. Brown's White Paper, initially in 1943, followed by the actions of Henry Willink in 1944, was one of the best examples of a coalition Government that we have seen. The social legislation of the 1940s, on education, and so on—R. A. Butler's measure—was important, and if one cares to do so, one can go back in the history of the NHS to the Socialist Medical Association of the early 1930s. Even the British Medical Association had moved its position by the late 1930s. As with most radical changes, a considerable breadth of consensus was needed. It was surprising that when the original NHS Bill came forward from Aneurin Bevan, Sir Winston Churchill and the Tory party opposed it with great vigour. Fortunately, the Conservatives did not overturn the Act in 1951 when they were returned to office.
    Since 1948, the NHS has had the unanimous support of all political parties in Britain and, by and large, that has been sustained across the transfers of Government. Now, however, the Government have introduced their White Paper, and there is no question but that if there were a further extension of tax relief for private health insurance covering the whole working population, we would inexorably be heading for a two-tier health service and the American system of health care. If that were buttressed by the demands, of which we hear and about which we read in the newspapers, for tax relief on the cost of private medical treatment or in respect of private surgical treatment—we gather that that is being demanded by some Conservative Back Benchers—the movement towards a two-tier system would be very rapid indeed.
    Against that philosophical background, we must consider the other aspects of the White Paper. The Prime Minister is among the small percentage of the population who do not use the NHS. She seems genuinely to believe that if one can pay for private insurance, one almost has a moral obligation to opt out of the NHS, freeing resources for use elsewhere in the service. But the NHS is based on a different concept. It is based on the principle of "count everyone in"—that everyone has insurance cover, that the service is provided for the whole of the population and that nobody, rich or poor, need opt out. There are great advantages in a health care system in which rich and poor participate and all are treated the same, with the judgment being made on the basis of clinical need. We would be taking a major step if we encouraged people to feel that they had a moral obligation to opt out of health care purely and simply because they had enough money to pay for private health insurance.
    Let us look at the Government's proposals for self-governing, autonomous hospitals. It is very nice perhaps for teaching hospitals to opt out, but one of the problems of the teaching hospitals, particularly in London, is that they are already opting out of some of their community health responsibilities. If the Minister were to tell us that a particular hospital specialised in orthopaedic work, such as hip replacement operations, and was doing virtually nothing else and that there was a
    208
    case for the hospital being autonomous and run as a self-managing unit, people would say that we ought to try it and would feel that such a move was not unreasonable, since the hospital was not providing a district service and was not part of the health care pattern. If the Government were to encourage that hospital or some other specialised hospital to opt out as an experiment, no one would get very upset about it. Our objection is to taking out the district general hospital—the very core of our intergrated health care—and managing and financing it separately.
    Let us take another example. It is suggested that the hospital trusts should have different terms of employment. There is much to be said for a district health authority being the employing authority, having the freedom to employ and making its own contracts. Hospital consultants should have contracts not with the region but with the district health authority. The family practitioner committees should come under the district health authority. If one integrated the district with the family practitioner health service one would create what is, in American terms, a health maintenance organisation, and one would be much better able to achieve some of the benefits that the Government are trying to achieve with the general practitioners contract.
    Many of the preventive health measures in the new GP's contract are beneficial to medicine and, operating within the concept of a district health authority, could be of great benefit. But in fact the GP practice is to be fragmented and regarded as a separate unit. That will not work, or, if it does work, it will damage the overall integrated health care pattern.
    On top of this, we have been waiting for years for proposals on the community health services, but they have not yet been brought forward. How on earth is it possible to legislate for the National Health Service and to formulate views on the family practitioner service and on the hospital service without any idea how the Government intend to handle the community health service? Those concepts are not separate abstractions—they are closely integrated.
    Let us take, for example, the question of joint funding which I introduced when I was Minister of Health. Its prime purpose was to bring the social services, hospital services and family practitioner services together, and to provide some money to grease the wheels for integration. How can one consider this White Paper in the absence of any provision for community health? I hope that in this debate the Government will listen to the views of their own Back Benchers—to whom they listen more readily, I fear, than to Opposition Members.
    Mr. Stephen Day: Will they?
    Dr. Owen: We must take a realistic view of these matters. I am sad about it. I should like to believe that every word that we spoke would be taken with the utmost seriousness in the Department of Health, but I suspect that four or five speeches of opposition from Conservative Back Benchers might have more impact on No. 10 Downing street, if not on the Department of Health.
    This debate is our first real opportunity to flag tip that the basis of the White Paper will not provide legislation which will carry the Health Service workers with the Government or carry the country with the Government but will do grave damage to the National Health Service. The question is how to get the Government off the hook.

    209
    That is the issue that Conservative Back Benchers should be worrying about. Here there are some real possibilities that I should like to encourage the House to consider.
    First, it would be much better to get the question of the GP contract out of the way as quickly as possible—"Give 'em the money, Barney" used to be the expression, or "Stuff their mouths with gold," as Aneurin Bevan put it. I admit that at one moment when we were in office and when it looked as though we had the hospital doctors, the junior hospital doctors and the general practitioners all opposed to us, we found a way of paying GPs for contraceptive advice. I felt that that was part of the contract of general practitioners and I was bitterly opposed to paying it, but I am afraid that I paid up, so it would not be the first or the last time that Governments have paid up.
    That is not, however, what is necessary now because most of the criticisms of the GPs' contract can be overcome by a modification of some of the objections which are fairly soundly based. For example, the criticism made of the immunisation percentage is a real one, although I cannot for the life of me see why we do not put an obligation on parents, when their children enter school or when they claim child benefit, to show that they have participated in an immunisation programme. Making it all a responsibility of general practitioners is wrong. Parents have a responsibility to see that the immunisation programme is undertaken and it is part of the general practitioner's contract to see that it is done or done by the school health service.
    Similarly with the cervical cancer smear service, the percentage figure is very high and people have reasonable objections to that. In dealing with the withdrawal of seniority payments, it is necessary to protect pension rights. Something can also be done about payment for night calls. It is not beyond the wit, certainly of the Secretary of State, if he sets his mind to it, to resolve these problems. He is obviously worried that if he makes a few concessions here the British Medical Association will come back asking for more and he will have to negotiate it.
    Let the Government settle the issue of the contract in the next couple of months and then deal with the substantive problem, the National Health Service review. Having done that, let them get the GPs to accept medical audit to the extent that hospital consultants have accepted it. Let them extend resource management in the Health Service from the six hospitals that operate it now to 100 hospitals, and gradually build up an information system. Then let them conduct some experiments or pilot studies.
    If, for example, a few hospitals are highly specialised and not part of the district health authority, let us have a look at running them autonomously. If there are a few people with large practices who are keen to run a practice budget, let them have a go at it. Legislation is not needed for any of that.
    Mr. Day: That is exactly what is being said.
    Dr. Owen: No, it is not exactly what is being said. The Government have been arguing for more than 200 hospitals to be operated as autonomous, self-governing units within a short period.
    As regards practices, the Government are saying that it is up to the general practitioner—
    Mr. Day: It is voluntary.
    Dr. Owen: No, it is not voluntary. The Government have so changed the other arrangements for general practitioners that they are giving a considerable incentive to go for practice opt-outs. This is what the Royal College of General Practitioners and the General Medical Services Committee object to. If it were a free choice—
    Mr. Day: It is.
    Dr. Owen: It is not. Hon. Members must look at the proposals carefully and, I suggest, talk to a few of their local general practitioners. They will find that the criticism of the proposal is not that they are allowed to take an "opt out" decision for their own particular practice. What GPs object to is that the structuring of general practice payments and arrangements makes it difficult for them not to go in that direction. There is not just an incentive but a stick pushing them in that direction. That is what they object to, and they are quite right to object.
    It is in any case not the right direction. The right direction is to integrate the family practitioner committees with the district health authority, and to try to produce a system of incentives that will encourage preventive medicine and health maintenance. In keeping down the costs of hospitalisation of a patient, the GP works with the consultant and both have an incentive to keep the patient in hospital for as short a time as possible. That saves money for the district health authority, and they all benefit in consequence. That is not fragmenting care—it is integrating care. It is getting cost-effectiveness through a much better provision of care by bringing hospital and home care together.
    That is the direction in which the Secretary of State should proceed if he is wise. His problem is that overshadowing it all is the Prime Minister, who wishes to change the National Heath Service fundamentally. We should be under no illusions about this. The Prime Minister wants a two-tier health service, and she openly admits it in the House. She wants a system under which those who can pay private health insurance will do so. She thinks that it is quite right that the 40 per cent. of people who can afford to do so should operate within a broadly private health system. They would have a safety net so that if they were hit by a car on the M4 they would be taken to the local hospital. However, broadly speaking, the health care of such people will be taken outside the National Health Service.
    For the other 60 per cent. of the population, the Prime Minister accepts that there should be a safety net and a health care system that is as good as can be afforded. Her Government would not spend too much money on that because it will be public sector money.
    There is nothing new about such a system—it operated in this country in the 1920s and 1930s. It was rejected by the people when the National Health Service was created in 1948, and many of us are determined that it should not be reintroduced through either the front or the back door. Such a system underlies many of these proposals and it will be introduced unless they are rejected.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that consultants should opt to work in either the National Health Service or the private sector, or that the present position should continue?
    Dr. Owen: I have reluctantly come to the conclusion over many years that we shall have to accept the Aneurin Bevan compromise in which doctors work in both the public and private health service, and we have a mixed provision of health care. Ideally, I should like doctors to work full time in the National Health Service, as I did. Had I stayed, I should always have worked full time in the NHS. However, we have to live with the system under which doctors cherish the right to practise privately part of the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is a two-tier system."] It is not a two-tier system at all. The private health care system that operates in this country is a small part of the overall health care system—a safety valve. It operates—and has done so under successive Governments—without serious detriment to the National Health Service.
    If there was a serious attack on NHS waiting lists, they could be reduced, and then much of the motivation to expand the private sector would be withdrawn. There will always be some people who would like to have the freedom to choose their own doctor, but we cannot offer that choice to the whole population. It produces only a minor distortion of the system and, provided it operates at a fairly low level, it can be tolerated as part of the mixed health care system. However, that is not a two-tier system, or the one which we had before the National Health Service. Many of us are determined to ensure that it is not introduced.
    Having listened to the debate I realise that a number of Conservative Members need to discuss these matters a bit more with some of their constituents if there are not to be many tears over the next few years. Nobody should underestimate the extent and depth of feeling against the proposals. The nursing profession is now almost more important than the medical profession to the successful running of the Health Service. There is a reasonable surplus of doctors, but there is an acute shortage of nurses, who have to be encouraged to return and stay in the Health Service. We cannot, therefore, dismiss the view of the nurses, let alone the views of the medical profession. Above all, we should not exclude the views of the patients.
    The Government should be able to come forward with some level of support for their proposals from the people whom the proposals are meant to serve. If there is merit in them, it should be possible to point to patients who want them, but I have found no evidence of popular demand for any of the substantive proposals—which have been criticised—put forward in the White Paper.
    Mr. Day: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that while there is much feeling against the White Paper it is against the myths surrounding it rather than the actual proposals? The myths are largely created by organisations such as the British Medical Association.
    Dr. Owen: The BMA is bound to be in conflict with the Ministers. I am reminded of the story of David Lloyd George, who went to the BMA when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. When he came out of the meeting he said that he felt "like Daniel leaving the lion's den, the only difference being that those lions knew their anatomy." A mauling of Health Ministers by the British Medical Association is par for the course, but it is not par for the course for them to receive a mauling from the royal colleges of physicians, surgeons, general practitioners, obstetricians, gynaecologists and from the Royal College of Nursing. The degree of opposition that the White Paper
    212
    has roused within and without the National Health Service, and the total lack of support from patients, is not commonplace.
    When Aneurin Bevan had trouble with the BMA, at least he had the patients on his side. It is clear from this debate that nobody—apart from Tory Members—seems prepared to vote for the Government's splendid amendment to the effect that everything in the garden is fine. Here is an opportunity for Conservative Members to abstain—to disappear quietly so that they are not here to vote for the Government's self-congratulatory amendment. In doing so, they may do themselves a great service. In voting with the Government they will be doing the Opposition a great service.
    5.7 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    `expresses full support for the proposals set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and believes that these will lead to a Health Service that is more responsive to the needs of patients, and will enable those hospitals which best meet the needs of patients to get the money to do so, will reduce waiting times, improve the quality of care, help family doctors to develop the services they provide for their patients, improve the effectiveness of National Health Service management, and ensure that all those concerned with delivering health care make the best use of the resources available to them.'.
    I am glad that we have had the opportunity of debating this matter today. I wondered when an Opposition Supply day would be devoted to the topic. It is interesting that, whatever the Labour party may have to say about the White Paper, it has not been enthusiastic to table such a motion. Apart from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman), who has to be here, there is only one other Labour Member in the Chamber. Admittedly, it is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) on these matters.
    It may be that the Labour party lacks enthusiasm for a full-scale debate because it would not be long before its threadbare thinking on the need for positive change in the NHS would be revealed. Into that vacuum, in a rather unexpected way, has moved the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and his motion. We heard a typically self-indulgent performance, expanding over 43 minutes, from the right hon. Member. Perhaps in future two-and-a-half-hour debates the right hon. Gentleman will use notes so that he might be able to deliver his speech a little quicker and more accurately. What he said was full of misconceptions about the White Paper.
    One thing which could always be said of the right hon. Gentleman was that if he thought that the Government had a point—or even half a point—he was always prepared to acknowledge it. The interesting point about his contribution to this debate is the uneasy way—often resorting to making distinctions on the head of a pin—in which he seeks to distinguish between the Government's concept of an internal market in the NHS and the one that he claims to have popularised.
    I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman—intoxicated, as his last remarks made clear by the thought that every man's hand was against the proposals, which is far from the case—has fallen into the trap of the lowest common denominator of Opposition. He would have done himself

    213
    a greater service if he had acknowledged that much of the thinking in the White Paper reflects a number of issues that obviously occurred to him when he wrote his book and when the SDP published its document.
    The best I can find to say about the motion is that it could have been drafted by the Labour party. The right hon. Gentleman used not to be pleased to hear such words. However, he knows full well that, in his book, he makes it clear that he is interested in a more consumerist NHS, wants an internal market to be developed and a national health authority with substantial autonomy. He makes it clear that he wants improved resource management with measures to improve the cost awareness of professionals. He makes it clear that he understands the case for management of the NHS to be much freer and at a lower level.
    It is astonishing that the right hon. Gentleman should base his objections to the Government's proposals on the distinction between self-governing hospitals and semi-independent district health authorities. Bassetlaw may well have snookered him by producing proposals at which we are looking with great interest.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the concepts set out in the White Paper reflect an awareness at which everyone except members of the Labour party must surely arrive: if the NHS is to meet the challenge of the next decade it must be more cost-effective in its delivery of services. The "Green Paper"—presumably the right hon. Gentleman not only wrote it but cut down the trees to pulp the paper, given its one-man-band nature—states:
    "The SDP believes that the introduction of an internal market into the National Health Service would yield a number of benefits. Firstly, health managers would be able to use resources in a more effective manner. They would be free to buy services from other suppliers who offered good value, and by careful investment of their own resources attract income from other health authorities. The move to an internal market would provide an incentive to develop a more sophisticated financial management and information system. It would also provide a strong incentive to review existing methods of service delivery … Funding will in effect follow the patient, bringing an important transfer of power in favour of patients."
    It is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to accept that such notions—whether they embody his own concept of an internal market, which no doubt he would be bound to admit was less than fully argued through in his book and presented very sketchily today, or our kind of concept—start from a common root of recognition that unless the NHS becomes more consumerist and is managed more effectively lower down the scale—unless there is some freedom for finance to cross the arbitrary district boundaries that now inhibit the proper delivery of care—we shall not meet the challenge of the next decade. It is regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to kow-tow in this way, notably in the article that he produced in the Daily Express on Saturday. I do not know whether any other hon. Members have read it.
    Although the article went on at some length, no one reading it would have dreamt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman had ever thought about internal markets. Of course, it contained much good advice. It called my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State "insouciant", and told him what wise heads would do—
    214
    which, in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's political career, is a bit like King Farouk telling people how to run a kingdom.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Or Roy Jenkins.
    Mr. Mellor: The right hon. Gentleman says:
    "when you are in a hole, stop digging."
    Who better than he to formulate such advice?
    The right hon. Gentleman knows only too well that when he was in office he was not deflected by opposition from groups that he considered to be standing up for more vested interests than for progress. He has conceded in most of his subsequent writings that what he proposed then was wrong. But the idea that the doctors, or indeed any other group within the NHS, should be the final arbiters of a change in what is actually the patients' service strikes me as a further retreat from the principle of which the right hon. Gentleman should be less than proud.
    Let me make a positive case for the concepts in the review. I shall do so as briefly as possible, so that the maximum number of hon. Members will have an opportunity to speak—more than 40 minutes having been taken, quite unnecessarily in my respectful judgment, to open the debate.
    The first crucial point is that the past 10 years have been years of expansion for the NHS, in which funding has increased considerably. Had we merely continued the level of funding that existed 10 years ago, this year the NHS would be spending just under £19 billion at 1989–90 prices. In fact, it will be spending more than £26 billion. We know that nearly 1·5 million more in-patients a year are being treated by the NHS than were treated 10 years ago, while 3·25 million more out-patients and 500,000 more day cases are being dealt with.
    Those statistics are familiar; I need not go over them. However, the expansion of the NHS has not, in truth, made the service any easier to run in 1989 than it was in 1979. If we had dared to predict such expansion 10 years ago, people would have thought first that a tripling of cash expenditure within a decade was not possible, and secondly that if it were possible—imagining that signing a large cheque is the fundamental way of dealing with the NHS—we would be in an easier position. We are not. The job of balancing priorities will become more rather than less difficult in the years ahead.
    The reason is clear: demand for the NHS is growing, and will continue to grow inexorably. That is partly for demographic reasons: we are an aging population, and, important and good though that is, it imposes large costs on the NHS. Secondly, the frontiers of medical science are being continually pushed forward, mostly into expensive, high-technology developments. Thirdly, people are no longer content, for instance, to wear a body support for a hernia or a surgical stocking for varicose veins; they require an operation. People's thresholds for seeking treatment are being constantly lowered, which is not unreasonable. The service is there and people want to use it.
    Finally, people are no longer content for the NHS to be simply a service for sickness. They want it to be a service for health. They want more prevention techniques, and they want the full benefit of primary health care to go to those who think that they are healthy but who may not be, so that they can be screened for conditions that can be dealt with at an early stage. Such things are possible in this decade. They were not possible in the decade during which

    215
    the right hon. Gentleman had custody of the NHS, because he spent most of his time having to argue that the NHS could not be protected from funding problems.
    I know that what I am saying is not palatable to the right hon. Gentleman, but I listened to most of his speech, and I feel that he could at least do me the courtesy of listening to mine. The right hon. Gentleman is not always alone in having a valuable contribution to make to a debate, and having started this one he should, I think, listen to what the rest of us have to say.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that in the current decade the 20 per cent. increase in the number of general practitioners, and the 50 per cent. increase in the number of support staff for them—including the doubling of practice nurse members—have made possible primary care teams that could not have been dreamt of in the 1970s. As a consequence a great gap has been opened between those who are providing that full range of services and those who are not.
    The task of Government is not to sit back and say, "Chacun à son goût; let any doctor do what he chooses", but to try to ensure, through the contract and in other ways, that health care reaches high standards everywhere, and that the contract not only rewards effort but stimulates further effort. To my mind there is not too much difference between that kind of consumerist approach and that which, until it became politically expedient not to do so, the right hon. Gentleman supported.
    The gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's charge when the debate was announced was his hostility to the "commercialisation" of the NHS, whatever that may mean. But unless the NHS is prepared to use the techniques of cost-effectiveness that have been so successful elsewhere it will be incapable of meeting those demands, even within the rising budget that we all want. Let us take, for instance, competitive tendering. I do not know whether in his present mode the right hon. Gentleman would consider that commercialisation, but we have saved nearly £110 million simply by not accepting that the way in which things have always been done is the way in which they should be done in the future.
    Interestingly, 85 per cent. of the contracts that were reconsidered went in-house, showing that there were savings to be made if only people could be bothered to try. All that £110 million has gone back into the service. To put it another way, the equivalent of one and a half Great Ormond street hospitals have been saved by the service tightening up on washing and cleaning costs.
    Mrs. Alice Mahon rose—
    Mr. Mellor: If the hon. Lady does not mind I will not give way: I am trying to be quick.
    The same is true of a range of other efficiency savings. Some £740 million has been allocated elsewhere in the system. A tighter view has been taken of prescribing. Most people now admit that all the fuss over the limited list was based on two entirely false premises—damage to patients and that savings would not be made. We said that £75 million a year would be saved, and £75 million has been saved for four years now. Some £300 million that was being spent on over-priced branded cough mixtures on prescription is now going into the "front end" of patient care.
    Mr. Michael Latham: I hope that my hon. Friend will concede that at the end of the
    216
    consultation period the limited list was three times longer than it was at the beginning of the consultation period, because his predecessors listened to hon. Members on all sides of the House. I hope that he will assure the House that he will do the same in regard to the doctors' contracts.
    Mr. Mellor: Another unfairness in the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport was that he suggested, by distorting phrases ripped out of context from my speeches and those of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health, that we were seeking to ram those changes willy-nilly down the throat of the profession. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that the Government have a duty to set the direction in which the service should go. The publication of the working papers, the intensive discussions that are taking place and the invitation to co-operate that lies at the heart of all our proposals are designed to work with the grain of the system.
    Of course, as we receive representations, whether they are about details of the contract or suggest ways in which we can better apply the financial principles in the resources management initiative, their voices will be heard and we shall not hesitate to change our minds. That is what we have been saying throughout the process. I am glad to say that the media who first wanted to report war-war have belatedly become interested in jaw-jaw and are reporting passages from my speeches saying that the proposals were not tablets of stone. We are looking for a genuine dialogue and we are only too ready to alter course and change practical details if that is required. We have a duty to lay down the basic thrust of the proposals and to carry them forward because they are right.
    The right hon. Gentleman's house was built on sand. He based his case on the fact that we were compelling GPs to have practice budgets and hospitals to become self-governing. But only general practices of a certain size are being invited to apply for practice budgets, and those who do not wish to do so do not have to. Pilot schemes are a practical way of testing whether budgeting will work. The practices concerned will open negotiations—and plenty of them are ready to do so—if the negotiations flourish they will accept the budget and if the negotiations are unsuccessful they will walk away. No one is being compelled to take a budget. If the system works it will grow, and if it does not, as I said on the radio, it will be consigned to history. What could be fairer than that?
    The same applies to self-governing hospitals. Of course we are entitled to say that we hope that the majority of acute hospitals will follow up but it is entirely their choice and there is no shortage of interest. What is meant by self-governing hospitals? Far from the right hon. Gentleman's uncharacteristic sloppiness in suggesting that the proposal was carried across from the education reforms, we have never used the words "opting out". We are saying that in the interest of good Health Service management it should be reduced to the lowest level consistent with being able to develop the best patient care. Given the calibre of people interested in becoming involved in special health authorities in London, the attractions of self-governing hospitals with the politics removed—attracting the best people from the community and the best managers to deliver the best service—are clear.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: In referring to opting out or self-governing hospitals, the Minister repeatedly said, "It is entirely their choice." To whom was he referring?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows well that the White Paper makes it clear that it is for various interested groups to come forward with proposals, and for the Secretary of State to determine whether those proposals should be implemented. I have told the hon. Gentleman what the White Paper states on that.
    The White Paper is based on concepts which every patient and everyone concerned with the NHS wants—quality, responsiveness and value for money. As the Institute of Health Services Management has made clear in regard to the present funding of the NHS hospital service, a good unit that gets through its list and carries out more operations than average, runs into financial difficulties nine or 10 months into the financial year, while a unit that coasts along and does not extend itself is funded on exactly the same basis for ever and a day and, of course, does not run into financial difficulties. With money following the patient, something that the right hon. Gentleman used to advocate—well might he hold his head in his hands—those units that are good are allowed to reach their proper level. Surely that is in the best interest of patients.
    We want a more consumerist Health Service. We are beyond the point at which, after the great battle to establish the Health Service, it was possible for the profession or anyone else to say that the NHS was doing the public a favour simply by allowing people to pass through its portals. It was regarded as deeply radical by some general practitioners that there should be an appointments system, but now it is accepted. Why should hospitals not be the same? Why should patients turn up at 9.30 and be seen at 12.30? Why should the conditions for many out-patients be so disgraceful?
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Because of the lack of funding.
    Mr. Mellor: I have already mentioned the increase in funding. The problems to which I referred often relate to priorities and attitudes rather than money. The idea that everyone should be acquitted of any dereliction of duty by the parrot cries about funding is typical of how spurious NHS debates often become. We all know that it relates to attitudes. We all hope that when cash follows the patient, NHS patients will become as valuable commodities to the medical profession and others as private patients. That day is long overdue.
    Finally, I turn to value for money. Given the demands on the Health Service in the next decade, unless we can deliver health care efficiently and effectively, we shall not meet the increased pace of demand. Sometimes the argument is satirised as if it is simply a matter of making cuts or signing a large cheque, but the argument is about providing a quality of care that meets the demands of patients. Even within an expanding budget it will be a struggle. Value for money—a good quality of care at a sensible cost—is the way forward.
    We all know that there are hospitals capable of carrying out operations on a day care basis. I visited one in Burton where 50 per cent. of the operations were carried out on a day care basis. In many other parts of the country people are in-patients for two to three days. Conducting operations on a day care basis is not selling the patient
    218
    short. Most patients do not want to stay overnight in hospital and do so only because the present system demands it. Our proposals are based on straightforward concepts that have been carried through to beneficial effect elsewhere in the economy. The NHS must not become a mausoleum to outdated managerial practices. The NHS is in the forefront of medical advance and should be in the forefront of financial and other management if we are to have the NHS that we need.
    It will be interesting to hear other speeches in the debate and to find out whether any other parts of the House are capable of yielding up positive proposals such as those in the White Paper. People should be concerned not merely to stir up easy points by suggesting that the profession is against one proposal and the public are worried about another, but to find some way of ensuring that we deliver health care more effectively. At the moment, only the Conservative party is rising to that very real challenge.
    5.27 pm
    Ms. Harriet Harman: It is highly significant, and will be greeted with dismay by the public and the professions outside the House, that the Minister failed to address any of the very real concerns that have been raised about the White Paper. He did not address any of the concerns that were well articulated by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
    When will the House have a full debate on the White Paper? While I welcome the opportunity provided by this brief debate to begin discussion on the White Paper, it is quite wrong that the country should be discussing the White Paper yet the House has not had the opportunity to have a full debate. It is particularly wrong because the Government are already progressing with their plans, and have even gone so far as to appoint finance managers to run hospitals which have yet to opt out under system which has yet to be debated in the House. I should have thought that the Secretary of State should come forward urgently to discuss those plans in the House. The House is the only place in which the Government are likely to hear any support for their proposals, largely thanks to the Government Whips.
    It is in keeping with the way in which the review has been dealt with from the outset that we have not had a chance to debate it fully in the House. The review was not, of course, a response to public concern about the shortage of resources in the Health Service. The original idea of the review was to give Ministers a breathing space and to sweep the issue under the carpet. It gave Ministers something to say when, week by week, day after day, they had to respond at the Dispatch Box to the concerns about lengthening waiting lists and cancelled operations.
    But away from public involvement and any professional advice, the review has unfortunately mutated into a monster which aims to inflict on us the same chaos and misery that the American health care system inflicts on the American people. If there had been any public or professional consultation during the review process, it is inconceivable that the Government could have come up with the commercialisation of the National Health Service.
    There is a broad and deep consensus about the Health Service, which only the Government stand outside. People understand that the commercialisation of health care will drive down the quality of health services, drive up costs by saddling the Health Service with a monstrous bureaucracy

    219
    and undermine the doctor-patient relationship by putting a price tag on each patient's head. It is clear to everybody that the Government are interested not in a healthy patient, but only in a healthy bank balance.
    Doctors', nurses' and health workers' unions have all warned that the White Paper proposals will cut down patient choice, not increase it, and will reduce our chance of developing preventative health services. The proposals will hit hardest those who need help the most—the chronically sick, the disabled and the elderly. The fact that the weight of public opinion is overwhelmingly against the proposals and that the weight of professional opinion is unanimously against them must be a grave disappointment to the Government, especially as they have invested a great deal of public money—more than £1·25 million —in a shameful attempt to mislead the public and health professionals about what the proposals constitute. I challenge the Minister to name even one reputable, independent organisation that knows anything about the issue which supports the proposals. There is none.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Seven million pounds has been spent in opposing the White Paper. Does the hon. Lady think that the British Medical Association should use general practitioners' surgeries as a way of putting across its propaganda to the sick and the elderly?
    Ms. Harman: It is for the British Medical Association to decide what it does with its members' money. What the Government do with taxpayers' money is a matter for all of us. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman cannot tell the difference.
    The Secretary of State and his Ministers have become angry about the fact that they have not been able to buy public or professional opinion, so they have resorted to smear tactics: they have said that the doctors are simply reaching for their wallets and that the nurses are merely a vested interest who must be overridden. The Government remain determined not to listen to argument, not to consider the evidence and not to respond to public concern. Nothing in the Minister's speech suggested that he has listened to the points made so strongly.
    The evidence is clear: we need more resources in the Health Service. It seems that even that message has not got through to the Minister. We spend less per head on health care than most other European countries and only a little more than half what Americans spend for an inferior system.
    The other important piece of evidence to which the Government do not want to listen is that competition actually drives down quality. When hospitals compete, they cut corners so that they can cut costs, and that increases the mortality rate. The fiercer the competition, the higher the mortality rate. Evidence of that has been established clearly in the United States, even when dealing with not-for-profit hospitals. I am not talking about profit driving down quality, but the fact that competition for patients results in a lowering of quality. That was reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.
    Ironically, people were safer being treated in a small town where there was only one hospital than in a big city, where many hospitals were competing for patients, and therefore cutting costs and corners. Yet that is what the
    220
    Government's proposals for opted-out hospitals competing with each other will mean. Standards will be driven down and mortality rates will rise. The internal market would also drive up administrative costs.
    Mrs. Mahon: Before my hon. Friend comes on to competition, will she agree that the competition introduced through the tendering of services has been damaging to the quality of the Health Service? Most of us regularly see headlines about that in our local press. I have here an article describing how food inspectors have told a local authority to clean up and to improve hygiene standards in the hospital in which I worked for 11 years. It was a very clean hospital until it was forced to accept the in-house tender, which cut domestic services in half and reduced the standard of hygiene, leading to a dangerous situation.
    Ms. Harman: My hon. Friend's example is a testimony to the Government's obsession to cut the cost of public services and never mind the quality.
    When the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee on Social Services and was asked about the effect of the internal market on administrative costs, it was extraordinary that he could say that he had no idea of what the extra administrative costs would be. He was unable to give even the roughest estimate. When one considers that he is going headlong into proposals which, by all other estimates, will have considerable expenditure implications, it is extraordinary that he has no estimates or pilot scheme.
    Resources will be diverted from patient care in a veritable paper chase of bills and billing procedures. Bills will go from hospital to hospital, from district health authority, to hospital, from GP to community service and from GP to one district health authority or another. That is what happens in the United States already and it is a pity that we cannot learn from the experience there, instead of simply recreating the mistakes. If one has a hospital appointment there for 9.30 am, one often has to turn up at 6 am to complete three hours of paper work before being admitted to hospital, so complicated has the system become. It is no wonder the American administrative costs are about 20 per cent., whereas ours in the Health Service are far lower.
    I hoped that the Minister would deal with a number of important points of criticism raised outside the House and by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Owen). First, there is the question of patient choice. At present, a GP can refer patients either within the district or outside it, and within or outside the region. We have a genuinely national Health Service in that respect. If we look at the figures for cross-boundary flow, we can see that we do not need an internal market to free up the system and to enable patients to cross district boundaries. They already have the freedom and cross boundaries as a routine matter. The only impediments to that cross-boundary flow are spending restrictions, which have led some major hospitals to say that they will not treat out of district patients. That is a resource problem, not a problem of the system.
    Therefore, the Government are making a completely bogus offer when they say that they are offering us a White Paper so that patients can travel across district boundaries, because GPs already have the opportunity to refer their

    221
    patients to wherever they and the patient think that the treatment is best and most convenient for that individual patient.
    Although the right hon. Member for Devonport talked about what he regarded as the internal market, I did not see anything of the market in what he was saying. He said that we should have freedom of cross-boundary flows, which we already have, and activity-based budgeting. I do not see anything wrong with that, but there is nothing of the market in it.
    Under the White Paper, the freedom of GPs, together with their patients, to make the choice about where the patient will be treated, will disappear. Instead, the decision will be made on a block basis at the beginning of the year by managers, by people who have no contact at all with patients, let alone with the individual patient who is seeking treatment. The decision will be made to place the contract and spend the money where the service is cheapest, not where it is most convenient for the individual patient, not where the service or the treatment is best, let alone where the individual patient chooses. The decision will be made not in response to individual patients as at present—the decision now rests with the GP and the patient—but on the basis of contract negotiations at the beginning of the year.
    A major problem with that is that managers do not have accurate measurements of outcome and quality. All they have are accurate measurements of costs. Therefore, a powerful incentive is being put into the system for managers to negotiate contracts on block bookings for patients where the service is cheapest, rather than where the service is best. At this stage, medical audit does not help us, because the science of medical audit is still underdeveloped in terms of giving indications of outcome and quality.
    At the moment, the people who know most about the quality of service in different hospitals and the effectiveness of the treatment and its outcome are the GPs who see their patients coming back from hospitals, and the hospital doctors who see the patients in hospital. However, they will not be consulted. They will not be the ones to make the decision on each individual patient. That decision will be made by means of a block booking by managers who know everything about cost, but nothing about quality and outcome.
    That is why it is a travesty to continue to say that the White Paper will extend choice. Choice will be taken away from the patient and the GP and given to managers. It is true that in one respect more choice will be given—more choice will be give to the managers. It will be they who will benefit from more choice; it will certainly not be the GP or the patient.
    The Minister said that GPs will not be forced to hold their own budgets. However, they will be forced to do so if that is the only way in which they can save referral rights for themselves and their patients. That is the stick to which the right hon. Member for Devonport rightly referred. The only way in which GPs can keep choice for themselves and their patients is if they opt to hold their own budgets.
    However, when GPs do opt to hold their own budgets, they will be going out of the frying pan into the fire. Although they will have the choice of where to refer their patients, when they consult a patient, they must think not
    222
    only about what the patient needs, but about what their practice's budget can afford. That is why GPs are, justifiably, so angry about the proposals and that is why the public are justifiably afraid.
    Mr. Day: On what basis does the hon. Lady justify the implication that the budgets for such practices will be under-funded—because that is the implication of what she is saying?
    Ms. Harman: At the moment, the proposals are that the region will decide on the budget for particular GPs. If the hon. Gentleman had read the working papers, as I have —I suspect from his question that he has not—he would have seen that they state that the region will not underwrite too high referral practices. It is clear that GP's budgets are part of an attempt—a blunt instrument—to hold down referral rates, not to make sure that referrals are appropriate when they are made and that when they are not made that, too, is an appropriate decision, because overall the Government want to see referral rates and spending on prescribing go down, irrespective of the effect on the quality of care and irrespective of the effect on the patient.
    Having seen the effect that spending restrictions have had on hospitals, surely the effect that such restrictions would have on GPs is obvious to anybody. In the debate on the Health and Medicines Act 1988 it was clear that the Government wanted cash limits on GPs because they thought that GPs were spending too much money. Wherever one looks, the Government's true aims are self-evident.
    The second point that I was disappointed that the Minister did not deal with was the question of the number of patients that each GP has. The trend, supported by successive Governments, has been to reduce the number of patients of each GP. There is good reason for that. The idea is to improve the quality of care; to be able to give each patient more time to make a better diagnosis; to discuss more deeply with their patients the treatment and effect; and to increase the opportunity for preventive work and screening. Increasing the capitation element of GPs' pay is a direct incentive for GPs to increase their number of patients. It is a direct disincentive and financial penalty for those GPs who want their patient list to reduce.
    I turn now to the opting-out proposals. Again, the Minister tried to fudge this issue. Why does he not come clean and admit that it is the Secretary of State who will decide whether a hospital opts out? Indeed, it will not have been necessary for anybody at local level to have been interested in the proposals. A hospital can be selected by the region without consultation with anybody, and it can be offered up as a sacrifice to the Secretary of State. It is absolutely clear in the White Paper that the Secretary of State will decide and that the region will recommend. No account need be taken of the views of the community which depends on that hospital or those of the people who work in it.
    The right hon. Member for Devonport was right in saying that, when a hospital opts out, it will become a self-interested institution. It will be dislocated from the community that it should be serving. It will not be possible to plan services when a whole load of competing institutions are all trying to keep their heads above water in a dog-eat-dog situation. That is the very opposite of the

    223
    integration of the services and the planning for future services which, hitherto, everybody agreed was so important.
    The way in which the Government have gone about the process of trying to spur people into being in favour of opting out is disgraceful. There has been a mixture of threats and promises. To doctors who are desperately worried because of the years of under-funding, the Government have said, "If you're good boys and girls and if you're one of the first to opt out, we'll see you all right" —with a nudge and a wink. I advise those who are being cajoled in that fashion to be careful, because, although it might be part of the Government's plan to ensure that the first opters out survive and that they, the Government, have successful examples to hold before the public at the next general election, the Government do not plan to carry on like that. The Government will then cut those hospitals loose with their enormous debts of interest charges. Rather than a dash for freedom, opting out might end up as financial suicide.
    The right hon. Member for Devonport said that it might be very nice for teaching hospitals to opt out. Well, it will not be very nice for teaching hospitals in London, because of the value of their sites and buildings. If, as the Government plan under the capital charges White Paper, St. Thomas's hospital had to pay interest charges on its sites, it would have to pay an extra £40 million a year. Guy's hospital, which is just a stone's throw down the river, would have to find an extra £27 million per year to service its huge interest charge. Therefore, those hospitals will have to compete for patients to bring in the resources to service their enormous capital debts. They will end up doing what the private sector does to make money—more and more cold surgery.
    Therefore, the teaching base and the centre of excellence will be lost in a war of attrition between hospitals which are on sites of high value and are close together. At the end of the day, when one of them goes bust, the Government will say, "It's not our fault; it's the market. There must have been over-provision." I warn those in the teaching hospitals to be careful, because a trap is being laid. I believe that many of them understand that.
    What the Government must explain most of all—what the Minister failed to mention—is the tax subsidy to commercial medicine. That is an extraordinary way to allocate public money. It is unfair, because it goes to only those who can afford private medical insurance or to those who can get someone else to take it out on their behalf. It will not go to those who have the greatest need. The point about private medical insurance is that it is about insurance and not about medicine. The insurance companies want to insure a healthy person who is unlikely to claim, not a sick person who is likely to claim.
    Why should the Government subsidise private medicine? The Government appear to be in a lather of enthusiasm for private medicine, but they have no idea what is happening in the private sector. When I asked a series of questions about activity rates and bed occupancy in the private sector, the Government's answer was, "We haven't a clue." Therefore, my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) conducted a survey of the private sector, and we are grateful for its response.
    The survey showed that the private sector has a lower bed occupancy and has higher administrative costs. It costs more to do operations and it is being increasingly
    224
    taken over by the Americans. Why are the Government pushing us towards a system where the well-off will get treatment that they do not need, because it is profitable for doctors, but poor sick people will not get the treatment they need, because they will not be able to get insurance?
    No one believes that the National Health Service is perfect. Of course we need more emphasis on community services, a better complaints procedure, a better system for compensating for mistakes and a reorientation of management and of those who work in hospitals towards the people who are using those hospitals. We need to develop the as yet primitive science of measuring and comparing the quality and outcome of the service, to further integrate acute and community services and primary services; and we need more resources to get the waiting lists down. No one is saying that the National Health Service is perfect, but what everyone is saying, apart from the Government, is that it is the best possible base on which to build.
    The Government are trying to browbeat everyone by saying—the Minister denied this today—"Whatever you think, we shall go ahead with these plans, so you might as well shut up and learn to live with them." I do not believe that. Public and professional opposition remains enormously important. Because the plans are unjust as well as unworkable, the aim of everyone with any sense is to be part of a campaign to ensure that those plans remain plans and are never put into practice.
    When will we receive the Government's response to the Griffiths report? It was rumoured before Easter that it would be soon after Easter. However, when giving evidence to the Select Committee, the Secretary of State said that he did not know when it will be. It appears to have drifted off the political horizon altogether. It is more than a year since Griffiths reported. There has been a huge increase in public spending on private care. It has increased by more than 8,000 per cent. since the Government came to power. Many people have grave reservations about the appropriateness of the sort of care and the standards of care that are being provided at public expense in the private sector. When will the Government get their act together and take hold of the situation? Or will they simply let the situation drift and leave thousands of frail, disabled and vulnerable people in the lurch, as is happening now?
    5.53 pm
    Dame Jill Knight: A fool has infinite capacity for self-deception and a knave has infinite capacity for deceiving others. Far be it for me to accuse the British Medical Association of being either of those things, but I cannot understand why it has chosen to misinform, to mislead and to misquote the Government's review to its own members and to the country. The BMA's version of "Working for Patients"—I have read it carefully several times—is a travesty both of the Government's report arid of the true situation. I shall not say what I think, but I shall say what is in the BMA's review and point out where it contrasts clearly with what is in the Government's plan.][n several places the BMA's review speak as though underfunding is normal. If the facts are repeated often enough everyone will believe them. The BMA speaks of the underfunding of the Health Service—we have heard

    225
    that again today—when we are pouring money into the Health Service like Croesus, Midas and the IMF all rolled into one.
    We heard again from the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) that tired old fable that more money is being spent on the continent than is being spent here. If we do not add the amount of money that people are spending on their own health and are not receiving from the taxpayer at all, one can happily come up with an answer like that, but it is not an accurate answer.
    In fact, our expenditure and our plans for putting more money into the Health Service are following a far steeper graph than anywhere else on the continent. We are doing much more for health care. I am proud to mention that, and even to boast about it. I know that Opposition Members hate hearing this, but when we came into office expenditure was £7,000 million per annum and it is now more than £26,000 million per annum. That is a large sum in anyone's language—except the BMA, which does not even notice it. Despite that immense increase, all that the BMA talks about is underfunding. I sometimes wonder whether the BMA would consider any sum worth mentioning as even adequate.
    In paragraph 2.4 of the document the BMA goes even further. It keeps up its reputation for frightening old ladies by saying that the Government's main proposals in the White Paper are to
    "reduce the level of public expenditure"
    for health care. I was horrified to read such an accusation. I searched the Government White Paper from cover to cover, from back to front, upside down and inside out, and there is not one word to indicate any such thing. It is a lie. Does it even make sense?
    Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
    Dame Jill Knight: No, I shall not give way. I am trying not to be too long and I give notice that I shall not give way to anyone.
    The BMA's version of "Working for Patients" says that doctors will run out of money to treat patients. That is utter nonsense. The BMA says that doctors will have to take on more patients than they can possibly cope with. That is absolute rubbish.
    Mr. Allen McKay: It is true.
    Dame Jill Knight: The hon. Gentleman might do the Government the courtesy of reading the White Paper, which says what the plans are. It is no use Opposition Members talking about what they would like it to say. They will have to read what it says. Conservative Members are not fools. Could anyone in his right mind imagine us doing anything to harm the National Health Service? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I am glad to have had that extraordinary reaction from Opposition Members—it shows that they do not know anything.
    Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Dame Jill Knight: No, the hon. Lady will not give way.
    It would be sheer suicide for anyone in Government to destroy the Health Service. Apart from that, we care a
    226
    great deal about it and, as our efforts have shown, we have repeatedly given more and more money to it. That is how we shall continue.
    The paper published by the BMA speaks of the
    "present uniform distribution of specialist services throughout the UK".
    What "uniform distribution"? Where has the BMA been all this time? There is ample evidence of a wide variety of services up and down the country. Why does the BMA pretend otherwise? Why does it give us this rubbish about
    "present uniform distribution of specialist services"?
    The Government are anxious to achieve such a uniform distribution of specialist services, which will be available to everyone. The Government are working towards that goal, not jettisoning it.
    In paragraph 2.7 the BMA states:
    "Extreme pressure is being put on health service managers, consultants and other hospital staff to seek self governing status for hospitals"
    That is another lie. No pressure is being exerted on hospital managers or consultants. If the Government were exerting pressure, extreme or otherwise, why on earth would they include conditions? One cannot exert extreme pressure and then say, "but the conditions are this, that and the other." The White Paper makes it absolutely plain that there is no question of pressure being exerted. Hospitals will be able to choose what they want to do. If the Government intended to exert pressure, why does the White Paper say that hospitals must be interested in achieving self-government? One cannot have it both ways. The Government have made it plain that before any decision is made about self-government the option must be wanted by the particular hospital. That is not equivalent to forcing hospitals to adopt self-governing status.
    There is no more pressure on hospitals to go independent than there is on general practitioners to become budget holders, as the BMA suggests. Recently a banner headline in a west midlands newspaper said proudly:
    "Birmingham family doctors will refuse to carry out the Government's plans"
    All along, the Government have made it perfectly clear that doctors are entirely free to decide whether they wish to become budget holders. The hon. Member for Peckham was wrong—there is no hidden pressure on doctors. That is not to say that their expenditure will not be monitored, and so it should be.
    Some doctors prescribe 50 per cent. more drugs than others with exactly the same case load. Some doctors send 20 times more patients to hospital than others, again with the same case load. What is wrong with monitoring doctors and asking why a particular doctor sends so many more patients to hospital? I know of a young woman who was put on valium by her doctor and stayed on it for seven years without any medical examination at any time. She was simply given repeat prescriptions. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not like what I am saying, but that is a ludicrous situation and it must be stopped. The Opposition clearly do not want to do anything about it. It is right to monitor the amounts of money spent by different doctors and the reasons for that expenditure. It would be thoroughly irresponsible of the Government not to try to get all practices to run as efficiently as the best ones. The best ones are extremely good, but I am appalled at what some of the bad ones do.
    In this connection, I draw the attention of the House to a leaflet which has been distributed in Poole. A copy of it

    227
    was brought to the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). Hon. Members should know that there is a skull and cross-bones at the top of the leaflet. I thought it had something to do with pirates, but dear me no—it is a health warning. It says:
    "The Government is about to force dangerous changes on the National Health Service. They are going to put strong financial pressure on family doctors to give you fewer medicines, give you cheaper medicines, cut down on your hospital tests, cut down on your hospital treatment"—
    [HON. MEMBERS: "That is true."] If the Opposition believe there is a scintilla of truth in that, they are out of their tiny minds. It continues:
    "Dangerous illnesses will be discovered and treated too late. People will die."
    That has been published by a profession which has already said that it will not agree to advertising. Yet it apparently agrees with handbills which contain lies being directed at sick, old and frightened people. That is monstrous, and it is all of a piece with the deplorable BMA document.
    In one respect, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has brought trouble on his own head and contributed to the misunderstandings. I was astonished by accusations in the BMA paper that the Government are "rushing through" far-reaching and complicated reforms. The reforms are far-reaching and complicated, but they are not being rushed through. We all know that we shall not see a Bill until November or December at the earliest.
    I have tracked down the source of some doctors' concern about this. In the first of the working papers the Government say that they intend to complete discussions by May. The whole thrust of the BMA's Luddite paper is to put the worst possible interpretation on the proposals and to suggest that the Government are rushing them through. That is not true, of course, but I wish that those words had not been used in the working paper as they suggest a lack of consultation.
    Consultations are taking place. I know of no hon. Friend who is not having meetings every week with doctors or consultants in his constituency. We want to hear everything and we want to listen—that is what I call consultation. There is no question of rushing anyone as we have plenty of time. The BMA's interpretation of the proposals suggests to its members that the BMA's interpretations are fact. The words "might", "maybe", "possible" and "perhaps" are used right through the document—in one paragraph there were four "coulds" and a "might". It is infinitely better to have statements of fact than interpretations of the worst possible kind.
    Another part of the BMA paper expresses concern that family practitioner committees
    "might be filled by individuals with no experience of the primary health care services".
    Why on earth would we be likely to appoint such people, especially as the paragraph directly opposite complains that the Government intend to appoint health authority members who
    "reflect 'the strength of skills and experience' that the member could bring to the work of the health authority".
    The BMA cannot have it both ways, but by golly it certainly tries.
    I will take on a fair and honest political battle any day of the week. What I deplore about the BMA's misleading attitude and actions is that it knows perfectly well what the Government are driving at. It even acknowledges in some parts of the document that those objectives are absolutely right. The BMA forgets itself several times in the
    228
    document and it says that the Government's objectives are right—[Interruption.] Opposition Members should be careful. They have obviously not noticed how much of the White Paper the BMA considers is a good idea. That is made plain in its document. That is in there, too.
    The worst part of all this is that members of the BMA are obviously being encouraged to mislead and frighten their patients. Our reforms have nothing to do with privatising, starving or ending the Health Service; they are about strengthening, extending and financing—
    Mr. Alistair Darling: Private practice.
    Dame Jill Knight: I do not give a damn about private practice. What I do give a damn about is that people outside this place should have the freedom to spend their money in the way that they wish. If they want to spend their money on health care, what has that to do with the hon. Gentleman? Why should he poke his nose into the way they choose to spend their money? What we are interested in is that there should be the best possible Health Service for sick people who need it, whether they can afford to pay for it or not—and it is because those are the aims of the Government that they will succeed, come what may from the Opposition.
    6.10 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight), and I hope I can put her right on one or two things which are certainly not the case. Her interpretation of what the BMA says is not the same as mine.
    This White Paper is not working in the interests of patients. Indeed, organisations working for the National Health Service have all told me that they are quite insulted by the title of the White Paper, in that it implies that they are not working for patients now. Nothing could be further from the truth, and many of these organisations have worked under a great deal of stress, thanks to Government policies over the last 10 years on the National Health Service.
    This White Paper is not just another reorganisation, it is something quite different. My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said it has turned out to be a monster, and that is absolutely true. She has been to America and studied in detail the system there, so she knows what the effect of the White Paper will be on the future of the National Health Service. It is about ending the National Health Service as we know it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Oh, yes it is. It does not address the real problems of the National Health Service: under-funding, waiting lists, and the disgraceful segregation of the elderly which has gone on over the last 10 years.
    We have seen wholesale privatisation of the care of the elderly, something that hon. Members opposite should be deeply ashamed of. The White Paper does not address the lack of care for the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. In fact, the disgusting emphasis of the White Paper is on competition, markets, buying, selling, incentives and assets —dehumanising terms when talking about care, but certainly reflecting the Government's values.
    What is missing from the White Paper is any notion of the National Health Service as we would like to see it, as it once was, and as it was envisaged by its founders: care and compassion, the alleviation of pain, and an end to

    229
    suffering, regardless of the ability to pay. Most of it is focused on ending the basic character of the National Health Service. It is an extremely obvious prelude to full privatisation after 1992, and we on the Opposition Benches are not fooled at all; should a Conservative Government be elected then, that is what we will get.
    Looking at the detail of the White Paper, I am shocked by the absence of local control and planning, because the district health authorities will essentially disappear. Paragraph 3.20 of the White Paper virtually announces the end of district health authorities. As the acute hospitals become self-governing, we are told that it will be the responsibility of those placing contracts to monitor their performance in providing agreed services. That is absolute nonsense, because the reality is that most district health authorities will possibly go, and where one remains in existence, it will be seriously weakened, and no monitoring of any authority is built into the White Paper.
    I have read all the discussion documents, and it is only the training of junior doctors which will be monitored by the royal colleges. There is talk of questionnaires and follow-up surveys, but it is misleading to talk about monitoring by health authorities, because they will be either extinct or seriously weakened.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham said, the capital arrangements are quite dangerous for some hospitals which might be tempted to opt out. The claim in the Prime Minister's introduction that the National Health Service will be financed mainly by general taxation looks like a very flexible and unreliable commitment. The delegation of operational money and increasingly large capital schemes to trust hospitals will encourage opting out, despite the Minister saying it is not true. There really is an arm-twisting operation going on, with lots of carrots being dangled; offers of a great share of the new market in hips and hernias and the like are being made.
    I put it to the Minister that these trusts may be called the National Health Service but that that will soon become meaningless; despite what the hon. Member for Edgbaston said in her passionate address, hospital services will be subject to jungle law, because the hospitals which compete less successfully will slowly but surely lose patients, funds, reputations and staff, and communities will lose their hospitals.
    One cannot have a free-standing accident and emergency department. I asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health for an assurance that Calderdale area health authority will not lose its accident and emergency service, and I received wriggling and sleight-of-hand answers, which is the technique this Government use when they do not want to be frank. But, reading those answers, it is clear that there is no guarantee that Calderdale will retain its accident and emergency service and the health authority or hospital trust may have to buy that service from Bradford or Burnley, thus putting life and limb at risk.
    We may have thought that the arrangements under which schools and housing might be permitted to opt out were bizarre and undemocratic, but if we consider paragraph 3.15 in the original document, which mentions that a group of staff or people from the local community might initiate the process or respond to any initiative taken by the Secretary of State to form a hospital trust, we realise
    230
    what a sham any democratic consultation about these hospitals is. Paragraph 3.19, which talks about adequate publicity for trust formation, really does not comply with any notion of consultation as we all understood it.
    My district health authority is under the direction of a politically appointed chairman, a Government lackey, who does the bidding of the Government on every instruction to cut and has done for years, and a district manager, a redundant manager from British Steel, who was thrust upon us and has proved an unmitigated disaster for our local health services. Any of these people can say to the Secretary of State, "We want to opt out," and the Secretary of State himself, as I understand it, can say, "I believe you should opt out." There is absolutely no sense of fairness or democracy in that at all.
    This is not their Health Service. What right has a redundant steel manager, who now manages our local health service—very badly, in my opinion—to say that he will move us on the road to privatisation? He has no right. I worked for the Health Service for 13 years and I have more right than he to take decisions about our local services. I at least put my blood, sweat and toil into the Health Service. I cared very much for it. The bizarre and quite undemocratic notion of opting out will meet great opposition. The public will perceive it as so unfair that it will be a non-starter.
    The hon. Member for Edgbaston referred to the BMA and what she thought were its unfair objections to the White Paper. As a member of the National Union of Public Employees, I worked actively for the benefit of staff in the National Health Service for many years. I was also an auxiliary nurse in the NHS. I did not often find myself on the same side as the BMA. Mostly the BMA is on the Government's side, not on the side of the rest of us in political terms. However, there is nothing iffy about the objections voiced by the BMA in Halifax to the White Paper:
    "A large proportion of patients will not be able to travel to hospitals outside their locality. Many patients and their relatives cannot afford to pay for fares involved; they will certainly find it highly inconvenient.
    For hospitals to provide a competitive 'quote' for any service, corners will be cut, for example, skimping on investigations or reducing in-patient times increasing the likelihood of problems for the patient."
    If a patient has been investigated at one hospital, but the treatment is cheaper at another hospital, will the patient need to be transferred?
    Many questions are raised about patient care. With regard to general practitioner services the Halifax division of the BMA states:
    "Concern was expressed that no pilot-study had been carried out, or is proposed, to see if the GP budget-holding is feasible."
    It continues:
    "Reduction of the basic practice allowance is likely to cause fewer vacancies for women doctors, who commonly work less than full-time while they have a young family.
    The proposed budget-holding GPs will have no incentive to screen patients as any pathology found might cost some of his/her budget. Patients on expensive treatments might find doctors reluctant to accept them because of the financial implications.
    GP budget-holders will have difficulty controlling their budget because of the open-ended nature of GP services. GPs cannot refuse service to patients on financial grounds."
    There are many more specific objections from the BMA.

    231
    The idea that GPs require a different structure to provide them with incentives to practise better medicine is abhorrent and insulting. The emphasis of the White Paper is clearly on finance instead of patient care.
    Cash-limiting primary health care will be hugely disadvantageous to the people who really need help—the old and the chronically sick. Far from criticising the BMA, GPs, nurses, hospital workers, consultants and all the other decent organisations which have put patient care first and objected to the proposals, the Opposition applaud those people roundly and soundly.
    The National Health Service is suffering from starvation caused by under-funding. If Conservative Members were not blind, they would see the headlines in the press about this. On 13 April, I read a headline which stated:
    "Patients are dying because Calderdale does not have its own specialist heart unit."
    The report continued:
    "the inevitable delays mean that many die, according to a report by Bradford Cardiologists."
    The report states that roughly 11 per cent. of people waiting for an operation die.
    If the Government were really serious about doing something about the Health Service, they should address that obscenity. They should not be trying to restructure something which does not require restructuring. The White Paper has little if anything to do with organisation or restructuring. The Health Service has been kept going, while the Government have been bleeding it to death, by the motivation of individuals and the dedication of those who work for it.
    The Guardian said that the White Paper has met
    "a wall of professional opposition"
    which begins
    "to look more impregnable day by day."
    I believe that the opposition will grow. This is just the start. I welcome the debate and I believe that the White Paper will be defeated because it is about ending the National Health Service. The public have rumbled that.
    6.25 pm
    Mr. Ray Whitney: This is a very sad day for what remains of the Social Democratic party. In its very short history it has had many sad days, but I believe that the contribution from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) who sadly cannot be with us any longer, marked the nadir of that party's troubled life. Possibly that has something to do with the right hon. Gentleman's personal history. However, it is particuarly sad because when that party was formed many Conservative Members, without any temptation to join it, welcomed it because it might offer an alternative to the tired Socialism and faded Marxism of today's Labour party. We hoped that it would offer open minds and new ideas. However, today we heard a speech from one of the most closed minds on this issue. The speech was totally lacking in new ideas.
    The right hon. Member for Devonport suffers from what across the Channel might be called a professional deformation. That is to say, as a professional medical man, he shares the short-sightedness which sadly seems to afflict so many professional medical people in this country. They seem to be wilfully ignorant of the standards and what is being achieved in other parts of the world. They are totally cocooned and complacent about what the National Health Service can or should offer. When they look overseas, they
    232
    choose only the worst of the American experience, and ignore the very impressive best. They also ignore the enormous gaps growing in many areas between the standards on the continent and the standards which we can offer here now, with the great impact of the resources which the Government have invested in health care over the past 10 years.
    The hon. Member for Devonport also suffers from a personal sense of guilt. He attacked fiercely the fact that we now spend—I believe he said "only"—6 per cent. of our national GDP on health. He seemed very anxious to forget the fact that when he was a Minister with responsibility for health, we spent 4·8 per cent. of a very much smaller GDP. That takes a lot of living down for someone who had any responsibility for the Health Service.
    The right hon. Member for Devonport also made great play about the present flurry from the medical profession, including the royal colleges. Although he admitted that such flurries had happened before, he suggested that they were happening now at absolutely unprecedented level. A short time ago, the presidents of the royal colleges and the deans of the medical faculties issued a statement which said:
    "The ills within the NHS are serious and by threatening standards threaten the health and well-being of the community. There is a real danger of standards deteriorating to a point from which recovery will be impossible within a foreseeable term."
    That statement was issued by the presidents of the royal colleges and the deans of the faculties in October 1974, when the right hon. Member for Devonport was a Minister responsible for health. Therefore, he should understand that this is not a new problem. It is a problem that has been developing. Indeed, it has been developing during the past 10 years, despite the resources that we have provided. I will not rehearse our record yet again, but it is a proud record—a record of commitment to a comprehensive, universal Health Service.
    But, clearly, more and more funding is not enough. On the Jimmy Young show about 12 months ago, the hon. Lady said:
    "We need perhaps another £200 million, and then the problems of the health service will all be over."
    Since the hon. Lady said that, we have produced billion after billion after billion, and, of course, we still have the problems. We know why. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Deparment of Health enumerated the problems: the aging of the population, technical innovations and their resource implications, and rising expectations and aspirations.
    These are serious problems that have to be dealt with seriously, but they are not being dealt with at all by members of the Opposition parties. Those Members are applying closed minds, totally ignoring what we have done and the fact that, in addition to more funds, which are coming forward thanks to the strength of the economy, we need structural and organisational changes. It is monstrous that, after 40 years, including the period when the right hon. Member for Devonport had some say in these matters, the sensitivity for resource management in the National Health Service should be virtually non-existent.
    Happily, in recent years, we have had the resource management initiatives, the Korner report, and one or two other things, but we have a long way to go. But we cannot go that way unless mechanisms are put in place, and that: is precisely what the reforms now proposed are intended to

    233
    do. The suggestion that this involves the break-up of the National Health Service is nonsense. What it involves is doctors, nurses and others concerned taking a much more concrete interest themselves in the disposal of the available resources.
    The right hon. Gentleman did at least have the grace to recognise that resources are finite. I will not say that demand is infinite, but certainly it can never seriously be contained. It is much more sensible that judgments about the allocation of resources should be made not at the level of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or the Secretary of State for Health, but, to the best possible extent, in the surgery by the general practitioner, by the professional who knows. It is the professional who has the greatest insight, the best judgment and the most experience. Likewise, he must be much better equipped to judge which hospital his patient should go to. This is the essence of the proposals, which will bring great benefits to the consumer —and I do insist that we are consumers and customers, not just patients.
    One of the unfortunate features of the Health Service, great though it is in many respects, is that in too many areas patients are pushed around. They have to wait here and wait there. This is the wrong atmosphere. Consumerism is growing and developing in so many other areas of life. Indeed, the Social Democratic party would consider that it is in the van of consumerism—but not in respect of the sacred cow of health, because it lacks the political courage to tackle the problems, as, of course, do all the other parties opposite.
    I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to be discouraged by the extraordinary performance of the British Medical Association. They should take comfort from the fact that there are many historical precedents. Every time a Government in this country have sought to improve the National Health care system, they have been opposed by the medical professions and their organised bodies. Those people opposed Lloyd George's National Insurance Act 1911, until they discovered two years later that it benefited them. They were the only people who opposed the coalition White Paper put forward by Henry Willink, the Conservative Minister of Health in 1944. We all know that their opposition to the Aneurin Bevan proposals were silenced only when, as we have been reminded, their mouths were stuffed with gold. Most of us in this House remember their ferocious opposition to the 1984 selected list, which we all now know is a great success. In all those cases, after fierce opposition for a year or two, the medical profession came round. I hope that it will not take so long this time.
    6.34 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome this debate, and I welcome the opportunity to speak specifically to one aspect of it, in my role as the Member of Parliament representing Guy's hospital, which is thought to be the hospital with the strongest desire to become a self-governing hospital trust. It may interest the House to know that, when it comes to a vote tonight, there is not one thing in the motion as tabled by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) with which
    234
    my hon. and right hon. Friends and I do not agree. We shall therefore vote with the SDP and, as I understand it, the Labour party, at the end of this debate.
    We shall be voting with the other Opposition parties because the people represented in those parties are the successors to those who supported the idea of the Health Service both in concept and in legislation, in the 1940s, when the Tories opposed it. We believe that the Tories' commitment then, which was noticeable by its absence, to the provision of a free Health Service—free at the point of delivery for all, without distinction—is matched by their lack of commitment now.
    I would point out to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) that the evidence for that is that there is not equal choice for all. This year, her Government have introduced tax incentives for people, if they are of pensionable age, to go to the private sector. Her Government have always allowed the private sector to benefit from training that is paid for out of the public purse. The reality is that, over and over again, it is the Tory Government who push towards the private sector people who would—given a fair choice—far rather remain in the public sector.
    Dame Jill Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Hughes: Not at the moment. If I have a moment later, I may give way.
    Many of the people who may be contemplating going into self-governing hospitals as consultants are doing so not because they support the idea, but only, as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) said, because they believe that if they jump quickly, if they jump first, the Government will make sure that they are protected, whatever happens to the rest. They are doing so not out of conviction but out of concern for their self-preservation. That is a cynical—understandable, but cynical—way of justifying any argument that they support the Government's proposals.
    It is not right to say, as the hon. Lady argued, that the Government are not encouraging people to move in the direction of being independent within the Health Service. The working paper on self-governing hospitals says:
    "The Government believes that self-governing hospitals will have a major role to play in improving services to patients. It will therefore encourage as many hospitals as are willing and able to do so to seek self-governing status as NHS hospital trusts. The Government aims to establish a substantial number of trusts with effect from April 1991."
    There is no doubt that the Government will encourage, push and contrive to make sure that, if possible, there are at least some flagships sailing into the new sea of the private Health Service after the next election. Whether they succeed is yet to be determined.
    I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that in this sort of debate it is not necessarily best to pray in aid those who traditionally have been difficult to please when reform has been mooted for them and their profession. The BMA has argued against reforms in the past. Inevitably, it sees things from its professional point of view. I do not think that its members are necessarily the best people to cite as advocates for a case that one seeks to argue here. One has to argue from principle and from the point of view of the public at large.
    I must tell those hon. Members who believe that the users of the Health Service will not represent the greatest patient difficulty that the enormous majority of them are strongly opposed to the Government's plans. They believe

    235
    not that there is just a scintilla of truth in leaflets such as that which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) cited as coming from Poole, but that there is a flotilla of truth in the allegations and assertions made in such documents. They believe that the Health Service is not safe in the Government's hands.
    Mr. Day rose—
    Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment if I have time.
    Those who usually look to Guy's hospital as their local district hospital have specific reasons for concern. Many aspects of the White Paper are worrying, but those which worry people in south-east London most are those which are likely to change the nature of Guy's hospital and its quality of care. Guy's is at the forefront of those reported to be interested in becoming a self-governing hospital trust. However, many at Guy's, from the most senior to the most junior, are resolutely opposed to opting out. Many have written expressing their views. Even those who have said that they support the idea, among whom are some on the management board, have many crucial questions about self-governing yet to be answered by the Government. The Government have not yet convinced Guy's—far from it.
    Just like the other five hospitals which are part of the resource management initiative, all of which have opposed the ideas in the White Paper, Guy's hospital has also not come out in support because it is not yet satisfied that its specific questions and concerns have been answered, some of which have even been put forward by advocates of the White Paper, one of whom was an adviser to the Prime Minister on these matters.
    There is no guarantee that the introduction of market forces as proposed will in anyway improve care. On the contrary, there is evidence that unprofitable patients will become unpopular patients. In my area, where more than 25 per cent. of the community are pensioners, the probability is that in the long term Guy's will not be able to look after them and they will have to go much further away.
    An increasing number of constituents in an inner city are likely to be elderly. On my last visit to Guy's I asked what would happen when they are admitted and could not he returned to their homes after an operation or treatment because they could not cope on their own. I was shown a graph of the profits to be made from the hospitalisation of an old person. After the initial operation or intensive care, profits begin to tail away to little or nothing. In order to prevent an old person blocking a bed, the hospital might, after about 10 days, have to impose a surcharge on the district for keeping the district's elderly, non-earning patients in hospital. The district would not have catered for that surcharge because it would have gone to Guy's because it offered the cheapest contract available. Therefore, the district will not be able to keep in hospital an elderly patient who has had an operation, but will have to move the patient out or look for somewhere else for that patient to go.
    It is right that hospital beds intended for acute purposes should not necessarily be used for long-term convalescence, but in a place such as north Southwark there is nowhere else to go for long-term convalescence. We do not have nursing homes or long-term geriatric care facilities. If the last refuge, a bed in the local district general hospital, which also happens to be a regional
    236
    national specialty, disappears, the Government will he saying to the elderly in a community such as that in south London and Southwark, "You must leave your community because we cannot pay for you here."
    There is no profitable solution to the care of old people; there are only caring solutions or uncaring solutions. With the district health authority forced to enter contracts on the basis of what will be the most economical, there is no hope of the less profitable services being expanded. The only answer will be out-of-town homes where residents will be far away from friends and families, inaccessible to visitors, isolated and alone. Commercialisation always has losers and the losers are always the weakest and most vulunerable in our community.
    But care of the elderly will not be the only area to suffer. Centralisation will be inevitable as one hospital becomes known for a certain specialty. District health authorities will be powerless to prevent the services that they want to purchase being discontinued at one hospital and will be forced to go elsewhere. It is a twisted sort of logic to think that choice can be widened simply by a provider becoming a purchaser.
    Anyone who has visited their corner shop knows that it does not work by providing everything because market forces do not allow it to do so. The convenience of the consumer does not mean that every shop has every product for sale. It will be the patient who has to travel away from his or her home and who will not receive continuity of care from the same general practitioner and consultant who will suffer yet again. Patients may have to go to Walsall for eyes, Maidstone for hearts and Southampton for backs because of the contract that the district has entered into. Many doubts still centre on whether it will be profitable for a local hospital to give a comprehensive service. The reality is that it will not be, and comprehensive local care in one's local hospital will be a thing of the past.
    What effects will the White Paper have on teaching? For Guy's to survive as a teaching hospital there needs to be a wide range of medical activity. What will happen if Guy's loses its core contract with the local health authority of Lewisham and north Southwark? In any year, market forces may determine that the contract goes somewhere else—to St. Thomas's, King's, Bart's, the London or elsewhere. Commercialisation will not provide the stable basis that is needed to give students a five or six-year medical degree course. What will happen to the future provision of skilled doctors if medical schools are struggling to provide adequate training in an uncertain environment? And will they spend a lot of money on training—an expensive commitment—which they will not easily be able to recoup?
    Commercialisation means the end of a balanced service in other ways too. The good consultants will be bought by the hospitals that can afford them and other hospitals will become second class with second class staff. The test in 'the White Paper is what is cost-efficient, not what is best for care.
    The White Paper speaks of consultants becoming more efficient managers. Nowhere does it speak of managers becoming more caring health providers. Everywhere profit will be the governing factor. The providers, the general practitioners and the health authorities, will not be able to rely on a consistently secure provision of services. The hospitals will not be able to rely on a consistently secure flow of patients. The patients will not be able to rely on

    237
    consistently secure provision of care. The Opposition are right to be deeply cynical in their belief that the Government are intent on replacing care with profit as the motivating factor in the Health Service. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in voting for the motion tonight.
    6.48 pm
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: It is noticeable that the debate has been distinguished yet again by the continued inability of Opposition Members to give the Government credit for the record amounts now being spent on the Health Service. The nurses had an enormous pay award of almost £1 billion during the year, with an extra £2 billion being spent in the current financial year and an extra £2·5 billion planned for next year. The Government should give themselves credit for that extra spending and for the fact that our attention is now directed at the way in which those enormous sums of money are to be spent. I am sorry to note that Opposition Members apparently have no notion of the inequalities in the levels of provision across the country which the White Paper seeks to put right.
    I mention in particular the new arrangement for the resource allocation working party. The abolition of RAWP will be welcomed in many rural areas with a high population growth, and especially in East Anglia, where the chairman of the regional health authority has said that that single measure will help East Anglian patients more than anything else in the shorter term. We hope that that wil be implemented rapidly.
    The White Paper also seeks to remedy the poor quality of information about costings and quality of care within the Health Service, a matter frequently highlighted by the Select Committee. That too will be greatly welcomed by all the professionals working in the Health Service as a way of measuring the quality and evenness of care across the country.
    In rural areas, patients are not always satisfied with the standard of service that they get from their general practitioners. Financial incentives will be given to general practitioners on a new basis for rural populations, for caring for elderly people amd for caring for children under five. Those and a great number of other incentives will do a great deal to bring the standard of service enjoyed by rural patients up to the best standard provided by GPs for their urban counterparts.
    It may be of interest to Opposition Members to note that rural patients can perceive advantages in some of the provisions of the White Paper. If the new contract and the provisions of the White Paper can do anything to improve the attitude towards patients of a general practitioner who says that he does not need an appointments system because village people like talking to one another all morning, it will certainly have been worth while.
    6.51 pm
    Mrs. Rosie Barnes: The debate has been set against a necessary Government review of the Health Service. The SDP has always welcomed the review. We were looking for a radical and imaginative overhaul of a system that has served us well for the last 40 years and that we want to serve us well for the next 40 years. We share
    238
    many of the Government's objectives—at least the ones to which they pay lip service. We welcome an increase in patient choice, better rights for patients and a more consumer-related service. The SDP has long been committed to the internal market, but not necessarily the internal market that we see in the White Paper. We also welcome a better quality of service across the board, and structural and organisational changes.
    The White Paper sets the wrong agenda. There is nothing on funding. In spite of the many protestations from the Government Benches, without proper funding for the Health Service, no amount of juggling or reorganisation will make it work. The Health Service is under-funded compared with our comparable European competitors. It has to receive a substantial influx of funds to make any subsequent reorganisation and restructuring work.
    Also incorporated in the White Paper and in some of the Government's recent thinking is an erosion of the basic principles of free service at the point of use, funded entirely out of direct taxation. There are major gaps in what we have seen so far. There is no acknowledgment of the growing need of the elderly and no proposal to take account of how a Health Service that is already straining under pressure can cope with the increasing number of elderly in our midst.
    One of the things that troubles me most about the review is the speed with which it is being implemented. Again, we have heard from the Government Benches that it is a leisurely process. I could not disagree more. We are looking at a radical review which is demanding new skills, new structures and new procedures. There are dangers in what will happen. We have heard the words "might", "may" and "possibly"—the changes might or may possibly have disastrous effects on the Health Service. One way to make sure that they do not is to pilot schemes and see how they work. The Government should proceed slowly, cautiously and carefully on the basis of proper information.
    I have a document from a leading city management consultant which addresses some of the problems. It deals with what regional health authorities, district health authorities and general practitioners will have to do. It is an extensive list. Due to lack of time, I shall read only a few of the items that it lists in relation to district health authorities:
    "establishing the likelihood of hospitals becoming self-governing;
    specifying the volume and standards of service which will be required to meet local health needs;
    setting up and evaluating contracts for both `core' and other services;
    establishing tight contractual arrangements within minimum and maximum service levels for the full range of services required by the DHA's population;
    establishing financial management systems which monitor contract expenditure and activity;
    establishing mechanisms by which quality of contract performance is monitored, and ensuring all providers have comprehensive quality assurance and medical audit programmes".
    The list goes on and on. It is a complex list of serious things that need to be done properly in order to get the service right.
    We have before us not only an impossible time scale but a programme that is being implemented without proper consultation and without the good will and support of the

    239
    innumerable tiers of staff who have to carry out the procedure. The White Paper has provoked at best quiet resentment and at worst open hostility.
    Severe and major strategic changes, which should be implemented sequentiously, are proposed. We should ensure that the cost and quality information is available well in advance of the procedure starting. There is no point in saying that we will go ahead on the basis of incomplete or incompetent information and, if we get it wrong, so be it. We are dealing with people's lives and with a Health Service that has been built up over the years. I agree with some Government Back Benchers that the current debate is taking place against a background of many successes that have often been overlooked while we focused on the failures.
    The time scale for the review should be five to 10 years. We should move slowly and surely to get it right. There is a need to develop business plans and to acquire and use marketing and contractual skills. There is also a need for capital accounting. The whole procedure will need new skills. For all that to be done within two and half years is nothing more than a joke.
    I support the resource management initiative, clinical audit and the use of information technology, but the way it is all being picked out of a hat and offered to the Health Service as a panacea for all evils makes the whole process unrealistic when the people, the resources and the structures are not there. Information technologists are an expensive breed. Many hon. Members will have spoken to hospital technicians who can all double or even treble their salaries overnight outside the Health Service. This scheme will rely on those self-same experts being in the Health Service, with no extra resources to pay for them. It just cannot work.
    I prefer to speak in terms of patients' rights when considering the internal market. The SDP's version of the internal market was triggered by patients. It was based on offering patients a choice of a faster service in another hospital or in another health authority. But it would be up to them to make the choice. Because it was a choice, it was a carrot rather than a stick. It was not a cheap option, it was not punitive and it was not a cost-cutting exercise. The review will have disastrous consequences for the NHS.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 77, Noes 230.

    Division No. 161]

    [6.59 pm

    AYES

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

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

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Fisher, Mark

    Beckett, Margaret

    Flannery, Martin

    Beith, A. J.

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Boateng, Paul

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Boyes, Roland

    Gordon, Mildred

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Haynes, Frank

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Clay, Bob

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Howells, Geraint

    Corbett, Robin

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Cryer, Bob

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Dixon, Don

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Livsey, Richard

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Fearn, Ronald

    Loyden, Eddie

    240

    McFall, John

    Salmond, Alex

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Madden, Max

    Short, Clare

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Skinner, Dennis

    Meale, Alan

    Soley, Clive

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Wall, Pat

    Parry, Robert

    Wallace, James

    Patchett, Terry

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Pike, Peter L.

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Wilson, Brian

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Richardson, Jo

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rogers, Allan

    Mrs. Rosie Barnes and

    Rooker, Jeff

    Mr. John Cartwright.

    Ruddock, Joan

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Aitken, Jonathan

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

    Alexander, Richard

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Day, Stephen

    Allason, Rupert

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Amess, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Amos, Alan

    Dover, Den

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dunn, Bob

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Durant, Tony

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Ashby, David

    Favell, Tony

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Atkinson, David

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Forman, Nigel

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Forth, Eric

    Bellingham, Henry

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Franks, Cecil

    Benyon, W.

    French, Douglas

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fry, Peter

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Gale, Roger

    Body, Sir Richard

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gill, Christopher

    Boswell, Tim

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gow, Ian

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Bowis, John

    Hague, William

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Brazier, Julian

    Hannam, John

    Bright, Graham

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Harris, David

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

    Hayward, Robert

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Heddle, John

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

    Burns, Simon

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Burt, Alistair

    Hill, James

    Butcher, John

    Hind, Kenneth

    Butler, Chris

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Butterfill, John

    Holt, Richard

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Hordern, Sir Peter

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Howard, Michael

    Carrington, Matthew

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

    Carttiss, Michael

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Cash, William

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

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

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Irvine, Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Irving, Charles

    Conway, Derek

    Jack, Michael

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Janman, Tim

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Jessel, Toby

    Cope, Rt Hon John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    241

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Riddick, Graham

    Key, Robert

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Knapman, Roger

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Rost, Peter

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Knowles, Michael

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Lang, Ian

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lilley, Peter

    Sims, Roger

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lord, Michael

    Speed, Keith

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Speller, Tony

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Maclean, David

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Steen, Anthony

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Stern, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Stevens, Lewis

    Mans, Keith

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Maples, John

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Marlow, Tony

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Summerson, Hugo

    Mates, Michael

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Maude, Hon Francis

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Mellor, David

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Thorne, Neil

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Thurnham, Peter

    Mills, Iain

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Tredinnick, David

    Moate, Roger

    Trippier, David

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Trotter, Neville

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Moss, Malcolm

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Mudd, David

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Needham, Richard

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Neubert, Michael

    Waller, Gary

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Watts, John

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Wheeler, John

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Whitney, Ray

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Page, Richard

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Paice, James

    Wilkinson, John

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Wilshire, David

    Patnick, Irvine

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Wood, Timothy

    Price, Sir David

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Raffan, Keith

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Rathbone, Tim

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Redwood, John

    Mr. Michael Fallon.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments):—
    The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 85.

    Division No. 162]

    [7.13 pm

    AYES

    Alexander, Richard

    Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Allason, Rupert

    Batiste, Spencer

    Amess, David

    Bellingham, Henry

    Amos, Alan

    Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Arbuthnot, James

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

    Body, Sir Richard

    Ashby, David

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Boswell, Tim

    Atkinson, David

    Bottomley, Peter

    242

    Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

    Janman, Tim

    Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

    Jessel, Toby

    Bowis, John

    Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

    Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Brazier, Julian

    Key, Robert

    Bright, Graham

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Knapman, Roger

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

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Browne, John (Winchester)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Knowles, Michael

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Lang, Ian

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Burns, Simon

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Burt, Alistair

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Butcher, John

    Lilley, Peter

    Butler, Chris

    Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

    Butterfill, John

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

    Lord, Michael

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Lyell, Sir Nicholas

    Carrington, Matthew

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Carttiss, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

    Cash, William

    Maclean, David

    Chapman, Sydney

    McLoughlin, Patrick

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

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Mans, Keith

    Conway, Derek

    Maples, John

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Mates, Michael

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Maude, Hon Francis

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

    Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Mellor, David

    Day, Stephen

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Dorrell, Stephen

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mills, Iain

    Dover, Den

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Dunn, Bob

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Durant, Tony

    Moate, Roger

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Favell, Tony

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Moss, Malcolm

    Fookes, Dame Janet

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    Forman, Nigel

    Mudd, David

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Needham, Richard

    Forth, Eric

    Neubert, Michael

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Franks, Cecil

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fry, Peter

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Gill, Christopher

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Page, Richard

    Gow, Ian

    Paice, James

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Patnick, Irvine

    Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Hague, William

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Raffan, Keith

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Hannam, John

    Rathbone, Tim

    Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

    Redwood, John

    Harris, David

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Hayward, Robert

    Riddick, Graham

    Heathcoat-Amory, David

    Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

    Heddle, John

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Rost, Peter

    Hill, James

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hind, Kenneth

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Holt, Richard

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Howard, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

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

    Shersby, Michael

    Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

    Sims, Roger

    Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Speed, Keith

    Hunt, David (Wirral W)

    Speller, Tony

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Irvine, Michael

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Jack, Michael

    Steen, Anthony

    243

    Stern, Michael

    Waddington, Rt Hon David

    Stevens, Lewis

    Walker, Bill (T'side North)

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Waller, Gary

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Stradling Thomas, Sir John

    Watts, John

    Summerson, Hugo

    Wheeler, John

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Wilkinson, John

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Wilshire, David

    Thorne, Neil

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Wolfson, Mark

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wood, Timothy

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Tredinnick, David

    Trippier, David

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trotter, Neville

    Mr. David Lightbown and

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Mr. Michael Fallon.

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    NOES

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Dixon, Don

    Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Beckett, Margaret

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

    Beith, A. J.

    Eadie, Alexander

    Boateng, Paul

    Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

    Boyes, Roland

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Fisher, Mark

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Flannery, Martin

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Cartwright, John

    George, Bruce

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Godman, Dr Norman A.

    Clay, Bob

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clelland, David

    Gordon, Mildred

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hardy, Peter

    Cohen, Harry

    Haynes, Frank

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Corbett, Robin

    Henderson, Doug

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

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

    Howells, Geraint

    244

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Redmond, Martin

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Richardson, Jo

    Kilfedder, James

    Rooker, Jeff

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Ruddock, Joan

    Leighton, Ron

    Salmond, Alex

    Livsey, Richard

    Sheerman, Barry

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Short, Clare

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Soley, Clive

    Loyden, Eddie

    Spearing, Nigel

    McFall, John

    Steel, Rt Hon David

    McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Madden, Max

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Wall, Pat

    Meale, Alan

    Wallace, James

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Walley, Joan

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Mullin, Chris

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Parry, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Patchett, Terry

    Mr. Dennis Skinner and

    Pike, Peter L.

    Mr. Bob Cryer.

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House expresses full support for the proposals set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients" and believes that these will lead to a Health Service that is more responsive to the needs of patients, and will enable those hospitals which best meet the needs of patients to get the money to do so, will reduce waiting times, improve the quality of care, help family doctors to develop the services they provide for their patients, improve the effectiveness of National Health Service management, and ensure that all those concerned with delivering health care make the best use of the resources available to them.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise for intervening on a point of order so early in the debate, but I would like you to clarify a ruling, if possible. Under the Standing Orders of the House, would it be appropriate for any Member speaking in the debate who has enjoyed free tickets and free hospitality at the annual super prix to declare that? That is a common practice and any interest on the part of those speaking for and against the proposals tonight should be placed on record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): That is a matter for individual Members, but I am sure that those who have an interest to declare will make it clear to the House in the normal way.
Before we begin the debate, I refer the House to the fact that Mr. Speaker has selected the instruction, which may be referred to on Second Reading.
7.26 pm
Mr. Roger King: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In deference to the request of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), my family and I have been frequent attenders of the super prix. Indeed, I was a competitor at the first super prix event and, until last year, I could say with some honesty that I was the fastest Birmingham resident to travel the streets of that city. In the first race, I exceeded 100 mph. This year I have been superseded by another Birmingham resident who went a great deal faster than that in a race. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for Perry Barr that I have experienced the super prix, and am delighted to have done so.
Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the expenditure on free tickets and hospitality at the road race is large and a matter of controversy. Will he estimate the quantity and value of the free hospitality and tickets provided to him and his family?
Mr. Roger King: I cannot exactly recall the price of the tickets, so I cannot provide that information. Children under 14 are not charged anyway, and the number of nibbles that they had in the so-called hospitality tent was very modest. So were my own tastes, I may add: as I recall, I was actually locked out of the tent one year because it was too crowded.
Mr. Iain Mills: Can my hon. Friend confirm to one who also enjoyed that hospitality that there were more members of the Labour party than Conservatives in the tent, and that more had free tickets?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. As I remember, at the first event we were graced, if that is the right expression, by none other than Mr. Derek Hatton, who had come to see how Birmingham got on with running such an event. I do not know whether it had any effect on what he has been doing since then. The event attracted considerable civic attendance from further afield, and I was aware of the presence of a large number of Labour councillors and others enjoying the limited hospitality that was available.
Mr. Denis Howell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I am only two lines into my speech, but yes, I will.
Mr. Howell: I hope that the debate develops on a rather higher plane. But in answer to a question that Opposition Members are asking—whether Mr. Denis Thatcher tended to receive such hospitality—he attended as a director of Halfords, the main sponsor of the event, and put a considerable amount of money into it. I hope that we shall hear no more of such pettiness.
Mr. King: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that we should now move on to discuss the main elements of the Bill.
Mr. Peter L. Pike rose—
Mr. King: I shall give way, but I hope that this will be the last intervention.
Mr. Pike: As a Member with no direct involvement, who wants to find out whether the Bill is in the interests of Birmingham and its residents, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be somewhat concerned that Halfords has written to all Members with Halfords superstores in their constituencies urging them to support the Bill. Does he think that the Bill is more important to Halfords than to the people of Birmingham?
Mr. King: That is another interesting point. The element of sponsorship has been one of the major assets of the super prix, which attracts more sponsorship than any other motor race in the United Kingdom except the formula 1 grand prix meeting at Silverstone. As a result of paying large sums in sponsorship, Halfords benefits considerably from media coverage of the super prix, and I think that it is entitled to put its view across.
With its superstore concept the company has expanded dramatically, bringing thousands of badly needed jobs to inner-city areas, redeveloping rundown areas into new and attractive one-stop shopping for the motorist and providing car servicing at an economic price. I think that Halfords has something worth shouting about, and that it is entitled to write to Members saying how important the super prix is in highlighting its services and products.
How fitting it is that, on the day on which Toyota has announced its massive £700 million investment in the midlands, we should debate a subject that centres on the motor car. While to some motor racing is a rich man's pastime, to the motor industry it is still a focal point of engineering activity and a window to the world for our national prowess in automotive technology. What better place to celebrate that expertise than the centre of our country, in the streets of Birmingham—a city that still depends so much on the motor car and its future?
Having gone through difficulties in the recent past, our motor industry is now stronger than it has been for many years, providing good-quality products—not just cars and other commercial vehicles, but components. Racegoers will see very few foreign-built single-seater racing cars on our world tracks. No French, German, Italian or even Japanese cars are entirely built by those countries. It is Britain chassis design and engine technology that so often lead the way in motor racing.
It is worth pointing out that at Indianapolis, where one of the oldest motor races in the world takes place, the vast

247
majority of cars that come to the start grid are British-designed and British-built. I do not think that we shout loud enough about that. [Interruption.] I said that most cars to be seen in a race were British. Toyota uses a British chassis, British engineering, British road-holding equipment and British components. The engine at the back is a Toyota unit, yes, but British engineers have tuned it up. In the type of motor racing that takes place in Birmingham—the super prix and international formula 3000 racing—we are pre-eminent in providing the competitive products that teams from throughout the world use during a season.
The background to the Birmingham super prix is well documented. We had a Second Reading debate about it on 1 April 1985, and it was admirably promoted by Sir Reginald Eyre, whom the House now misses. He delivered a cogent, sensible and enthusiastic speech on why Birmingham should capitalise on the opportunities to stage a motor race in its city environment. He could only do so, however, because the local authority had decided, by a significant majority, to promote a Bill to allow that motor race to be held. The Bill enjoyed all-party support. Strangely, a Labour administration on the city council was keenest to promote a motor race in the city.
This Bill has also received substantial support from the city council: 75 members were in favour of it, and of the 16 who were not, six abstained. It can be said, I think, that the Bill comes to the House from the people of Birmingham, whose elected representatives have debated at great length whether to seek a further Bill to allow us to run the motor race that we want.
Mr. Rooker: May I make a small point? Birmingham city council has 117 members. Where were the other 20? What list are they on?
Mr. King: I am only quoting the figures that I have here. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to guide me. I suppose that those people, for one reason or another, were not present to cast their vote. The number 20 rings a slight bell: I recall that there is a militant section within the ruling party in the town hall with a name similar to "the Grosvenor group", whose members do not agree with anything that the council is doing. They are now contesting the leadership. Because their attitude is always derogatory and they are always seeking to disrupt their own party, presumably they stayed away that day.
I think that we would all agree, however, that the fact that a Member is not in the House of Commons to cast his vote does not imply that he is either for or against the motion. We always decide questions on the basis of the votes of Members who vote when the opportunity is there. Nevertheless, it is not all that difficult to go to the town hall to cast a vote, and I see no reason why those people should not have gone. I can only imagine that their absenteeism—if that is what it was—meant that they did not feel able to support the measure.
Ms. Short: The group that the hon. Gentleman has just misdescribed came together over the issue of whether Martineau house, a home providing holidays for disabled children in our city, should be closed. Will the hon. Gentleman give us his view on whether the home should have been closed?
Mr. King: I shall not be led up that road. The Conservative view was that that house should not have
248
been closed. The hon. Lady's point is utterly irrelevant to the debate. I have no intention of being steered away from the main topic of the debate, the super prix.
In1985, Birmingham city council was given the power to run motor racing through the city centre. The intentions of the city council were stated in the preamble to the Birmingham City Council Act 1985, which states:
"The city is a major commercial and industrial centre and with a view to promoting the city, encouraging tourism and attracting business it is expedient that the council is authorised to provide or arrange for the provision of motor races on certain streets in the city".
That preamble places the motor race, which became known as the Birmingham super prix, within an overall economic development strategy.
The recession in the 1970s and early 1980s which severely affected Birmingham's traditional manufacturing base and resulted in record levels of unemployment, focused attention on the need for the city to diversify into service-sector employment. The tremendous success of the national exhibition centre in attracting new wealth and new employment led the way. The economic benefit of visitors and their spending power in leisure and business tourism was recognised as a significant vehicle for creating labour-intensive industry in hotels, leisure and associated trades.
Hon. Members from all sides of the House will probably pay tribute to the way in which the city has revitalised Birmingham, which in the past few years has developed from an area of despondency and decline which some felt was irreversible. Thanks to the determination of all its elected representatives and the people of Birmingham, the city has proved that it can find a new path to prosperity and new opportunities by concentrating and targeting on new avenues of commercial enterprise, not on the bedrock of manufacturing but on a new tourist centre.
Dr. John G. Blackburn: Does my hon. Friend agree that the House should welcome the proposal by the Labour administration in Birmingham to produce the Bill, because it benefits not only the motor industry but the entire west midlands? I represent Dudley, and many components are manufactured in my constituency. The components industry is dependent on the promotion of the motor car and the motor industry. Does he agree that that is an important factor?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is quite correct, but the impact of the motor race has far wider implications than the immediate environment of our constituencies and affects the whole region. When such an event is promoted by the media and on television, the region benefits. A great city such as Birmingham, with nearly 1 million people, can embark on promotions on a scale which places such as Dudley would have to contemplate extremely carefully. Dudley does not have the the facilities or the ability to promote such an event; nevertheless, Dudley will gain from Birmingham being the vital, throbbing heart of the region's strong economic activity.
A series of ambitious and imaginative schemes were devised by the city council to stimulate leisure and business tourism. On the sporting front, a major athletics stadium, the Alexander stadium, was constructed to international specification, capable of hosting major events such as the European junior championships, international meetings, and the Women's Amateur Athletics Association/

249
Amateur Athletics Association national championships and Olympic qualifying meetings. The national indoor sports arena is soon to be built in the city centre. Those who have seen the architects' drawings know that that will be a tremendous asset for Birmingham and for the region. The national exhibition centre, which is being extended, hosts major sporting events such as the European figure skating championships in January 1989.
The development of sport as a people attraction resulted in Birmingham's ambitious bid to host the 1992 Olympic games. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) who is present today and who so ably led our delegation all over the world. As the years go by, we appreciate the great ambassadorial work that he did. Its effects are still being felt, because it focused world attention on Birmingham's ability to do things, to think big and to act big. If a great city such as Birmingham does not have confidence in itself, how can it show confidence in its people and promote the future we want for our citizens?
On the cultural level, the city council has invested heavily in its theatres, the city of Birmingham symphony orchestra and new festivals for jazz, film, readers and writers. It has recently agreed to relocate Sadler's Wells—a major achievement. We are not simply debating vroom, vroom for Brum, Brum and the promotion of a motor race, but promoting the city for cultural reasons, not only for sport and excitement. I was delighted when the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) tabled an early-day motion which was signed by most hon. Members representing Birmingham constituencies, welcoming the Sadler's Wells ballet to the city at some cost to the ratepayers, but I did not notice anyone demurring from that, because investment in such activities can only benefit our city and it is right and proper that a limited amount of promotional, recreational and cultural activity should take place.
On the business tourism front, a major new international convention centre is being constructed in the city centre, transforming a rundown area into a major development alongside the national indoor arena—an extensive leisure development opposite the new Hyatt hotel presently being constructed.
Some of my hon. Friends will wish to talk about the extent of the advances in tourism in the city. Birmingham is now the fifth most visited British city. That is a great achievement. It has not been instant, but it has developed because we are providing those facilities. About 40 hotels are currently being planned, built or opened as a result of the major new initiative in developing the city.
Ms. Short: The international convention centre and the highly subsidised Hyatt hotel are in my consituency. The development borders on an extremely rundown estate which has had no work done on it for years and has no community facilities and has more than 30 per cent. unemployment. The problem is that all those subsidies to the private sector are failing to bring resources to people in need in Birmingham.
Mr. King: The hon. Lady has answered her own problem. The national conference centre, the indoor sports arena, the Hyatt hotel and other developments currently under way are providing or will provide thousands of jobs
250
for people in the immediate environment. That is the crux of the issue. Those places will have to be manned, maintained and run, and there is no reason why the hon. Lady's constituents should not find work. I admit that there are problems in the inner city, but they will be solved not simply be doling out money on a weekly basis, but by providing the infrastructure from the commercial sector wherever possible with help from the local authority to create jobs and provide opportunities for those people. I believe that the city council has been successful in providing that.
The Birmingham super prix has been part of the economic strategy. It is a high-profile, ambitious statement of intent that Birmingham is changing, married to the traditional engineering and organisational skills of the city. The Birmingham super prix has proved particularly successful in fulfilling the requirements set by the promoters of the Bill a few years ago.
Within those three years, the super prix has become established as a national event, as well as a sporting occasion. The organisers have created a festival that appeals to a family audience and one has only to visit it, as some of my hon. Friends have, to see that. I would have found it difficult to comment on the running of such an event had I not been there to see for myself what it means to the population in the surrounding area and to the economy of the city. Not only are there two days of motor racing, but the city comes to life, with street theatre and circus. Because the community has something to do in an area where it has been denied it for so long, criminal activity usually registers an all-time low. We are not surprised that, when the event takes place, there are few problems of violence and theft or the other traditional problems we associate with an inner-city environment.
The event has quickly developed and achieved high profile media coverage with live television and national news attention promoting the city of Birmingham. It has drawn a crowd the majority of whom come from outside Birmingham. At last year's event, market research showed that on Monday, 23 per cent. came from Birmingham, 29 per cent. from the midlands and 48 per cent. from the rest of the country. If we were trying to attract inward investment into the city, we could not have a better means than the super prix, because half the people watching it come from well outside the midlands. They are taking back home the visual impact of a city that is alive and dynamic, and in which investment is not misplaced.
Mr. Michael Jack: Can my hon. Friend confirm that many of the hospitality suites situated around the super prix circuit are taken by companies from all over the United Kingdom with national and international connections and that they bring to Birmingham many business people who gain the impression that my hon. Friend has put forward so eloquently this evening?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right. He has visited the super prix and he said to me how envious he was that the city had been able to have such an event established. As the years go by and the event matures, it becomes increasingly self-perpetuating because of investment by many of the companies and organisations that relish the prospect of having a hospitality suite at a motor race meeting where, if it were not for the fencing, it would be almost possible to reach out and touch the cars. The cars are not right over

251
the other side of an airfield circuit, but are passing by the side of the spectators. That gives a unique dimension to an exciting sport.
There is high national public awareness of the event. An opinion poll conducted outside the midlands showed that 47 per cent. of those asked recognised Birmingham as the home of city centre motor racing. In the short space of three years, we have got the message home to the people who have visited the city that we are the capital of inner-city motor racing.
The event has brought direct economic benefits to the tourist industry. A survey of local hotels showed an increase of 110 per cent. in hotel occupancy and in terms of visitor expenditure, that represents about £500,000. Day visitors account for at least as much. The direct spending by the city council on the event represents more than £750,000 spent locally. Those figures are indicative of the cash injection in the local economy.
The city centre shops, which now open on the bank holiday, are well satisfied with the business generated by the motor race. In the first year of the event we had a problem. Many of the shopkeepers felt that the event would not bring them much custom because everybody would be watching the motor race. By a process of coaxing, they have gradually opened up their shops. We now find that, while the menfolk are watching the motor race, the ladies are shopping. That is an admirable development and a splendid opportunity for the city to offer a family day out, which one cannot enjoy at Silverstone or Brands Hatch. It is a major plus point.
It is important for the life of the city centre that its shops can compete over bank holidays with the attraction of the out-of-town shopping centres, and the motor race has enabled them to do that. We often hear about out-of-town planning developments, so to have an event that brings people into the city centre at a time when it would normally be deserted is significant in providing a living, dynamic and vibrant city centre.
The Birmingham super prix is now the second most prestigious motor race in the United Kingdom. It is the most prestigious round of the international formula 3000 championship and enables many teams of drivers to attract the sponsorship necessary to compete in the championship. The crowd is second in size only to the British grand prix and is the largest of any round of the international formula 3000 championship.
The Birmingham super prix has gone a long way to meeting the objectives of those who first envisaged the event almost 20 years ago, but just in case anyone feels that all I am reporting is a business bonanza, I must reveal that that learned organ of the capitalist press Marxism Today enthused about the race, considering it a Socialist achievement which has taken motor racing to the masses. With that endorsement, who can go wrong?
There are some constraints on the event which require legislative change, which is why we are here this evening. I shall now deal with some of the changes that the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill seeks to bring about, so that we can continue to develop successfully this major attraction. The Birmingham City Council Act 1985 conferred on the city powers to run motor racing, but within certain constraints. The experience of having held the event for three years has resulted in the city council needing amendments to legislation to enable the city to overcome technical problems, to enhance the event and to reduce costs.
252
The Bill seeks to amend the 1985 Act in a number of ways. Firstly, it seeks to extend the number of days and to have more flexibility of dates to enable the super prix to continue. At present, it is confined to taking place on the Sunday and Monday on one of the two May bank holiday weekends or the August bank holiday weekend. It has been held over the August bank holiday weekend for the past three years and will be held again this year at that time. It is now proposed to extend the number of days available from two to four and to allow flexibility of dates so that the event can end on a Sunday or a bank holiday Monday in May, June, July, August or September.
There are powerful reasons for that. The formula 3000 international championship round held in Birmingham now requires three days, which is an international rulling outside the control of the city. We are fortunate in having a waiver for this year so that we can hold the race over two days, but that waiver will not continue, so we must extend the time in which the race can be held. Birmingham is granted a waiver through the international motor sport authority, FISA, to enable the event to run for two days.
Birmingham city council needs to protect the international stature of the event, as it has a track record of promoting the event over the past three years in a way that is attractive to the media, to the sponsors and to the spectators. The city wants especially to guarantee television coverage. Without the formula 3000 prestigious international race, which is only one step down from grand prix racing proper, the whole event would be in jeopardy. Birmingham city council therefore needs an extension to three days.
Mr. Robin Corbett: The hon. Gentleman has made an argument for extension from two to three days, but has not yet spoken about a fourth day. As I understand it, the only circumstances in which the city council would require the powers for a fourth day would be if a grand prix were offered and the city council was prepared to fork out £1 million for the privilege of staging it.
Mr. King: I was coming on to that important point in a moment.
Secondly, Birmingham city council believes that it has proved the super prix to be a major motor racing event. We should now be in a position to promote the most prestigious motor racing event, a grand prix, should one be offered. That would require four days. The city council wants to welcome back all the drivers now in grand prix racing who have driven at the Birmingham circuit over the past three years. Many drivers in formula 3000 go on to formula 1 racing, which is more prestigious. It is recognised that there is intense competition throughout the world for grand prix racing and that unless Birmingham city council is capable—I stress that word—of offering four days to the international motor sport authorities, it will never be offered a grand prix.
Thirdly, the difficulty is that, should the city be offered a grand prix, it could well fall on dates that are not at present available for it. In answer to what the hon. Member for Erdington said, it is not the city council's' intention actively to obtain a formula 1 grand prix. In any case, they are difficult to get. However, there may come a time when there will be the opportunity to stage such a prestigious event.

253
There is no doubt that a formula 1 grand prix meeting requires an outlay of about £1 million and, as the hon. Member for Erdington said, it will have to be debated by the local council at some considerable length. Indeed, it is only right and proper that the council should do so. However, in no way does this change in the legislation bring nearer the holding of a formula 1 meeting. Ultimately, it will be the city council that will have to debate the merits of investing that sort of money if the opportunity occurs, but frankly, I cannot see that happening for many years.
The plus side is that £1 million up front, if one can use that expression, stands a chance of earning a city such as Birmingham many more millions of pounds in income from the teams and from the enormous extra number of people who will come to the city during the three or four days that the circuit is available for use for practice or for the main event.
Mr. Rooker: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that, in laying the foundations for such an event in the way that he has just explained, the city council would be required to overturn completely its stated policy from day one—a policy that is currently maintained—of not allowing cigarette advertising on the circuit? One cannot have formula 1 grand prix and keep that policy. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that we should bring the merchants of death on to the streets of Birmingham? Is that what is in the minds of the promoters? Many consequences would flow from such a decision and would overturn existing commitments and promises that were given and received in good faith.
Mr. King: I know that that point concerns the hon. Gentleman, because it concerned him in relation to the original Bill in 1985. If my memory serves me correctly, such a situation has occurred before in formula 1 racing. Certain cars with cigarette advertising on them have had to have that advertising blanked over during meetings in a particular country. In any case, the criticism that the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out would be a matter for debate by the local authority, which may well decide that such an event is not for them because of the restrictions that may be placed on it by the Formula 1 Contractors' Association, which at some stage may say, "No, we are not going to abide by any cover-up of cigarette advertising."
As it is, I believe that only two teams, Camel Lotus and McClaren, are closely identified with cigarette advertising and use colours that are associated with popular cigarettes. That is a tenuous connection, and as far as I know no overt publicity or promotion is given to the event in that way—
Mr. Rooker: But smoking kills people.
Mr. King: I stress that, if the opportunity of a formula 1 race meeting is offered to the city, it will be the subject of most intense debate and the point raised by the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be discussed by the local authority.
Mr. Rooker: I am sorry, but I shall have to press this, because the hon. Gentleman has failed to meet the point. One of the reasons that this House, in its wisdom, gave Birmingham approval for the 1985 Act—we all agreed with it when it finally went through for reasons that I shall
254
explain later—was the commitment that was given, but that commitment is not written into the Act. If the city council wishes to overturn its policy on tobacco, it does not have to come back to the House. Given the fact that the biggest cause of death in this country is coronary heart disease and that the biggest single independent factor involved in those 3,000 deaths per week is smoking, I should be even more opposed to all this than I was before. However, as a Member of Parliament, I would be prevented from raising the matter, because the event will have been sub-contracted to the local authority.
Mr. King: I have no doubt that, if the opportunity arose to stage a formula 1 meeting—it is a slender one—the hon. Gentleman would have the opportunity to press his point.
If the city council wishes to offer amendments to what it has formerly agreed—as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, that commitment is not included in the Act—it is for the city council to try to persuade the hon. Gentleman that there will be adequate safeguards. If a formula 1 race meeting is agreed by the city council, I imagine that it will be agreed on certain conditions with the Formula 1 Contractors Association. If people agreed that cigarette advertising was anathema to the local authority—to be fair to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) I must confess that I would support that view—the contractors would be required to remove such advertising from their cars.
There is nothing new here. The issue will be considered on its merits and I have no difficulty in saying that the local authority and its Members of Parliament—presumably we shall all be consulted—will have an opportunity to make our voices known.
Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that, when the previous Act was introduced in the House in 1985, objections to tobacco advertising were raised by myself and my hon. Friends. I was given a written assurance by a senior member of the council—
Ms. Short: It is not worth anything.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend says that that assurance is not worth anything, but I shall draw attention to what I regard as assurances that have been broken later in the debate if I succeed in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I advise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) that I was given written assurances that there would be no cigarette advertising connected with the event. Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to the House, because he is now responsible for sponsoring this Bill, whether he regards the city council as having an option to keep that assurance?
Mr. King: I have no problems in saying that, if the city council made those assurances—and yes, it did; we were all here when we debated the original Bill in April 1985—I see no reason why that agreement should have been rescinded in any way. I think that it still holds absolutely good, and there should be no problems on that score.
Mr. Davis: I must press the hon. Gentleman. Will he give a categorical assurance as the hon. Member promoting the Bill that he would not condone any decision

255
to allow cigarette advertising in the course of a grand prix event—and what is more, that it will not happen because of the assurance that was given to hon. Members in 1985?
Mr. King: I thought that I had just made that point quite clear. I am giving that assurance. As far as I am aware, nothing has changed from what was previously agreed. Unless the hon. Gentleman can produce a letter saying that things have changed, we must assume—I assume and I give him the assurance—that that commitment still holds good and that there is no question of cigarette advertising being allowed on racing cars or even of the promotion of cigarettes being allowed within the environment of the circuit. I willingly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I cannot imagine that anyone would want to change such an assurance.
Mr. Jack: Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend by telling him that, at the moment, the West German grand prix requires that all forms of written promotion for cigarette advertising be removed from the cars, and that is what happens. The cars remain in their colours but there are no sponsors' names on them. Does my hon. Friend agree that motor sport is now increasingly being used as a promotional tool for another environmentally sensitive issue—lead-free petrol?
Mr. King: My hon. Friend made a good point at the end of his intervention and I am grateful to him for reminding me that it is in the West German grand prix that such advertising is removed. Therefore, the safeguards do exist, and I can give the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) an assurance on behalf of the promoters that what was previously agreed still holds good now. There is no question of us going back on that.
It is also a requirement in the revised rules of running a formula 3000 event that the circuit must be altered to provide a safer pit area. At the moment, the area is somewhat confined and cars have to decelerate quite quickly and engage in a few twists and turns to get into the pit area. In addition, the acceleration lane is not long enough to allow them to build up to a circuit speed. Although the circuit is perfectly safe, it is felt by FISA and the organisers of formula 3000 that improvements have to be made.
The city council wishes to do that by changing the circuit slightly to enable racing to take place on the inward carriageway of Bristol street, thus releasing the outward carriageway of Bristol street for use as pits. That would require the construction of a short link road between the two carriageways. It will make for a more attractive and interesting motor race and one which, by implication, will be a great deal safer.
Clause 7, the new section 4(2) in schedule 3, and clause 6(1) involve longer highway closures. Under the 1985 Act powers, highways are closed for the event from 9 am to 6 pm. At the request of the police, highways are in fact closed from 6 am under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. The city council wishes to have that additional time specifically mentioned in the Act.
Racing—by which I mean practice—will not take place on any day before 9 am. In addition, two additional hours at the end of racing are proposed to allow racing to finish should there be any delays during the day due to crashes. Because of bad weather and incidents on the circuit, we have experienced delays because of the time taken to restore the circuit to its
256
correct and safe state. Last year, that resulted in us losing two races at the end of the day, when we had to close the circuit and re-open the roads at 6 pm.
Speaking as a witness and as a pure matter of fact, there is little sense in losing such races, because the amount of public access to the roads for two or three hours after 6 o'clock on a bank holiday Monday is negligible. That is thanks to the superb arrangements made by the West Midlands police to route traffic away from the circuit. We submit that for the circuit to be used for an extra two or three hours would not excessively infringe anyone's right of movement.
Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that people live within the circuit and for them getting in and out of their houses and driving their cars to the shop or church in the evening is a serious concern. They do not welcome the extension of hours.
If it was legal to close the streets for longer than the times granted under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, why are those powers needed in this Bill? Has there been some doubt about the legality of the extended road closing in previous years?
Mr. King: As far as I know, the hon. Lady can rest assured that there is no illegality. The police have powers to make limited closures in the way that I have described under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. However, I believe that, to put this on a regular basis, it is right that the promoters should bring the Bill to the House to request that it be written into the Act. With the permission of the House, we are extending the days from two to four and in that way exceed the limited role of the police to make specific changes now and again. We need to study the implications behind such extension of road closures. Other hon. Members may wish to speak about the reaction of the local community to the city's proposals through, for example, opinion poll sampling, and, perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow such debate.
Mr. Terry Davis: On the question of closing the roads for certain periods of certain days, will the hon. Gentleman clarify the meaning of the Bill that he is introducing? The Bill would make it possible for the city council to close the roads for four days instead of two, as at present, and to close them for four days at any time between the end of April and the beginning of October, with the fourth day being either a bank holiday or a Sunday. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the effect of the Bill is that the city council can decide to have a road race on any Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday between the beginning of May and the end of September, to close the streets for all four days and to close them until 8 o'clock instead of 6 o'clock in the evening?
Mr. King: That is a fair summation of what we propose.
Mr. Davis: In that case, why did the hon. Gentleman tell the House that there was no problem, because it involved only two hours on a bank holiday Monday?
Mr. King: As a result of experience, a certain number of engineering days are allowed to set up and to dismantle the circuit, to which clauses 3(b) and 6 refer. Under the 1985 Act, the number of days available for the safety fence erection works is 10 days before and five days after the event. The city council wishes to extend that to 20 days

257
after the event. That will minimise the engineering works undertaken in anti-social hours, thus minimising disruption to residents, to businesses and to traffic.
It must be accepted that any work carried out within the confines of the highway will inevitably cause some disruption to the traffic using the roads. The problem experienced by the council is that, because of the restricted time that it is allowed to set up the circuit, it requires more men working and more disruption. It is hoped that, by spreading the period when the erection and the dismantling of the circuit can take place, the inconvenience to the road users and to the local residents—one must take into account their day-to-day problems—will be reduced dramatically. They will not therefore have to face the high pressure of the circuit engineer building the circuit with the consequent disruption that we have experienced.
Additionally, because of the time restriction, there is the cost of working through the night on many occasions, which is also disruptive to local residents. By extending the engineering days in such a way, the work can be carried out during the day, when the residents will not be inconvenienced by night-time noise and work.
Ms. Short: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one Birmingham citizen, who I believe lived in his constituency, has died as a result of the barriers being erected in advance? It was the Birmingham coroner who called for changes to be considered when building barriers on the city's super prix route. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the fact that someone has died means that the coroner's remarks have been taken into account and that people's lives will not be put at risk in future?
Mr. King: The hon. Lady has probably given a clear indication why we are making some of our proposals. It has been disruptive to install the barriers in the way that we have because of the time restraints. That has required contractors in vehicles to occupy the highways and lift the ARMCO barrier into position in a way that we do not like. By spreading out the time available, one can have fewer people working for a longer period, which will have a less disruptive influence on traffic that is on the highway at the same time.
The hon. Lady has reminded us of the tragedy. How directly attributable that was to working on the super prix circuit—
Ms. Short: The coroner said that it was.
Mr. King: Then I bow to his thinking. I believe that our proposed changes to the Bill will reduce the incidence of any danger to the public. That is one of the driving elements behind the changes.
Ms. Short: Has the hon. Gentleman made up that answer on the spur of the moment, or does he really know that safety has been taken into account? It is a serious matter when a life has been taken and the coroner has said that it was due to the way that the roadworks were being carried out. The gentleman who died was Mr. Taylor, of Staple Lodge road, Northfield, so I presume that he was the hon. Gentleman's constituent.
Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that safety has been taken into account in reorganising the way in which the
258
barriers will be erected? If not, is he just saying that off the top of his head, without knowing whether safety has been properly considered?
Mr. King: The hon. Lady is right to be concerned. I say again that the entire exercise of extending the time in which engineering work will take place is designed to reduce the inconvenience to road users and to local people. Because we are reducing the inconvenience, that must imply that we are intending to do so in as safe and as efficient manner as we can.
One cannot guarantee that somebody will not have an accident because of work that is taking place. In all honesty, no one can say that. However, steps are taken and will be taken to minimise that possibility. I have no doubt that, as a result of what the coroner has said about that accident, the city engineers and those responsible for erecting the circuit will pay particular attention to ensuring that such an accident is not repeated. No one would want anybody to be the innocent victim of what is a strong social event and an entertaining spectacle.
Schedule 2 outlines police costs. The 1985 Act gave the West Midlands police full indemnity for their costs arising in connection with the race. That is unique, because the costs include the policing costs outside the sporting area as well as inside. The costs also include planning and the staffing of police headquarters. Birmingham city council has no influence over the level of policing, as that is an operational decision of the chief constable. As a consequence, extremely high costs have been carried by the city council—they have averaged much more than £100,000. The city council feels that that is unfair, as the figure represents about a quarter of the total police bill to football clubs for all matches played in the west midlands in one season.
One of the problems has been that, because of the stated requirements, some of the costs have been much higher than originally estimated way back in the early 1980s. During the three years of the event, however, the police have reported only a handful of incidents leading them to take action. The city council is currently discussing the matter with the police authority, and it hopes to reach agreement leading to an amendment being put to the Committee, should the Bill receive a Second Reading.
The city council would also like the House to consider the insurance costs. Section 20 of the 1985 Act establishes strict liability for personal injury or damage to property without proof of negligence. That is unusual, as negligence normally has to be proved. The consequence has been an extremely high insurance premium of around £200,000 a year. The council originally wanted to repeal this section of the 1985 Act, because experience of three years racing suggested that it was unjustified. However, it has noted the concern of local residents, businesses and hon. Members and it will put an amendment to the Committee to reinstate strict liability without proof of evidence for residents, spectators, businesses and statutory undertakers. That cover will not include drivers, their teams or associated personnel involved in the super prix, including the media. The latter will need to prove negligence. It is felt that, in any case, those in the latter category are well aware of the risks they take at this sport.
It is important to mention the accounting procedures that the city council has adopted over the years, given their importance to the perception of the super prix as a profitable operation. I am sure that other hon. Members

259
will also want to comment on this. The 1985 Act placed upon the city council the obligation to make a cumulative profit over five years in order to retain its powers to run motor racing. In addition, the Act obliged the city council to adopt commercial accountancy procedures rather than local government accountancy procedures. Section 14 of the 1985 Act refers to that and was inserted following objections to the Bill in 1985.
The city council was advised as to the proper presentation of its motor race accounts by its auditors. Because of the unusual nature of commercial accounts within a local government setting, the city council sought counsel's opinion on the presentation of the accounts. It has been guided by that advice. It was right for the city council to comply with the advice of its auditors.
The financial outcome is as follows. In the report to the general purposes committee of Birmingham city council on 3 October 1984, the city treasurer reported his estimates of costs and revenue for the motor race. The estimated costs ranged from £1·35 million to £1·8 million and the estimated income was £1·35 million. The treasurer concluded:
"From a prudent financial viewpoint it is considered that the first motor racing event on the streets of the city may not generate large profits. It is anticipated that a similar position would result from the second or third events.… Whilst the promotional benefits of staging road races cannot be quantified it must be accepted that there is immense potential. It is thus suggested that, if a loss were to be made that it would be right to judge such as part of the overall costs of promotion and publicity of the city."
That was before the original Bill came to the House.
In 1986, the costs were £1,530,000; in 1987, they were £1,561,000; in 1988, the provisional costs—the accounts have not yet been audited—were £1,213,000. Those figures are within the estimates set. The income in 1986 was £898,000; in 1987 it was £1,122,000, and in 1988 it was £1,213,000—that figure may vary by £1,000 either way. In other words, the city lost money in years one and two but broke even last year. Those are the figures if one accepts or adopts local government accounting methods. If one considers those figures in the light of commercial accounting methods, as necessitated by the 1985 Act, they reveal that in 1986 the city lost £173,051; in 1987 it made a profit of £76,557 and in 1988 it made a profit of £565,494. The cumulative figure for the years to date shows that a profit of about £470,000 has been made. Those are the figures that the auditors have looked at and approved.
It is clear, judged by normal local government accounting conventions and commercial accounting conventions, that the race is profitable and will go forward from strength to strength. Other hon. Members may wish to argue the merits of the accounts or the way in which they have been drawn up, but those figures are subject to audit and the auditors are clear that the city has adopted the correct accountancy procedures and that the figures, as presented in the accounts, stand the test of examination.
My speech has been extended because of the interventions by many hon. Members. I thought it was right and proper to allow them to do so, as that avoids much repetition later on. Those interventions have also helped to clarify the issues and the concerns about which they are rightly worried.
I have pleasure in presenting the Bill to the House. I hope that all hon. Members will realise that the Bill comes from the people of Birmingham—from the local authority—with support from all sections of the political parties. It
260
illustrates the city's desire and determination to see the motor race prosper and to grab the opportunities that are available to ensure that the city maintains its dynamic drive towards future prosperity and competitiveness in this its 100th year.
8.26 pm
Mr. Terry Davis: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) took 28 minutes of his speech to reach the Bill. During those first 28 minutes he described the economic benefits of running a motor race through the streets of Birmingham.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the disagreement within the Labour party about this matter does not concern whether there are economic benefits, but how those economic benefits should be generated. I found it rather amusing that the hon. Gentleman, a Conservative Member, extolled the merits of public expenditure as a way of generating employment in Birmingham or elsewhere. The disagreement within the Labour party is not about whether there should be expenditure to generate jobs, but what sort of expenditure should generate what sort of jobs. The argument within the Labour party is about priorities. We believe that in deciding to spend money on the motor race—in subsidising a motor race—the city council has forgone the opportunity to spend money on social services, on education, on housing and on all the other activities for which people elect city councillors. Those services generate jobs as well as providing services for those in need.
Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is right that there are differences of view in the Labour party. Is he aware that a meeting of the Selly Oak local area sub-committee voted against the road race and that the Tory representatives voted against? There seem to be differences of opinion in all parties.
Mr. Davis: I was not aware of that and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to our attention.
The hon. Member for Northfield briefly addressed the fact that when the 1985 Bill was introduced to the House of Commons by Sir Reginald Eyre, the House was told not only that we would derive all the economic benefits, described by the hon. Gentleman for 28 minutes, but that we would also receive a profit. We were told that the race would make a profit without anything being charged to the ratepayers and that that profit would in turn be used to improve social services, education and housing. It has not made a profit without a charge being made on the rates.
Mr. Denis Howell: It has.
Mr. Davis: If my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) disagrees, he will no doubt have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, but, if he disagrees, I will certainly want to examine his figures after this debate.
There are two reasons for opposing this Bill. The first is the effect of the road race on the people who live near the circuit. There is no doubt in my mind, having talked to representatives of residents in that area, that there is a tremendous noise and disruption as a result of the road race. At the time of the 1985 Bill we were told that people living in the area welcomed the excitement, glamour and pleasure they would derive from watching a road race pass their front windows, and we were told there were surveys

261
which supported that. I did not disagree with that argument, but people living in the area have experienced three road races, and there is now evidence that many of them do not want the road race to continue and that even more of them are very concerned about the possibility of a bigger road race taking place—a formula 1 road race—for a period of four days.
It is not only the people who live in the area who have strong feelings about the disruption caused by the road race. People living further afield suffer a great deal of inconvenience in commuting to the city centre during the period of the road race during the road works before and after the race. I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Ms. Short) and other hon. Members whose constituents are adversely affected to describe the effects of the road race in detail.
The problems people have at the moment will clearly be made worse by the proposals in this Bill, and I cannot advise the House to accept the assurances given by the hon. Member for Northfield, who is no doubt acting in good faith; so was Sir Reginald Eyre when he gave assurances to this House four years ago. Those assurances have not been kept.
For example, the hon. Member for Northfield said that we should extend the period of the works to 20 days, which would enable them to be done at less anti-social times, which will reduce the effect on people living in the area, but there is no guarantee that that will happen; it is not written into the Bill. The Bill gives the council the opportunity to do the road works over a period of 20 days at unsocial as well as other hours.
Similarly, the hon. Member says that the council would not want to have a road race for four days unless it were formula 1 rather than formula 3. Again, that is not guaranteed in the Bill. Indeed, when I intervened in his speech and asked him to confirm whether it was possible under a clause in this Bill to have a formula 3 or super prix race over a period of four days on any weekend between the beginning of May and the end of September, he said that it was. In the previous Bill, which became an Act, we were assured that the super prix would take place only on one of three weekends; it would have to be a bank holiday weekend, over Sunday and bank holiday Monday, on one of the two bank holiday weekends in May or the one in August.
However, this Bill gives the council the opportunity to have a race for four days on any weekend between May and August, and there is no guarantee that the council will not take this opportunity and will not operate like the moneylender in "The Merchant of Venice" and demand its pound of flesh because it is entitled to it under the terms of this Bill. I am not prepared to accept the hon. Member's assurances, although I am sure that he gives them in good faith.
This Bill would also enable the council to close the streets from 6 am to 8 pm instead of the present shorter period. The Bill would enable it to refuse to idemnify the costs of the police authority. In such a week, after last Saturday's tragedy, I am amazed that anybody can argue in this House about the level of policing which the police force judge to be appropriate for any sporting event or that anyone wants to refuse to pay for that policing. As it
262
stands, the Bill would also enable the council to escape its strict liability obligations, which were included in the previous Act.
I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's assurances, which brings me to the second reason for opposing this Bill—we have had assurances before. We had clear and explicit assurances four years ago. I refer to the financial arrangements for the road race, the assurances given then by the city council to this House, and the assurances given in this House by Sir Reginald Eyre on behalf of the city council; assurances incorporated, as we were told, into the Bill which became the 1985 Act; assurances which in my opinion have now been broken.
These assurances took two forms. The first was that if the council were allowed to use £.1·5 million of its capital allocation to pay for the capital expenditure required for the road race—an allocation from the Government intended to pay for repairs to council houses—the money would be recovered over a period of five years from the income generated by the road race and that the money would be recycled to pay for those repairs. That assurance was not only given in this House but was confirmed in a letter to me from the leader of the city council dated 21 June 1985. When I discussed the wording of the Bill with the representative of the city treasurer's department or the city solicitor's department, Mr. Allport, I was promised that the assurance would be given effect. That was one of the reasons why I dropped my objections to the Bill at the time.
Subsequently, I had correspondence with the city solicitor about this matter and was told that the capital expenditure on essential services would be financed by the road race. That assurance has not been kept. When I raised this point with Councillor John Charlton, the chairman of the general purposes committee, a few months ago, he told me that the promise had been kept and referred me to the city treasurer. I took up that invitation and had a very frank discussion with the city treasurer. I was told by him that he had had to find £1·5 million to honour the assurance given to this House, but he did not find it in the money generated by the road race; it was money made available to the city council for other reasons.
Mr. Denis Howell indicated dissent.
Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath shakes his head, but Mr. Bernard Farrar, the city treasurer, explained this to me in careful detail. The £1·5 million came not from the road race but from the Severn-Trent water authority, and that money was used to pay for council house repairs. When I put it to the city treasurer that that was all very well but that it was still open to the city council to increase the money spent on repairing council houses by that £1·5 million as well as 1·5 million re-cycled from the income of the road race, he had to admit that that was correct. We were promised that the money would come from the road race over a period of five years, and that promise has not been kept. I repeat that it is not being kept for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath who keeps intervening from a sedentary position.
Mr. Denis Howell: The purpose of this interruption is to point out that the hon. Gentleman said this has to be done over five years. I accept what he says, but the race has been on for only three years.
Mr. Davis: It is not the intention of the city council.
Mr. Howell: Oh, yes it is.
Mr. Davis: I have here a letter dated 30 January, from Councillor John Charlton, chairman of the general purposes committee, who is claiming that the assurance has been kept, not that it will be kept in the future, and it was he who referred me to the city treasurer. When I spoke to the city treasurer, he explained to me what had happened and that it was not money from the road race and would not be from the road race. So that assurance, in my judgment, has not been kept, and the city treasurer was kind enough to say that he understood my view.
The second assurance which has not been kept is that the road race would not be subsidised by the ratepayers of Birmingham. In other words, we were told that the road race would make a profit, not a loss, so there would not be any question of money being spent on the road race instead of on repairs to houses and schools, on employing more teachers' home helps and occupational therapists, or on adaptation's to the homes of people with disabilities. We were told that none of those things would take second place to the road race and that money would not be spent on the road race rather than on those vital services for the people of Birmingham. We were told that profit would provide money for increased expenditure on all those things.
Mr. Howell: Quite right.
Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend's memory is correct. That is what we were promised. We were told that the profit would be used to improve services for the people of Birmingham. We were specifically told that if the road race did not make a cumulative profit for the first five years, it would not be held again. The council was so confident that it said that the race would not be held then in spite of all the other benefits described by the hon. Member for Northfield. That assurance has not been kept.
The assurances were given at a very early stage in our discussions on the Bill which became the Birmingham City Council Act 1985. The city council issued a document in January 1985 which stated:
"The view from the consultants is that a profit of at least £1 million would be made on the first event, with even larger profits in the future.….The most pessimistic view is that in the short term, income and expenses will break even. No charge will fall on the rates."
That document was followed by an advertisement which appeared in The House Magazine on 25 January 1985 which stated succinctly under the headline "Birmingham ratepayers won't be paying for it":
"The cost to the ratepayers of Birmingham? Absolutely nothing. Indeed it will be to their benefit as more cash will be brought into the authority's kitty."
Mr. Howell: Quite right.
Mr. Davis: I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to follow my argument.
Another document was issued which stated:
"The race will make money for the city council so the ratepayer will not lose out. We will not be taking decisions on whether to repair leaking roofs or to support the race. The road race will bring more cash into the authority's kitty."
The then chairman of the general purposes committee wrote a letter in which she said:
"the support given to the motor race will not reduce the amount of resources available for other purposes. In fact, in a profit situation, the funds available for these purposes will
264
actually increase and of course it is our hope that besides promoting the city and encouraging tourism, the racing will generate income which we can use on community and social services."
That was backed up by another letter from the then city treasurer, Mr. Paul Sabin, who referred first to capital expenditure, and who said:
"It can be regarded as good value for money in the sense that it will generate income from the motor race which will improve the city's revenue position and thereby free resources to be spent on other services. In the long run, housing, education etc. could well benefit significantly from the motor race … Since we envisage the motor race at worst breaking even in revenue or year-to-year operating terms, and probably generating significant income, there is no question of revenue resources being diverted from other spending areas … There is no conflict of priorities … It would not take long for annual benefits to cancel out the initial capital contribution and therefore should perhaps be seen as a major financial factor in this debate."
When the Birmingham City Council Bill was introduced in March 1985, a circular was sent to some hon. Members which stated:
"The race will make money for the city council and will not therefore be a burden on the ratepayers."
Mr. Denis Howell: Quite right.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is still with me. I hope that he will continue to be with me.
The Birmingham City Council Bill had its Second Reading on 1 April 1985. Sir Reginald Eyre said:
"Since the city envisages the motor race at worst breaking even in revenue on year-to-year operating terms, and probably generating significant income, there is no question of revenue resources being diverted from other spending areas … It is the hope of the city council, based on careful study of all the factors involved, that besides promoting the city and encouraging tourism"—
I emphasise those words, "besides promoting the city and encouraging tourism"—
"the motor racing will generate income and so extra resources for the city."—[Official Report, 1 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 962–63.]
My colleagues and I continued to have some scepticism about those claims and we regarded them as being exaggerated. Nevertheless, the Bill received its Second Reading and went into Committee. In Committee, questions were raised about the financial arrangements For the race. An hon. Member for Manchester is recorded as asking who would be responsible for any financial loss resulting from the ratepayers. A representative of the city council in the presence of the agents Sharpe, Pritchard and Company, the same agents for this Bill, answered:
"It was not thought likely, however: expert analysis projected a £1 million profit on a £1·5 million outlay not including the spin-off from tourism."
Many of my hon. Friends subsequently received a letter from the leader of the city council, who wrote:
"As far as I am concerned, however, to keep running a road race at a loss is not on. We will therefore bring in an amendment in the Lords to provide that the race shall not take place if an operating loss is still made in the fifth year of the event."
That letter was sent by Councillor Dick Knowles on 21 June 1985.
On 24 June, Sir Reginald Eyre said in the House:
"In principle, a requirement that the race would not continue—that is, that the powers to operate the race would cease—if the event could not be staged without incurring annual losses, is accepted. The city council would not want to continue running the race if it had to require support from the ratepayers each year … The intention is to introduce an

265
amendment in another place to deal fully with the principle of the new clause … I am giving an undertaking of equivalent value"—
that is, equivalent value to a new clause or amendment, which had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood. Sir Reginald Eyre said:
"I am giving an undertaking of equivalent value in that such an amendment will be introduced in another place. I give that undertaking on behalf of the city council."
When pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood, he said:
"I have given an undertaking without reservation on behalf of Birmingham city coucil."—[Official Report, 24 June 1985; Vol. 81 columns 712–13.]
The intentions of Sir Reginald Eyre and the city council were clear: the race would generate a profit and would not require any subvention from the rate fund.
On 4 July, we resumed the Report stage of the Birmingham City Council Bill. In the meantime, there had been private discussions between myself on behalf of my hon. Friends and Sir Reginald Eyre in the presence of other council representatives. Sir Reginald Eyre was very forthcoming and he accepted the strength of feelings of myself and my hon. Friends. He assured me that it was not the intention to run the race at a loss, that the council would stop it after five years if there was a cumulative loss, and that there would be no subsidy from the rates on any grounds. I accepted in good faith what Sir Reginald Eyre told me and I advised my hon. Friends to drop their objections to the 1985 Bill. My hon. Friends accepted that I was also acting in good faith, and we agreed that we could trust Sir Reginald Eyre's assurances. A new clause was tabled by him to give effect to the assurances that he had given to me and my hon. Friends.
New clause 3, which was brought before the House on 14 July 1985, became section 14 of the Act. Subsection 5 says:
"If the statements for the first five financial years in which the council provide motor races show a cumulative deficit, the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the council."
Sir Reginald Eyre, explaining the purpose of that new clause, said:
"New clause 3 is designed to meet the points that were made in the earlier debates. This provision meets my undertaking that if the revenue accounts for the first five financial years in which the council provides motor races show a cumulative deficit, the power to provide motor races shall cease to be exercisable by the council."—[Official Report, 4 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 577.]
On that basis, my hon. Friends and I allowed the Bill to become an Act of Parliament, and the city council issued this community bulletin:
"In spite of what has been suggested by the few critics of the race proposals, it will not cost the ratepayers anything.
In fact, financial analysts have projected that, far from costing money, the event will put much-needed profits into the city's kitty, and this means more to spend on the services we all need."
Those are not my words; they are the words of the city council. That is what the council said would happen; that is what it said was built into the Bill; that is the assurance that it gave.
Unfortunately, the first race was held in 1986, and it made a loss. The second race was held in 1987, and it made a loss. In February 1988, the city council was faced with the problem of having to meet the assurances that it had given to this House, as expressed in section 14 of the Act.
Ms. Short: My hon. Friend is telling his story very well. We all lived through this. There has been a great deal of talk about the way in which the accounts were kept. Can my hon. Friend confirm that implementaton of the provisions in the Act about the way in which the accounts should be presented is entirely a matter for the city council? Is it not a fact that the council chose that way of recording the accounts, and did not have it imposed by others?
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I do not propose to go into detail about my discussions with Sir Reginald Eyre. I took him as representing the city council. After all, he sponsored the Bill in this House. I had known him for several years in his role as a member of the Conservative party. I disagreed with him about many political issues, but I would never have questioned his integrity or his good faith. I believed what he was telling me, indeed, I believe that he believed what he was telling me—that there would not be any cost to the ratepayers of Birmingham if the race were to go ahead and if, at the end of five years, there were to be a cumulative deficit, the race would not be held again.
In February 1988 the city council officers found that they had a problem. They had a loss of nearly £600,000 from the race in 1986, and a loss of about £400,000 in 1987, and they had trouble with the auditors. The auditors came to look at the road race accounts, and found that some items that should have been included in those accounts had not been included. I refer to items such as hospitality for VIPs, which had been charged to other accounts. The council argued that that expenditure had been incurred under provisions of other legislation and that therefore there was no need to show it as a cost against the road race. The auditors said that that was not right and that the council must put the expenditure into the road race account.
The auditors also told the council that it must include depreciation. I have some sympathy for the council on that. It is a detailed point, and the city council made a great issue of it in discussions with my hon. Friends and myself. Actually, the figures show that the amounts included for depreciation are nothing like the total of the losses.
There is some dispute about what happened at the meeting with the auditors. Certainly, it is clear to me that the suggestion came from that meeting that the council should consider putting a sum of money into the road race account for the benefit of promoting tourism in the city. It is not clear who made that suggestion. It was based on the preamble of the Act, which says:
"The city is a major commercial and industrial centre and, with a view to promoting the city and encouraging tourism and attracting business, it is expedient that the council be authorised to provide or arrange for the provision of motor races on certain streets in the city."
I emphasise that those words were in the preamble from the very beginning. At no stage was it suggested that those words justified a credit to the road race account from the rates account. At no time was that suggested, by Sir Reginald Eyre or anybody else, and it was never thought of until the meeting took place nearly two years after the first road race had been held.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is making a useful and a very important point. It is one that has to be put on the record for the benefit of all hon. Members and for

267
everyone else who may read the report of this debate. The preamble to a private Bill is not the same as the preamble to a public Bill. Most of us do not bother with preambles. Until this issue arose, until I saw what happened last October, I never knew that the preamble was amendable. I never dreamt that anything from section 1 of an Act had the legal force to rub out sections.
This is a valuable point that my hon. Friend is making. The preamble to this Act runs to eight paragraphs of crucial importance. At that time, I had 12 years' experience in this House. I freely admit that, despite that experience, I had never seen anyone attempt to amend a preamble. I had never heard a preamble debated, or seen anyone rest a case on a preamble. Hon. Members concern themselves only with clauses and scheules to Bills—later, sections and schedules to the Acts.
My hon. Friend is giving all hon. Members a warning. We all make law, though we are not all lawyers. This is a warning about the importance of the preambles to Bills, whether private or public. Generally speaking, this problem arises in the case of private Bills because the preambles to such Bills are much longer, much more full of information, than the preambles to public Bills.
Mr. Davis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Before giving way, I had reached the question of the meeting with the city auditors, Price Waterhouse. It is absolutely clear—there is no question—that nobody had suggested before 1988 that there should be a credit to the road race account from the rates account on the ground of that preamble. There is some confusion about whose idea it was at that meeting with the city auditors. Councillor John Charlton, chairman of the general purposes committee, has told my hon. Friends and myself that the suggestion came from the auditors themselves. Well, I put that to Price Waterhouse, and they disclaim all credit—or rather odium—for the suggestion. I do not think that we shall ever find out where the idea came from, but what we can be clear about is the motive for it.
Mr. Roger King: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member in trying to establish where this solution came from. It came from Price Waterhouse themselves. I have here a copy of a letter, dated 12 April 1989, to the hon. Gentleman. It says:
"Accordingly, when the first road race accounts were being compiled we took notice of the requirements of the 1985 Act and, in particular, those set out in section 14. My staff quite properly, and as part of normal procedure, questioned whether the accounts were drawn up correctly and if all amounts of expenditure and income had been included … In addition, on a point of principle, my staff questioned whether, in accounting terms, the road race account should reflect income for sponsorship from the city."
It seems to me quite clear that the auditors actually pointed this out when they were auditing the first road race accounts.
Mr. Davis: I am very sorry that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to quote the letter to me from Price Waterhouse. He forces me to refer to the correspondence in some detail. On 11 April I wrote to Price Waterhouse in these terms —[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may be disappointed that I am going to refer to all this correspondence, but it is he, not I, who has quoted from it. This is the letter that I sent to Price Waterhouse:
"I understand that you were responsible for suggesting that the city council should avoid the intention of section 14 of the 1985 Act by using the preamble as authority for
268
crediting the 1986–87 and the 1987–88 road race accounts with a total of £1,050,000, and I should be grateful if you will confirm this point because I want to refer to it during the debate in the House of Commons on the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill."
The hon. Member for Northfield quoted from Price Waterhouse's reply, but he did not read the whole of it. He missed out the preceding paragraph which said:
"The statement set out in your letter is not correct."
I was asking Price Waterhouse whether it was responsible and it said that it was not. I wrote a long letter back in which I said:
"I repeat that I have been told that a credit for promotional value was suggested by Price Waterhouse, and that the idea of a credit based on a preamble to the 1985 Act was not initiated by the city council."
Today I received a message which was taken down in shorthand from Mr. Walls of Price Waterhouse in which he said:
"On the matter of the road race there are several things that I might have said to Mr. Davis personally, but I do not have a lot to add to my letter of 12 April. Mr. Davis must understand that Price Waterhouse give advice to the city as well as audit the city as they do with all their clients. I am pretty certain that I did not suggest, as he has put several times in his letters, that the preamble of the 1985 Act should be used to justify this credit to the road race account."
The hon. Member for Northfield has just suggested that Price Waterhouse accepted responsibility. Mr. Walls of Price Waterhouse dictated that message today. He said:
"I am pretty certain that I did not suggest, as he has put several times in his letters, that the preamble of the 1985 Act should be used to justify this credit to the road race account."
Wherever the responsibility lies, the important thing is that the city solicitor then sought advice from Queen's counsel. I have looked at the instructions that were given to the Queen's counsel by the city solicitor. He left Queen's counsel in no doubt whatever about the purpose behind this suggestion of a credit to the road race account on the ground that the road race had promoted tourism on the basis of the preamble to the 1985 Act.
That was not the only suggestion. The city council also asked for the advice of Queen's council on the possibility of increasing the grant which the city council gives to the Birmingham convention and visitor bureau in the confident expectation—the bureau's chairman is a leading city councillor—that the bureau would then give a grant to the road race. If that is not creative accounting, I do not know what is. Even the city solicitor—especially the city solicitor—had some qualms about that.
The city solicitor makes it quite clear in his instructions to counsel that
"If such an arrangement were possible it would sidestep the thinking behind section 14 of the Act which was to prevent the council subsidising a loss-making motor race indefinitely."
That was the motivation. It was to sidestep an Act of Parliament. That is what the council officers and senior members of the city council were doing. They knew that they had given an assurance that if the race made a loss, they would stop it after five years. They were looking for a way of sidestepping section 14—their own new clause, drafted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywod has said, by their lawyers, not by us, and supposedly given in good faith to be honoured by the city council.
After all the discussions had taken place, the city council transferred £500,000 to the road race account for the 1986 race and £550,000 for the 1987 race.
It has been said that there is no difference between the city council choosing to spend money on the road race to promote tourism and choosing to spend it in some other

269
way to promote tourism. I understand that point. If the city council had decided to spend money on promoting tourism and believed that the road race was a good vehicle for doing so rather than books of matches, posters or newspaper advertisements, I might have had some sympathy with its point of view, but that was not what happened.
The city council had overspent on the promotion of tourism in the financial year 1986–87. It did not transfer money from the promotion of tourism account to the road race account; it just reclassified the deficit. It simply said that instead of overspending by a few thousand pounds on the promotion of tourism, it would overspend by that, plus another £500,000. It was a fiddle. To my constituents it looks like cheating. It was not a case of using money; the council just reclassified the loss in the accounts. It was a book-keeping manoeuvre, and it was not in the spirit of negotiations undertaken by Sir Reginald Eyre.
At that stage, the city council had not done its accounts for 1987–88. When they were published, we found that it had overspent in that year as well. Now we have the probable figures for promoting tourism for 1988–89 and we find that compared with its original estimate the council has overspent by £500,000. But it is worse than I thought because the council has transferred £600,000 to the road race account. For the current year 1989–90, the council has estimated for another subvention to the road race account of another £600,000. This is a bottomless pit. The council overspent on the promotion of tourism in 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 and it has now increased its estimate for 1989–90 in order to hide the subsidy.
To be fair, the city treasurer assures me that he will transfer some of the money back. He will transfer back not £600,000, but £550,000, having ensured that the race makes a profit of that amount. He is hoping to do the same next year.
It is not only Socialists who have questioned the way that this is being done. At the statutory consultation meeting with representatives of industrial and commercial ratepayers about this year's budget—in particular, representatives of the Birmingham chamber of commerce—they were told that the race was making a profit. I do not accept that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath says that he is sure that it did, but on the basis of my discussions with the city treasurer I am convinced that, in the spirit of the undertaking given by Sir Reginald Eyre, the race has made a loss in excess of £1 million and there will be provision for further transfers in the current year.
It took the hon. Member for Northfield 54 minutes to get to that point, which he well knows is the objection that I and my hon. Friends have to the road race and the new Bill. The hon. Gentleman said that it was the proper thing to do. I do not agree. It is not proper to look for ways to sidestep an Act of Parliament when the city council is itself responsible for the wording of the Act of Parliament. The council could do it, but it did not have to do it. It was a policy decision to do it. It was legal, but it was not right, and it should not have done it.
It would not matter so much if the money put int,o the road race account had been surplus. It would not matter so much if Birmingham had no financial problems. But every Member of Parliament and city councillor from
270
Birmingham knows that Birmingham has tremendous financial problems as the result of the Government's financial policies. Council houses are not being repaired. Houses in my constituency stood empty throughout March because the local housing department did not have the money to repair them, and people could not move into them. Schools are waiting to be repaired. Roofs are leaking in nursery, infant, junior and secondary schools in my constituency. There is a shortage of occupational therapists. People with severe disabilities are classed by their doctors as in need of having their homes adapted. Such people are waiting not weeks but months to be visited by an occupational therapist, and even longer for the adaptations that are required.
In August last year the city council stopped issuing bus passes to people with disabilities because it had run out of money. In fact, the city council had not issued any bus passes to people with disabilities, who had been assessed from April 1988 as entitled to them. It had taken the council from April to August to deal with the backlog from the previous year because it had run out of money that year as well—when it was subsidising a motor race.
I challenge the order of priorities of the city council. I accept that a motor race creates jobs. The point is that all the other things that I mentioned would also create jobs. If money is spent on repairs to council houses, on occupational therapists, or on repairing the leaking roofs of schools, jobs are created. If bus passes are provided for people with disabilities, that provides jobs for bus drivers. The question is: what are the council's priorities?
It is significant that the 1985 Act was introduced by a Conservative Member of Parliament, and that this Bill has been introduced by another Conservative. The priorities are Conservative priorities; they are not Socialist priorities. That is why I will vote against the Bill.
9.10 pm
The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): It may be helpful to the House if I intervene at this point to give a brief indication of the Government's view on the Bill. As the House knows, the Government traditionally stand neutral in relation to private Bills where no major matter of principle is involved. That was our position on the 1985 Act, which authorised motor racing on the streets of Birmingham for the first time.
The Bill now before the House proposes some significant amendments to the 1985 Act. These particularly concern the number of days on which motor racing can take place and the length of time for which streets can be closed to traffic each day. Understandably, the Bill has aroused opposition from those who fear an increase in the disruption that motor racing must inevitably cause to the normal pattern of daily life and movement in Birmingham. Questions have been raised about the way in which the city council has financed the races held so far.
We have considered whether these are major matters of principle on which it would be right for the Goverment to take a view. We have taken into account the fact that none of the roads directly affected by the Bill's proposals is a trunk road. Birmingham city council is itself the highway authority for all the roads concerned. Our conclusion is that the issues raised by the Bill are essentially of local concern and that it would not be right for the Government to intervene. In the light of that, we have no comment on the instruction.
Mr. Rooker rose—
Mr. Bottomley: I will not give way.
Mr. Rooker: Why will the Minister not give way?
Mr. Bottomley: It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers that they are seeking are justified.
Mr. Rooker rose—
Mr. Bottomley: There are now eight petitions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."]—remaining against the Bill.
Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. on 1 April 1985 the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), was more than generous in giving way to her colleagues in the House when she said:
"We have stated that we expect the project to be self-financing".—[Official Report, 1 April 1985; vol. 76, c. 980.]
That is what she said on behalf of the Government. What about the Minister—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. This must be a matter for the Minister.
Mr. Bottomley: Intemperance from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) is out of place.
There are now eight petitions remaining against the Bill which raise matters reflecting genuine and widespread local concern. The petitioners will have the opportunity to present their objections to the Select Committee, which will be in a better position than the House today to examine in detail the issues involved and will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence. In the usual, conventional way, the Bill should be allowed to proceed to Committee for that detailed consideration.
9.13 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: I am an unashamedly enthusiastic supporter of municipal Socialism and I am in favour of municipal enterprise. I find it extremely ironic that my lifelong principles are being supported from the Government Benches and opposed from the Opposition Benches, but those of us who have served a long time in the House are never surprised at anything these days. I do not often fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), but even if everything that has been said about the subsidy for the race were correct—in fact, it is wholly inaccurate—I should still think the road race worth while, and I am sorry that my hon. Friend seeks to oppose the strategy of Birmingham city council.
The Government's policies have brought enormous unemployment to Birmingham. I believe that my constituency has the third highest level of unemployment in the country—with long-term unemployment at 40 per cent., including much youth unemployment. It was for that reason that I decided, with the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill and others, to take on the job of promoting the Birmingham Olympic bid. Sir Reginald Eyre was also active in supporting that bid. The philosophy behind the bid was that because the Government would not solve the unemployment problems of Birmingham, we had better do something about them
272
ourselves. The only way to produce long-term economic benefits was to sell the wonderful city of Birmingham worldwide and to attract enormous worldwide investment.
That was nothing new. That logic started with the national exhibition centre. Some of the arguments that we have heard today from my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill are an echo of the arguments about the establishment of the national exhibition centre. There was an all-party effort, supported by the chamber of commerce, to get the NEC built at Birmingham. Despite all the Jeremiahs telling us that the NEC would lose money, it is profitable. I believe that about £12 million of profit now goes directly to the rate fund each year. Of course, the NEC did not make a profit in the first year or two, but it gradually gathered support—it has to be sold worldwide—and the profit that it makes now goes towards expenditure on all the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill rightly demands, such as education, housing and other services.
That led us to thinking in other directions. Some hon. Members will remember the tremendous fight about the NEC. We had a great success against the London lobby. I remember going to see the Prime Minister with my hon. Friend's predecessor, who did one or two things of which I approve, although leaving the Labour party was not one of them. When he was a more senior Minister than I, we went to see the Prime Minister and told him that regional policy and the attraction of investment to the midlands would mean nothing if he did not agree to the NEC being put in Birmingham. It is to the credit of the Prime Minister of the time, now Lord Wilson, that in our presence he signed a piece of paper saying, "proceed."
The concept of the NEC came from the city council, and particularly from two late friends of ours, Sir Frank Griffin and Harry Watton. In spite of initial losses and quite a lot of risk, the NEC is producing a profit of about £12 million a year which subsidises the rates.
That is why I support municipal Socialism. When I was a member of the city council I was the chairman of the civic catering committee. We had to compete with the catering trade on more than fair terms because we had to pay considerably more each week in wages. Nevertheless, we made a success of it.
I have always believed in municipal enterprise and I am saddened by the doubts that my hon. Friends have expressed about that concept. The great city of Birmingham has been built up on municipal enterprise. Chamberlain produced water, electricity and gas—yet the Conservatives first nationalised them and the present terrible Government are privatising them. All that enterprise came from Birmingham. Those are the ironies of history that we must remember. Birmingham is a city based on municipal enterprise. That is why the NEC has been successful. It is also why we are promoting the Olympic bid. We went all over the world and attracted great attention.
Ms. Short: It failed.
Mr. Howell: It did not fail. We just did not secure sufficient votes to get it on the last occasion. It is clear that my hon. Friend does not appreciate that the Olympic bid is responsible for massive investment in the city of Birmingham. There are people building hotels now in Birmingham and wanting to establish businesses there

273
who say frankly to me, "Until we saw you going round the world selling your city, we were unaware of the city's attractions." Efforts of that type are cumulative.
Mr. Bob Clay: I was wondering whether the city had an economic development department. It seems odd that one has to have Olympic bids. After all, we cannot all do that. Perhaps Sunderland should have an Olympic bid if my right hon. Friend thinks that that is the only way to get investment.
Mr. Howell: I wish that we could have more intelligent interruptions. It should be obvious that our Olympic bid is just one of many ways to go about achieving the object that we had in mind. Other cities will adopt different methods. Sheffield is going for the world student games—and good luck to that city in its efforts.
Mr. Rooker: Sheffield is not going for them—it has got them.
Mr. Howell: That city will promote them. Perhaps we can now have some sense in this debate.
Mr. Michael Jack: The right hon. Gentleman referred to municipal Socialism. Perhaps for the same virtues that he claimed for that argument, he will acknowledge that Budapest in Hungary and Moscow bid for grand prix to attract attention to their respective cities.
Mr. Howell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I have been to the Budapest grand prix and seen the effect that it has had on that country. It has been enormously successful, and all credit to the organisers.
While on the subject of declaring interests, I have been to the Birmingham road race, but not as a guest of Birmingham city council. I hope that that satisfies my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr. I saw many of his councillors in the hospitality suite, but I am glad to say that I did not have a drink there. I do not think that my hon. Friend had a drink there either.
Mr. Rooker: My right hon. Friend is making disparaging remarks about members of the city council.
Mr. Howell: I am not.
Mr. Rooker: By referring to it in a perjorative way—[Interruption.] I am simply saying that we are making law. There are beneficial interests involved in the result of this legislation. They have been enjoyed by some hon. Members, who no doubt will enjoy them in the future. The point of my earlier argument was that we should make it clear to the ratepayers of Birmingham, who pay for the free tickets, that they should know that we know that, and that when we are making law we should say, "Thank you very much—the hospitality and free tickets are fine." There was nothing disparaging in what I said. I assure my right hon. Friend that the city councillors are a totally different kettle of fish.
Mr. Howell: There is nothing disparaging about accepting hospitality.
Mr. Rooker: It was the way in which my right hon. Friend expressed himself.
Mr. Howell: I was simply drawing attention to the fact that people were enjoying hospitality. My hon. Friend interrupted me as I was about to say that there was nothing wrong with that. It is sensible and reasonable to do it, and it happens to all of us from time to time. I mentioned it only because my hon. Friend asked us all to declare our interests. I was declaring mine.
Ms. Short: As my right hon. Friend was chair of the Birmingham catering committee, he will be aware that that department is now going through a redundancy exercise. Is he further aware that that department contributed £28,000 to free hospitality—free booze and food—for VIPs? I thought that that was wrong. Did my right hon. Friend think that it was wrong?
Mr. Howell: I was not aware of it, and I doubt whether it is accurate.
Ms. Short: I have the figures with me.
Mr. Howell: I accept that my hon. Friend has the figures, but I do not know whether the catering department, of its own volition, was providing the hospitality or whether it was performing a service.
Ms. Short: It did it of its own volition.
Mr. Howell: In that case, it was not providing it[Interruption.] It may have spent £28,000 on food, drink and so on, but it must have been doing it as part of a service that it was paid to provide. I assume that that was the position. Catering departments are paid to provide services as the basis of their existence, but I will gladly look at the figures that my hon. Friend says that she has.
Mr. Rooker: It gets an income.
Mr. Howell: Yes, the department gets an income, which derives from various sources. I would be ruled out of order if I were to reflect on where we got the income when I was chairman of the catering department. It came from a variety of sources. By law it must make a profit, and it always managed to do that when I was chairman.
Mr. Terry Davis: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is anxious to have the correct figures. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) may inadvertently have underestimated the amount charged for hospitality. Price Waterhouse insisted that the city council include in its road race account an amount for 1986 of £45,515 for hospitality for guests, a sum that had previously been charged elsewhere in the council's accounts. In other words, the city treasurer wanted to charge it somewhere else and Price Waterhouse insisted that that would not be right.
Mr. Howell: I am glad that was the position because it enabled my hon. Friend to make that intervention.
Mr. Davis: Really!
Mr. Rooker: What is £45,000, anyway?
Mr. Howell: I will not be sidetracked by my hon. Friends.
Mr. Rooker: What about the teachers?
Mr. Howell: This has nothing to do with teachers, as my hon. Friend knows. I will come shortly to the main points that he and other hon. Members made. I wish to move

275
from the attractions of the Olympic bid to the question of the national indoor stadium which we are about to build in Birmingham.
I have not the slightest doubt at all that in the case of the national indoor stadium—this country does not have one—there will be a lot of objectors, but again, it is a piece of municipal enterprise which is in the interests of the nation. We hope that it will make a profit. Nobody can guarantee at the moment that it will, but it will do so if it is properly run, like the new national convention centre with 10 halls that we are also building, including hall number two—
Ms. Clare Short: And the costs are overshooting year by year.
Mr. Howell: It is a good thing. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood not want to attract people to Birmingham? Does she not want to get business into the city? Does she not want to do anything for the people of Birmingham?
Ms. Short: Certainly I do.
Mr. Terry Davis: What does this have to do with the road race?
Mr. Howell: It has everything to do with the road race. It is all part of the same strategy: that is my whole point. We are selling Birmingham worldwide by these wonderful concepts. I am sorry that my hon. Friends cannot be big enough, even if they disagree, to understand the underlying philosophy that is supported by the people of Birmingham. We have had figures to show whether the people were behind it. The city conducted another survey after two road races and there is still a majority in the area concerned in favour of the road race. That was shown by the public opinion exercise conducted this year.
This leads me to another point. I respect the right of all my hon. Friends to criticise the Bill, but I believe that the local electors are best left to choose local councillors to run the city. I am glad to say that, in the two years that the road race has been run, the electors of Birmingham have held faith with the Labour group in Birmingham. I am sorry that my hon. Friends are rather more contemptuous of that local democracy than I would wish.
Mr. Rooker: Of course there is a split. My right hon. Friend is quite right that local people are the people to elect the local authority, and the local authority is best placed in all circumstances to govern the area concerned from a strategic and technical point of view. But that does not give the local authority the right to come to Parliament and demand that we rubber-stamp its legislation. That is the point that my right hon. Friend has not taken on board. Nor has it a right to breach undertakings given in this place in good faith and accepted in good faith. No authority whether it be our local authority or any other, has the right to expect that of the House. If my right hon. Friend is not seized of that point he is not really entering into the debate that is going on here at the moment.
Mr. Howell: I am very seized of the point and I am coming to it very shortly. I do not know why I keep on giving way, but I try to be courteous.
I was concluding my opening argument about the philosophy and strategy on which Birmingham's enterprise is based. I had conceded that my hon. Friend the member for Perry Barr and anybody else was entitled to
276
question the Bill, but I object to my hon. Friends objecting to the Bill in a way which suggests that their wisdom on these matters is superior to that of the elected representatives. That is what is happening—my hon. Friends are saying that, so far as the Bill is concerned, they know better than the Labour councillors in Birmingham.
Mr. Rooker: Who are split.
Mr. Howell: They may be split. We are split, too. If I may say so with great respect, my hon. Friend must not talk of politics in those rather juvenile terms. We are always split. I am against uniformity. The council was split when I was on it. The Labour group was split then, and we are split here. The Labour party is split. If we were not, half my hon. Friends would not be sitting here.
We must have regard to the facts of life. Of course we have different points of view, but I am entitled to put my point of view, which is that I am very sorry that in opposing the Bill my hon. Friends are not doing so entirely on the principles of the Bill but rather in the belief that their wisdom is superior to that of the elected members of the city council.
Ms. Short: That is absolutely wrong.
Mr. Howell: That is my interpretation of what my hon. Friends are doing.
Mr. Rooker: What about the arithmetic?
Mr. Howell: I will move on to the accountancy matters that my hon. Friends want us to discuss. I hope that my hon. Friends will listen carefully as the first thing that I have to say to them is that if they kill the Bill tonight, as is their intention—
Mr. Rooker: Here comes the blackmail.
Mr. Howell: I am about to make an unexceptionable statement of fact. It is certainly not blackmail.
Ms. Short: Yes, it is.
Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend has not even heard it yet.
Ms. Short: We know what you are going to say.
Mr. Howell: What am I going to say?
Mr. Rooker rose—
Mr. Howell: I am not giving way.
Ms. Short: Will my right hon. Friend give way.
Mr. Howell: No, I am not giving way.
Mr. Rooker: We know what you are going to say.
Mr. Howell: What I am going to say is that if my hon. Friends kill the Bill tonight they will leave the city with no income from the road race.
Mr. Rooker: And a loss of £132,000 a year.
Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend. That makes his attitude more extraordinary. We shall be left to pay debt charges of £135,000 per year for 20 years or more.
My hon. Friends have asked us all to be honest, so when they get the chance they will presumably stand up and say, "We want to saddle Birmingham with debt charges of £135,000 per year for 20 years, and no income—that is what we want to do with our vote tonight." My hon. Friends, if they are honest, will say, "We want the

277
people of Birmingham to be saddled with this great debt." I do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nor do we."] I am pointing out what will happen if the Bill is killed. We are all responsible for the consequences of our actions.
Ms. Short rose—
Mr. Howell: I will give way for the last time, because I respect my hon. Friend.
Ms. Short: If we succeed in killing the Bill today, as is our intention, wish and hope on behalf of the citizens of Birmingham, the power to run a two-day road race in Birmingham will remain. The barriers that were bought with the money to which my right hon. Friend refers will continue to be used for the two-day event, so the blackmail that has already been used on us is dishonest. I do not accuse my right hon. Friend of being dishonest, but the two-day event can continue and the barriers can continue to be used. Killing the Bill will not close down the two-day event.
Mr. Howell: I am sorry to say that I disagree with that.
Mr. Rooker: The Bill will not affect it.
Mr. Howell: I am pointing out my interpretation, just as my hon. Friends are entitled to do. My hon. Friends do not want the proposals contained in the Bill.
The promoters say that the proposals in the Bill are essential for the future of the road race. The logical conclusion of that is that my hon. Friends do not want the Bill to be carried forward on the conditions which the promoters tell us are essential.
Ms. Short: They are not telling the truth.
Mr. Howell: I wish that people would not make such interventions. It is not my experience that officers and leading members of Birmingham city council tell lies. They do not. I advise my hon. Friends that, outside the Chamber, they had better not make the kind of comments about officials that they have made inside it tonight. That is rather sad.
The trouble with my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill is that he has been hoist with his own petard. My hon. Friends the Members for Perry Bar and for Hodge Hill insisted on section 3 and the old clause that is now section 14 being placed in the Bill. Once they were in, the city auditors, Queen's counsel consulted by the city and the Audit Commission responsible, said that the accounts had to be made up in that way. They all offered that opinion and the point at issue—
Mr. Terry Davis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howell: No, I will not give way for the moment because I am developing this point in answer to my hon. Friend's question.
Price Waterhouse, the Queen's counsel and the Audit Commission all said that in accordance with the Bill and section 14, which was forced on the Bill by my two hon. Friends who are now objecting—
Mr. Rooker: It was willingly accepted.
Mr. Howell: Under those terms, the city council had to produce these accounts on the basis of creative accounting. It had to account for the amount of income in the Bill that
278
could be properly assigned to promotional effects. The city council then had to employ another consultant to assess the benefit of the road race.
Mr. Davis rose—
Mr. Howell: I will give way in a moment.
It went to the firm of Alan Pascoe and his associates, who have considerable experience in sports promotion. They were asked to advise the city on the beneficial effects of sponsorship of the road race for the promotion of Birmingham. That is where the figure of £600,000 comes in. My hon. Friends are continually saying that it is a subsidy, but it is not.
Mr. Davis: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howell: I will give way in due course.
Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend is misleading the House.
Mr. Howell: I am not misleading the House—I am trying to correct what was said earlier. We are approaching the Division and I have a good deal more to say.
Mr. Davis: Will my right hon. Friend give way on this point? He has said that the council had no choice—that it had to credit the account—but that is not true.
Mr. Howell: All right, I will give way once more.
Mr. Davis: My right hon. Friend has told the House that three bodies told the city council that it had to credit the road race account with an amount for the promotion of tourism. He said that the council had no choice—that it had to do that. Those were his words, as Hansard will show.
I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the actual words used by leading counsel. My right hon. Friend said that the auditors, the Audit Commission and leading counsel told the council that it had no alternative. On being asked by the council whether it could credit the road race account—not whether it must, but whether it could—leading counsel said:
"A credit may be carried to the motor race account."
He did not say that it had to be carried. The council could credit the account if it wished, and it did wish.
Mr. Howell: I am afraid that I do not agree with my hon. Friend's interpretation. His entire speech was based on the city council's having behaved improperly. He has now quoted a QC's opinion that the council was behaving perfectly properly. We are quibbling only about whether it ought to credit the account or whether it may credit it. My hon. Friend has shot himself in the foot. I accept the wording that he quoted, but what the QC said was, "You may do it," and Price Waterhouse had already said that it should.
What is more important than what was said by Price Waterhouse or the QC is the fact that the Audit Commission said that the accounts had been properly conducted, and signed them. Those accounts have been audited and accepted by the Audit Commission. I advise my hon. Friends not to go around saying that there is anything improper about accounts that have been challenged and checked by auditors, the Audit Commission and Queen's counsel.

279
The race, moreover, is making a profit. The costs for the city in 1986 were £1,530,000 and the income £898,000, so in that first year the race made a loss. In the second year, 1987, the costs were £1,561,000 and the income £1,222,000. Last year, 1988, the costs were £1,215,000 and the income £1,215,000. The race has broken even in three years. That should be a cause for general rejoicing, and I am sorry that it is not.
The accumulated profit, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has said, is now £469,000. That is the profit that my hon. Friends wish to destroy, but I do not wish to destroy it. Even if we take into account the £600,000 contribution for promotional purposes, of which my hon. Friends do not approve, the profit on the race this year will be £550,000. We are talking about £50,000 even if we allow their figures, which I dispute. On the clear evidence of the best cost accounting procedures, after three years the race is already beginning to become profitable. The elected city council supports the race and the MORI poll shows that the majority of those living in the area are in favour of it. I believe that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading and I am sorry to have heard such jaundiced objections to it.
9.44 pm
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: I am proud to disclose that I am an adviser to the BSG group which includes Autolease, which has been described as the largest car dealer in the world. The company is based in my constituency, employs hundreds of Brummies, produces employment and motor cars everywhere and backs the commodities that go into the car race. I am also involved with PPG Industries which is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), which employs hundreds of people and provides the paint finishes for most of the world's motor car manufacturers offered to bring the lead car from the Indianapolis to the car race in Birmingham, though this offer was not taken up.
I am extraordinarily pleased to disclose those interests because I believe that Birmingham needs the business that those fine firms generates, because otherwise there would be no profits on which to pay taxes or for us to debate in the House. There would be no money to allocate. The car race is an expression of what I believe is good for Birmingham. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The right hon. Member for Small Heath made an excellent speech. He has always been a good Brummy and has promoted what is good for the city. I wish that his hon. Friends would take more notice of him.
I was elected to Birmingham city council some 30 years ago and I voted in favour of the car race at least 20 years ago when it first cropped up. At that time, the present leader of the majority Labour party in Birmingham, Councillor Dick Knowles, made an excellent speech in which he said that the car race will be like the Brummy, brash, noisy and boisterous, but nevertheless warm and welcoming. The car race has been welcomed by citizens and businesses in Birmingham and they want it perpetuated.
Prior to the promotion by the city council in 1985, a survey showed that 82 per cent. of respondents voted in favour of holding motor racing in the city and only 18 per
280
cent. voted against. In January, a survey on the proposed amendment to the 1985 Act revealed that 76 per cent. of respondents thought that the motor race was good for Birmingham, bringing publicity and employment; 75 per cent. of respondents thought that the motor race was likely to improve the image of Birmingham in other parts of the country and abroad; and 58 per cent. of the respondents would not object to extending the race for three days, although 42 per cent. were against. Opposition to a four-day race amounted to 48 per cent. but there was a majority in favour of the extension of 52 per cent.
However, those figures take no note whatsoever of firms that are not enfranchised and cannot vote—the firms in the city of Birmingham which employ so many constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House representing Birmingham constituencies. They are involved primarily with the motor components industry and would have voted in favour of the car race had they had the opportunity to vote. Birmingham is still a substantial home for the car manufacturing business, as is the west midlands generally. Those are some of the facts. The motor race is backed by firms and by the people.
In the 1970s and the early 1980s, during the regrettable economic recession which occurred in my city, the traditional industries diminished to a large extent. Without the implementation of service sector industries such as the leisure industry, including the car race and tourism, we would have suffered grievously. Some £500 million is now earned by tourism, including the car race, in the midlands. In the broadcloth of the country, the industry has employed up to 50,000 people each year. It brings about 16 million tourists to this country and we are told that almost 17 million may come here next year.
Ms. Short: The road race is bringing in those people?
Mr. Bevan: No, tourism, of which the road race is an integral part, brings in those numbers. About £15 billion comes in from tourism and helps to pay wages costs generally.
One of the wards in my constituency is near the national exhibition centre, which the right hon. Member for Small Heath has so eloquently described. The unemployment rate there is almost 6 per cent. less than in the wards that are further away. That is a direct result of the national exhibition centre, and together with the convention centre, into which £136 million is being invested, it will make Birmingham a tourist centre of immense interest. The road race is becoming a vital and axiomatic part not only of tourism, but of the success of industery generally and the motor industry specifically.
I was asked to say how much hospitality I have received. I do not drink and I do not smoke, but firms in my constituency, and many others, have hospitality tents in which they rightly entertain clients. I have had many a cup of tea and a plate or two of food, and there is no shame in that. The motor race brings kudos to Birmingham, and without the income that tourism earns, wages would not be available with which to pay bills. With those words, which I hope will be noted well, I rest my case for supporting the Bill.
9.53 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am grateful for being called and I am glad that you are back in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, because you have missed an

281
interesting half Second Reading debate. I am the fifth hon. Member to speak, not counting the Minister, who was extremely neutral, spoke for about three minutes, did not give the Government's view and did not take interventions. I was rude to him, and for that I apologise.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I did not declare my interest. I bought a cup of orange juice at Birmingham international station today.
Mr. Rooker: The debate today has not been balanced. There is a case to be made for the Bill and a case against it. There is a case for substantial and serious amendment to the Bill, and until I was called, only my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) had the opportunity to present that case. In the seven minutes remaining, I cannot make the case properly. However, I must make it clear that we want the Bill to be debated as fully as possible. As with the previous Bill, the reason that we tabled our motion is our prime concern about the finances, which are at the root of the difficulties.
We saw a bottomless pit opening up with the finances and that was why the House, with agreement from hon. Members of all parties and on both sides of the argument, sought to regulate the finances in the Birmingham City Council Act 1985. It is because the regulations that this House wrote into the statute have not been followed that, with our humble non-accountant, non-legal opinion—the arithmetic is on our side—we tabled the instruction; that is partly why we wish to make a detailed case about why the Committee that considers the Bill should amend it in line with our instruction.
Ms. Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because, as he knows, the road race runs through my constituency and it looks as though I will not get an opportunity to speak in the debate. My hon. Friend knows that I agree with him about the financial objection and that I share his criticism.
I should like to put it on the record briefly that the people who live in the area cannot bear the thought of a four-day event with all the attendant noise and inconvenience, and those people are entitled to have their views respected. Even the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Bevan), who spoke in favour of the Bill, recognised that his poll showed that a majority in the area is opposed to the race. That is a second and important criticism—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] Yes, he did. He said that only 48 per cent. were in favour.
Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I wish that she could deploy her case on behalf of her constituents who are directly affected.
At the outset, I should declare an interest, because I attended the 1987 road race. Unlike my hon. Friends who have signed the instruction, I made it my business to ensure that I was in the city in 1987, so that I could witness the road race at first hand. Although I did not expect the matter to come before the House so soon, if it did, I wanted the experience of having walked the circuit and seen what happens.
I had a personal report from the police afterwards about the conduct around the circuit and around the pubs. I have never had to take any action on the report, because the road race was a peaceful occasion. I paid for the two
282
tickets that I was offered, although there was a bit of an altercation when the officials said, "Mr. Rooker, there is no account for us to pay guests' money into." I said, "Well, the city of Birmingham rates fund will do for me." I paid for the tickets, but I did not contribute towards my lunch, and to that I extent I have an interest to declare.
I turn now to the point made by the hon. Member for Yardley, before he addressed the key financial aspects. Of course, my hon. Friends and I are all on the side of our city. Most of us were actually born there and are proud of it. Nobody who visits Birmingham today can deny that there has been a sea change in the past decade. There is a buzz and a hum in many parts of the city. However, at the same time there is also massive poverty, to the extent that the city council is setting up an anti-poverty programme, which is supported right across the city council. That is something that the council has never had to do or thought that it had to do before. It is important to note that point. It is no good saying that things are all black or all white or that they are all good or all bad, because there is no doubt that there has been a sea change.
I agree with most of the examples given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who mentioned the national exhibition centre and the Olympic bid. However, the difference, which he did not seem to grasp, is that all those things give the citizens of Birmingham capital assets, whereas the road race accounts give them a revenue plughole down which hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money are being poured at present and down which it is planned to pour even more in the future. It is no good my right hon. Friend denying that, because, as a percentage, more people in his constituency will be losers under the poll tax than in any other Birmingham constituency. When the losses of the road race start to be taken into account for the rate support grant—or the revenue support grant as it will be known under the poll tax legislation—the citizens of Birmingham will be doubly penalised.
I want to follow up one brief point about motor racing that was made by the hon. Member for Yardley. Of course there is a massive spin-off from motor racing. Most of the motor racing circuits of the world are dominated by British designers and British drivers. However, I have often wondered, how come the car factories in this country are not making racing motor cars? We cannot sell the motor cars we are making on the scale that we should be able to sell them if it was true that there is a fantastic and direct spin-off which clearly there is not. It is no good saying that, if there is lots of racing, we can make lots of cars, because it does not work like that. Therefore, there is a case to be made for—
Mr. Roger King rose in his place and claimed to move, That the question be now put.
Question put, That the question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Ms. Short(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The promoter of this Bill spoke for an hour. This road race take place in my constituency and my constituents have strong views about it. I have been here for every minute of the debate and I have not been given a chance to speak. I do not believe that it is right to allow a closure when a debate has been conducted in such a way.

283
The promoter of the Bill took a long time hogging the debate and you, Mr. Speaker, have only allowed one speech against the Bill.
Mr. Speaker: I have to take into account the amount of time spent on this debate. I have to say that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) spoke for 44 minutes. There have been some very long speeches.
Ms. Short: What about my constituents?
Mr. Speaker: I know, but the point is that two and a half hours have been spent on this matter and it is not the end of it. It is for the House to decide whether the Bill should be closured or not.
The House having divided: Ayes 153, Noes 30.

Division No. 163]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Gregory, Conal

Alexander, Richard

Hanley, Jeremy

Alton, David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Amos, Alan

Harris, David

Arbuthnot, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Heddle, John

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Atkinson, David

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

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Baldry, Tony

Howells, Geraint

Beith, A. J.

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Bellingham, Henry

Irvine, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jack, Michael

Benyon, W.

Janman, Tim

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Johnston, Sir Russell

Bottomley, Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Key, Robert

Bowis, John

Kilfedder, James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Brazier, Julian

Kirkwood, Archy

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

Knapman, Roger

Browne, John (Winchester)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Knowles, Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

Knox, David

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Lang, Ian

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Lawrence, Ivan

Carrington, Matthew

Lee, John (Pendle)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Lightbown, David

Chapman, Sydney

Lilley, Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Conway, Derek

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Maclean, David

Critchley, Julian

McLoughlin, Patrick

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Mans, Keith

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

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maude, Hon Francis

Day, Stephen

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Dorrell, Stephen

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Miller, Sir Hal

Durant, Tony

Mills, Iain

Favell, Tony

Moate, Roger

Fearn, Ronald

Moss, Malcolm

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Neale, Gerrard

Forman, Nigel

Needham, Richard

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Neubert, Michael

Forth, Eric

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholls, Patrick

Fox, Sir Marcus

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Fraser, John

Norris, Steve

Fry, Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Paice, James

Gill, Christopher

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Golding, Mrs Llin

Porter, David (Waveney)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Portillo, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Raffan, Keith

284

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Thurnham, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Trippier, David

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shaw, David (Dover)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Shersby, Michael

Wallace, James

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Watts, John

Speed, Keith

Widdecombe, Ann

Steel, Rt Hon David

Wilshire, David

Stern, Michael

Wilson, Brian

Stevens, Lewis

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wood, Timothy

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Summerson, Hugo

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan and

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves.

Thorne, Neil

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Loyden, Eddie

Buckley, George J.

McNamara, Kevin

Clay, Bob

Pike, Peter L.

Corbett, Robin

Redmond, Martin

Dalyell, Tam

Rooker, Jeff

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

Short, Clare

Dixon, Don

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Spearing, Nigel

Fisher, Mark

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Vaz, Keith

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Haynes, Frank

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Tellers for the Noes:

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 24.

Division No. 164]

[10.11 pm

AYES

Aitken, Jonathan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Alexander, Richard

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alton, David

Cope, Rt Hon John

Amos, Alan

Corbett, Robin

Arbuthnot, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Atkinson, David

Day, Stephen

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dorrell, Stephen

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Beith, A. J.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bellingham, Henry

Durant, Tony

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Favell, Tony

Benyon, W.

Fearn, Ronald

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Forth, Eric

Bowis, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Fraser, John

Brazier, Julian

Fry, Peter

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

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Browne, John (Winchester)

Gill, Christopher

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Golding, Mrs Llin

Budgen, Nicholas

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Burns, Simon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Gregory, Conal

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Harris, David

Chapman, Sydney

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Conway, Derek

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

285

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Maude, Hon Francis

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Howells, Geraint

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Miller, Sir Hal

Irvine, Michael

Mills, Iain

Jack, Michael

Moate, Roger

Jackson, Robert

Moss, Malcolm

Janman, Tim

Needham, Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Neubert, Michael

Johnston, Sir Russell

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Nicholls, Patrick

Key, Robert

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Kilfedder, James

Norris, Steve

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Kirkwood, Archy

Paice, James

Knapman, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Portillo, Michael

Knowles, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Knox, David

Rhodes James, Robert

Lang, Ian

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lawrence, Ivan

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lightbown, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shersby, Michael

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Maclean, David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Speed, Keith

Mans, Keith

Steel, Rt Hon David

286

Stern, Michael

Wallace, James

Stevens, Lewis

Waller, Gary

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Watts, John

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Summerson, Hugo

Wilshire, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wood, Timothy

Thorne, Neil

Thurnham, Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan and

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves.

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Pike, Peter L.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Clay, Bob

Redmond, Martin

Dalyell, Tam

Rooker, Jeff

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

Short, Clare

Fisher, Mark

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Spearing, Nigel

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Vaz, Keith

Henderson, Doug

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Tellers for the Noes:

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Mr. Bob Cryer and

Loyden, Eddie

Mr. Dennis Skinner.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time and committed.

Single European Market
10.23 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9756/88 on completing the Single Market and 10413/88 on technical standards and regulations; recognises that the Single Market will bring important opportunities and challenges for business and benefits for the consumer; welcomes progress to date on the Single Market and endorses the Government's strong commitment to completing it; and welcomes the Government's campaign to encourage United Kingdom business to prepare now for the Single Market.
Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).
Mr. Maude: A year ago today, the Department of Trade and Industry launched its single market campaign. Its purpose was to alert business to the opportunities and challenges of the single market. We set ourselves then the target of achieving 90 per cent. awareness of the single market by the end of last year. We met that target well ahead of schedule, and now 50 per cent. of British business is taking action to prepare, recognising that the single market is already becoming a reality.
The need for this campaign is demonstrated by the progress report that we are debating tonight. The Commission was required to produce the report by article 8b of the treaty. It welcomes achievements to date in such areas as standards, financial services, capital movements, public procurement and professional qualifications. It also calls for faster progress in areas such as plant and animal health, taxation and frontier controls, and it stresses the importance of sustaining a rapid rate of progress.
The second report concerns the operation of directive 83/189, which is about preventing the creation of new technical barriers to trade within the Community and encouraging the production of European standards.
The Cecchini report suggested that the single market could create a 4 to 5 per cent. increase in Community GDP and nearly 2 million new jobs. But those benefits will not happen automatically. They depend on removal of all non-tariff barriers. They depend on open markets and a liberal approach.
Mr. Bob Cryer: With the removal of the internal barriers, the textile industry fears that all the imports into the Common Market might come into the United Kingdom. That seems likely, in view of our huge balance of trade deficit in manufactured goods. Do the Government have any plans to ensure that there is a fair allocation of textile imports throughout all the member states, rather than allowing them to flood into the United Kingdom?
Mr. Maude: That matter will have to be sorted out in the negotiations on the multi-fibre arrangement which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, falls to be considered in the current GATT round.
We have shown here in Britain that deregulation, openness and competition are central to economic success. For Europe to succeed, it needs to follow the same approach, and we are winning the argument. The
288
completion of a real single market, which was, after all, what the EC was originally about, is unquestionably in the British interest.
On the few occasions on single market measures where we dissent from the majority, it is where we favour the more liberal, more European approach; while some of our partners, who may make more communautaire noises than we do, stand fast for narrow nationalistic protectionism.
But a recognition of the benefits of the free market approach is growing in Europe. Last year, the Council of Ministers agreed a resolution which reaffirmed our commitment to improving the climate for business. It recognised the importance of small and growing firms and the need to ensure that their enterprise and enthusiasm a re not strangled by red tape. It acknowledges
"that the development of the spirit of enterprise and the creation of new firms in the community must be encouraged".
It also acknowledges that existing legislation should be reviewed with a view to simplification. I stress that that resolution was a proposal by the European Commission which was supported unanimously by all 12 member states.
We can claim some credit for creating the climate of opinion in which such a resolution was possible. A few years ago, it would not have been. The same mere market-oriented approach is seen in the field of standards. Old-style harmonisation has gone—the days of regulating every aspect of every product. Under the new approach to standards, we simply set the essential requirements—for example, relating to health and safety.
The specialist standards bodies then draw up the detailed standards to help companies meet the requirements. That new flexibility has resulted in agreements covering, for example, machine safety, construction products and toy safety. In that and other areas, we are making such harmonisation as is necessary a liberalising process, rather than a repressive and regulatory one.
In the past 12 months, we have seen key agreements on, for example, the liberalisation of capital movements, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, the liberalisation of road haulage, and the opening up of public procurement markets. In air services, we are enjoying the benefits of liberalisation already, with new routes and lower fares.
Last Thursday, at the Internal Market Council, we reached agreement on a directive to remove barriers in trans-frontier broadcasting. Attempts by others to introduce rigid and protectionist provisions failed. The outcome is essentially flexible and liberal.
A priority for the future is financial services. We are discussing directives on banking, investment services and life assurance services.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Page 1 of the document on completing the single market says, in short, that completion of the internal market is the key not only to the Community's prosperity but to the Community's future. It is the key that will and must unlock the door. What is the Government's attitude to unlocking the door, and where will the unlocked door take us?
Mr. Maude: It is a somewhat cryptic phrase, but we agree entirely with the sentiment that the priority for the Community at the moment is completing the single market, and completing it in the sort of way that the

289
United Kingdom finds congenial. That is undoubtedly the key to unlocking a great deal of prosperity that is diverted into needless costs and restrictions.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that some people have found the key to the door in the Common Market? The Mafia has found a golden key and unlocked the door. When it shouted, "Open sesame!" It found £6,000 million behind the door. It is odd that the Minister should come here with a motion supported by the Prime Minister who only a few months ago was lecturing everybody at Bruges about the dangers of the Common Market. Yet she has signed a motion welcoming the single market, having guillotined the measure in the House. It is high time the Minister told us about the hypocrisy of the Government in trying to give the impression that they are against the Common Market when late at night, as on this occasion, they come along, with the payroll vote, to push a motion through.
Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman may find it remarkable, but it is possible to be in favour of some parts of a concept without finding it necessary to embrace warmly every aspect of everyone's view of it. It is possible to be against illegal fraud, as we are—more robustly perhaps than others in the Community—and still be in favour of the completion of the single market. The hon. Gentleman, with his detailed and expert knowledge of the subject, should know that allegations of fraud within the European Community, which we take extremely seriously, have nothing to do with the completion of the single market. The single market is about removing barriers to trade across Europe and nothing to do with providing funds.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: When he deals with the progress of the directive on machine safety, can the Minister give us any indication of how it will help free trade, particularly bearing in mind that it was considered by a Standing Committee for two minutes on 30 January, after it had already been agreed, and then passed by the House without a vote? As we know, it will add huge extra costs to the activities of small and medium industries. Can he tell me in what way that directive will further the interests of free trade in the Community?
Mr. Maude: It will do so by preventing those countries in Europe that might otherwise be minded to do so—in some instances they do so at the moment—from erecting bogus barriers to trade on the pretext of safety requirements. It will lay down that, if a machine meets the essential safety requirements set out in the directive, another country in Europe cannot prevent it from being marketed.
That is quintessentially what the single market is about. It is about preventing countries from erecting false barriers to trade on bogus pretexts. It will be effective in doing that. We have succeeded in achieving the bulk of our requirements. It is essentially a liberal directive, along the lines that we urged throughout. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw comfort from that. The suggestion that it will impose extra costs on small businesses is mistaken.
In respect of the financial services directive, our objective is to secure a sound framework of Community legislation that encourages competition and provides
290
equal access to European Community financial markets. We have had strong objections to the Commission's proposals on reciprocity in financial services. We would like to see them dropped altogether, but the Commission's revised proposals, published last Thursday, are a real improvement, although significant points of difficulty remain.
We shall continue to resist attempts to use the single market as a pretext for the erection of protectionist barriers against the rest of the world. Again, recent developments are encouraging. Both Heads of Government and the Commission have reaffirmed the need for open markets.
The Community, after all, lives by trade. A policy of "fortress Europe" is simply not credible. Indeed, it would undermine the benefits of more competition and greater consumer choice that the single market is designed to bring. There is also a social dimension to the single market. It is inseparable from the economic benefits of more jobs, more choice and greater prosperity.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: In addition to the excellent initiative and effort being put into developing business advantages for small and medium enterprises in Europe, adding to that the great advantages that will exist for businesses trading in Europe under the single market, many companies that will not choose to trade in Europe will nevertheless be fully affected by the single market and by added competition from Europe. Will my hon. Friend encourage companies, whether or not they choose to trade in Europe, to carry out a full 1992 audit to discover the advantages, and in some cases perhaps the added competition, that they will face following 1992?
Mr. Maude: We have stressed throughout the campaign that we have run that the single market will affect every business in the country and that whether a business is now trading, or might in the future trade, in Europe, it will be affected. To the same extent that the rest of Europe becomes part of our home market, we will become part of the wider European market, so it will become commensurately easier for continental firms to trade here. My hon. Friends point is correct, and I hope that it is widely understood.
Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Commission document entitled "The company approach to 1992", which expressly omits any reference to the United Kindom Parliament and its scrutiny process but refers to the scrutiny processes in other parts of the Community, such as the European Parliament and the Commission.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential not only that the scrutiny process in this Parliament is known at large, through documents published by the Commission—of which 50,000 have been distributed in this country—but that the Department of Trade and Industry should also make sure, as I understand that Department is about to do, that people know that this is the House to which Ministers and others are accountable and to which people are elected to represent their constituents?
Mr. Maude: We treat the process of scrutiny extremely seriously. The attention which my hon. Friend and his colleagues who sit on the European Legislation Select Committee devote to these measures is welcomed by the

291
Government. I hope that he appreciates the effort that we are making to bring these matters before the relevant Committees at an earlier stage in the negotiating process because the comments that the House makes are useful to us as we continue the process of negotiation.
I was referring to the social dimension of the single market and said it was inseparable from the economic benefits which would flow from the single market by way of more jobs, more choice and greater prosperity. We welcome measures which help to tackle the problem of unemployment—which is now greater throughout most of the rest of the Community than it is in this country—and measures which improve health and safety.
But there are those in the Community who want to impose new social legislation on us. One example is compulsory worker participation in the running of companies. We are not opposed to the involvement of employees and we have done a great deal to encourage it but the imposition of rigid systems on all companies in all countries is alien to all that the Community should stand for.
I am encouraged to know that I can rely on the support of many Opposition Members for the Government's robust hostility to those proposals. I note from the debate last week on weights and measures how strongly many of them object to the imposition of measures of purely domestic concern by the Community. I look forward to receiving, particularly from the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) robust support for our standpoint on this issue so that we may go forward on a bipartisan basis in opposing the imposition by others in the Community of alien measures.
Mr. Doug Henderson: What evidence has the Minister that the system of worker participation which has been established in West Germany has damaged the efficiency of the German economy?
Mr. Maude: I did not say that it had. All I said was that it is a system not welcomed by companies here. Many companies, and all successful companies, establish their own systems for employee participation, but they are systems agreed by those companies in circumstances which are appropriate for them; and systems which are deemed apropriate by the German domestic legislature for German companies are not necessarily those which are appropriate in this country. I hope that the hon. Member will agree with us in strongly resisting this imposition. I can assure the hon. Member for Bolsover that we have not sold the pass but are defending it strongly—and I look forward to his support for our doing so.
10.40 pm
Mr. Doug Henderson: I welcome the opportunity at this late hour to consider the progress towards the completion of the internal market and also to consider the procedure for the provision of information on technical standards, but I must point out, as have some of my colleagues previously, that this procedure is inadequate and that a short debate such as this gives us no proper opportunity to consider the very important matters before us. Parliamentary democracy requires parliamentary scrutiny and we cannot have that if decisions are already made before we come to the House. Parliamentary democracy cannot be guaranteed if
292
Ministers increasingly fail to make statements in the House on progress on specific proposals which are absolutely vital to our economy, as is now the case, and if other decisions in Europe are reached in private sessions, in private rooms, initially in the Commission and later in the Council of Ministers. We have an excellent example this week of discussions of this sort, which have been taking place on economic and monetary union.
I was interested to hear the commitment of the Under-Secretary of State to raising awareness in the country of the impact of the single market. I hope that all hon. Members will recognise that change must take place in a new, expanded market, and that our role in that market must change. Having said that, however, I believe that there is increasing anxiety about the Government's relationship with Europe. Is this anxiety not a direct reflection of the Government's own anxiety? And is that not itself caused by the Government's own failure to understand in time the true nature of the Single European Act—as I think some of the Minister's colleagues will point out later in the debate? Is it not also the case that the Government's belated recognition that 1992 means more than the free movement of City capital is something on which they did not originally reckon?
Montagu Norman, the legendary pre-war Governor of the Bank of England said that he employed economists to explain to him why he was right. It is obvious to most hon. Members that the Prime Minister must have consulted Montagu Norman's memoirs before she appointed Mr. Walters and her other advisers. It might be wise for the current Governor of the Bank of England to check h is economic textbooks this evening to see on whose advice he has drawn in his discussions in Europe in recent weeks.
Does not this confusion and misapprehension about the Single European Act explain the hectoring and the blustering on behalf of our nation in Bruges not many months ago? Has it not made the task of all of us, of industrialists and of business men, all the more difficult in closing what is undoubtedly our Euro-credibility gap? If we do not do that, will we be able convincingly to press for reform in the Community? I hope that all of us would reckon that such reform is vital to our interests.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am somewhat perplexed by the Labour party's policy after listening closely to that delphically obscure passage about governors, past and present, of the Bank of England. Is the Labour party policy to support the views of the present governor of the Bank of England on economic monetary union or has it come round to support the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? One way or another, the Labour party must now make its position clear.
Mr. Henderson: The views of the present Governor of the Bank of England are interesting. I am not sure that those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are as interesting. The Labour party's view is quite clear: we will consider greater monetary union in Europe when the time is right and we get an exchange rate with which our industry is able to compete in Europe. People who know about industry will realise that that is crucial.
Why have the Government belatedly understood what the single European market is about? We should hardly have expected the Government to agree with everything said by Mr. Delors, but we would have expected them to have a greater rapport with Chancellor Kohl. One can

293
imagine the horror in some of the back rooms of Victoria street last summer when it was heard that, in his Hanover speech, Chancellor Kohl said that he agreed with most of what Mr. Delors said about the importance of the social dimension. I was encouraged by the fact that the Under-Secretary of State said earlier that he had begun to understand the importance of that.
The Government have a number of important obligations in relation to the completion of the single market. They have an obligation to inform our own people, initiate change in Europe on our behalf, represent Britain's interests in Europe and, crucially, make changes in this country, which are necessary in preparation for 1992. It must be clear to the Department that we are the least well prepared for 1992 of the major EC countries.
It is right for the House, in this debate, to examine how the Government have discharged their responsibility.
Mr. Maude: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for that assertion?
Mr. Henderson: I am happy to refer the Under-Secretary of the Tyne and Wear chamber of commerce, which referred to an article in the Daily Mail—which I am sure the Under-Secretary has read. Ten major exporters in the United Kingdom were phoned up in French and asked if they could provide an order for the person making the call. Seven out of the 10 giggled at the switch board and the other three cut off the inquirer. When a similar inquiry was made in Germany and in France—in English—seven out of 10 in both cases understood the orders.
The noble Lord Young recently told industrialists that they should buy a ticket for Brussels. Surely, one has to know why one is going before travelling. I heard what the Under-Secretary said about the cost of air transport and liberalisation, but that has not done much to reduce the charge between there and London.
Writing in The Journal of Northern Business—which deals with the area that encourages Fujitsu and other companies—Lord Young says:
"DTI surveys show that, nationally, only around one firm in three has begun to prepare seriously for action"—
that was in January this year—
"and there is no evidence that companies in the North are any better prepared."
An article in Scottish Management Survey stated in February:
"The principal anxiety, however, arises from the lack of preparedness which the survey reveals in the approach of Scottish managers to the challenge of 1992 and the Single European Market. A third of the respondents simply say that the event is 'not important'."
There is more evidence from the CBI. In its survey of 200 companies, 31 per cent. said that they had made no preparation for 1992; 3 per cent. said that they had opened sales offices; 4 per cent. had managed to open agencies; and only 7 per cent. had introduced new language training. I do not think that that is good enough.
Mr. Maude: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that since January—a date to which he did not refer until it was drawn from him—the proportion of businesses that are preparing for 1992 has risen from one third to half.
Mr. Henderson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I shall be interested to hear the statistical basis for it in the morning.
Every dog has his day; does not every salesman have his? Is it not clear by now that the Secretary of State has failed in the preparation for 1992? He cannot even convince the friendly Institute of Directors of his case. Will the Under-Secretary now join his colleagues in expecting the boss to hang up his salesman's patter before it is hung up for him by his own boss? If the boss will not give assurances, as he cannot, will the Under-Secretary acknowledge that urgent action is needed if we are to inform and educate our business community? Does he recognise the danger of a hands-off attitude? Does he agree that an assessment by the Department of the likely impact in each industry is vital? I am sure that Miti in Japan would undertake such an assessment if it were in our position; indeed, it is undertaking one on behalf of Japanese companies.
Will the Under-Secretary make more resources available to co-ordinate the task through the DTI, as a matter of urgency? If he is somewhat weary of making commitments my colleagues and I may understand, although I am not sure that the business community will. I assure him that if he accedes to my requests it will not make him an interventionist; I am merely asking him to be an informationist.
Better information by itself is inadequate, however. The Government have an important obligation to engineer change in Europe. That is not only in Europe's interests; it is in ours. Europe cannot prosper as long as there is a great divide between the north and the south—or, more accurately, between the Bonn-Paris central axis and the most peripheral areas of southern Italy, Greece, Iberia, Ireland and, increasingly, many parts of the United Kingdom.
Some might argue that markets will resolve that division. Few in the Community seem to believe that, although there are some in Whitehall who do. Few believe that the poorer regions can achieve growth without strong regional policy, that skill levels can be raised without strong social policy or that infrastructure can be improved without intervention expenditure. Few in our textile industry, in regions already referred to, believe that they have any future without intervention in trade through the multifibre arrangement—and also intervention in this country to modernise plant and product and bring marketing to a standard that would allow it to compete principally in Europe. Few would argue that those objectives and others can be achieved without greater European public expenditure.
We should be taking the lead in those matters, in our own interests and in the interests of the Community. We should learn from others. We should learn from the Germans that public expenditure is worth while and can be justified to improve the private sector and that intervention is necessary if education standards are to be raised, training is to be improved and research and development is to reach the necessary standards. Perhaps then we would reach the standards of product development achieved by the Germans and take the lead in introducing some of the most important proposals, such as the three-way catalytic converter for vehicle exhausts, the new standards in ventilating equipment and the new environmentally safe batteries which will be a key issue in the coming months.

295
Perhaps it is possible to prosper without intervention domestically or with a social dimension in the EC, although I doubt that. But it is surely impossible for Britain to prepare for 1992 with such an overvalued currency. Industrialists throughout the country, including the CBI, tell us regularly that the one factor which destroys our ability to export is the exchange rate. Will the Government face up to the fact that it makes no sense for one of the weakest manufacturing nations in the EC to have one of the most overvalued currencies? That is a recipe for industrial devastation now, further problems in 1992 and even more severe difficulties if the proposals discussed by the governors of the European banks ever reach the political agenda.
The noble Lord Young may crawl to the recalcitrants in the Institute of Directors, saying that the abolition of exchange controls, the freeing of international road haulage or the freeing of non-life insurance shows that 1992 really means deregulation. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs will he wiser than that and will agree with the manufacturing industry in Britain and in Europe that intervention is necessary to secure common high-technical standards, the best product design, structural changes in industry and the highest standards of environmental protection and safety.
To date, only 108 of the 279 proposals have achieved a common position. We shall face difficult issues in future, such as animal and plant controls, fiscal change, border controls and the movement of people, which are all vital to our future. The challenge to Britain is to produce a European agenda, to take a lead in European standards, technical, material and moral, and to recognise that our macro-economic policies, particularly our exchange rate, is crucial in any European context. Our challenge is to acknowledge that if supply-side improvements do not happen autonomously in Europe, why should they happen autonomously in Britain. Our challenge is to realise that unless all those measures and others are taken, far from being a great opportunity, 1992 will be a great threat.
I hope that the debate will help to clarify the issues in the documents, but the Opposition cannot support the motion. I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will express their concern and join us in opposing the motion.
10.58 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: This is a very short debate on an important issue, and I shall say just a few words.
Everyone in the House tonight will probably agree that free trade in Europe would benefit the United Kingdom and Europe. Our massive balance of trade deficit with Europe suggests that free trade and the removal of artificial restraints and bureaucratic controls, particularly in Germany and to a lesser extent in France, would help us all. A real 1992, with free trade in Europe, would benefit us all. But we have to ask ourselves whether we are aiming for free trade, whether free trade will be achieved, and what is actually facing us.
What is happening? The Minister said that more and more people were aware of 1992. What worries me is that they are aware of something that is not going to happen at all. I can give many examples. I had the pleasure of attending a recent conference of the print industry and paper manufacturers. They were talking about 1992 and
296
the great opportunities of the new changes. I asked all 160 people, including company chairmen, managing directors and accountants, whether they knew of any proposal in the 1992 measures designed for printing or books. I said, "You are the people who know—I don't. You are the company chairmen and managing directors, and you have paid a lot of money to come to a great conference and everyone is delighted with it. Do you know of any proposal that will help your industry?" I did not receive one response, and I know of none, save the possible imposition of VAT on newspapers and books.
The Minister talked about insurance services. I am a director of an insurance company and I have been to lunch with people from many insurance companies. We hear constantly about the glorious new opportunities for insurance freedom in 1992, but I must ask the Minister what those opportunities are. I have read the directives with great care and we have studied them at board meetings, with experts submitting reports, but the only proposal for non-life insurance seems to be for a limited degree of freedom in what are known as large risks. That means that our company might have the opportunity to insure the Eiffel tower, if the French agreed. However, that freedom might not materialise, due to the rule put into the proposals by the Commission at the last minute to the effect that if a company can offer a suitable insurance service it can keep the other lot out. My insurance company—and two other leading insurance companies of which I am aware—thus came to the conclusion that there is no liberalisation in the proposals.
When one considers particular industries, it is nonsense to say, "Please prepare for 1992." Looking at the proposals, it is clear that free trade is not on the way. Sadly, the measures that we have considered to date have largely been matters of little significance. Sadly, too, there are major problems. Does my hon. Friend the Minister seriously think that we can have free trade in 1992 unless we sort out the inner German trade agreement? He will be well aware that the country with which we have the worst balance of payments deficit is Germany. He must be aware from reading Community documents that the position is disastrous.
In the reports about food aid, for example, we find that there were massive complaints last year about food contaminated by radioactivity, which apparently came from eastern Europe. My hon. Friend must be aware that trade is flowing in from East europe to East Germany and to West Germany under the inner German trade agreement. The only people who can control the trading conditions are the West German Government. We are all aware that trade is flowing from eastern Europe to Germany.
The Minister may think that that is a silly point, but let him go and speak to the textile industry or to the people working in the knitted goods industry. They have plenty of documents on the matter. I have one here from the Apparel, Knitting and Textile Alliance, which is clearly terrified that the alleged single European market will simply mean that east European goods will pour in. What can my hon. Friend do about that? We have put particular cases to him, but we are told that it is the German Government who determine that a certain percentage of value must be added before goods can come out of West Germany. What on earth can we do about that, and what is already being done?

297
I want to ask my hon. Friend about the interpretation and application of free trade. We have already had one or two minor free trade measures for which we should be delighted, such as one on buses. I appeal to my hon. Friend to come to Southend and ask people at the airport how they get on with the free trade in buses. The Minister should consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and his own Department. He will know that, although our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary met Mr. Genscher, although our right hon. Friend the Minister of State took proceedings, and although I took a group of Southend councillors to West Germany with the help of our ambassador in Bonn, sadly, nothing happened. Before the Minister goes ahead with more of this massive timetable, I plead with him when talking of the glorious opportunities to ask whether those opportunities really exist or are being planned.
I hope that the Government will also consider what other countries think about "fortress Europe". I was in America last week and met many people in business there. Some firms, such as Ford and Du Pont say, "Don't stir things up—we're in Europe and we want to make sure that we don't stir things up unnecessarily and bring out any anti-American feeling there." If the Minister were to talk to those engaged in trade, however, he would find that when they consider the proposals—there is some element of protectionism in all of them—they are concerned that the proposals seem specifically designed to try to keep out foreign trade. If the Minister has any doubts about that, he should talk to those who export computer chips because there are new proposals about the basis of organisation and about where research and development must come.
The Minister should also talk to the American banks. He will know that in America there is a system of national treatment whereby foreign banks have to have the same facilities and the same rights as United States banks. But that is not what "reciprocity" means, as my hon. Friend the Minister must be well aware. This is something entirely new, which will be protectionism in banking. If he doubts that, he should ask the Bank of America and its vice-president, Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Maude: I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the Commission's new proposals on reciprocity, which were issued on Thursday last week and which specifically refer to national treatment.
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend must be well aware that the document, which I have with me in this pile of documents, states that the question of reciprocity can be referred to the Commission for interpretation. We know that the Minister and the Common Market have, on a number of occasions, given many specific assurances. Does my hon. Friend recall Ministers coming to the House time and time again to say, for example, how delighted they were that in 1987 agricultural spending increased by only 3·7 per cent. but the Court of Auditors' report shows that that was achieved by accountancy fiddles and that the real figure was 24 per cent. If my hon. Friend doubts that, he should come to Southend and talk to our bus company.
Mr. Maude: I am not quite sure where my hon. Friend's last point takes us, as it seems to lead into a wholly different area. On his point about reciprocity, the Commission's new proposals specifically state that the
298
Commission would have powers to act against other countries' banks seeking authorisation in the Community only if they did not offer national treatment to EC banks seeking authorisation there. As I said, that point has met many of the existing anxieties, and although it does not meet all our concerns, it goes a considerable way towards doing so.
Mr. Taylor: 1 should be delighted if that were so, but on the basis of my discussions last week with American banks and on the basis of speeches made by them on the basis of what had been agreed, I can tell the Minister that they are still acutely concerned that when it comes to the assessment of reciprocity and the question of the national agreement, it is the Community as a whole that will be considered by the Commission, not individual member states. Am I right?
Mr. Maude: I stress again that the new proposals were only announced on Thursday, so the banks to which my hon. Friend properly spoke last week will not have been aware of this radically new set of proposals.
Mr. Taylor: I hope that the situation is indeed so dramatically changed, but my understanding was that the assessment of the national situation was on the basis of the group of Community countries as opposed to individual member states. I ask the Minister, what is the need for that in any event, and if it is not a problem, why is everybody so concerned about it? Let the Minister talk to the chairman of Millipore, who has said that trading with Europe is difficult now—but that after 1992 it will become much worse.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider another important point. What on earth will be the position of the rules being imposed on us, which will create massive problems? For example, how will this country benefit from the tax harmonisation to which he referred? I refer especially to the harmonisation of taxation on alcohol and tobacco, on which the Government claim that we still have a measure of unanimity although, as he well knows, the European Court can overturn that by taking action. If my hon. Friend doubts that, let him look back to the speeches by Labour Treasury Ministers at the time of the sixth directive, which stated that all our zero rates were safe—yet six have now been overturned by the European Court.
The Minister will be aware that the assessment of the Health Department, according to an answer given in Parliament on 18 May last year, was that if the proposals were implemented, the consumption of alcoholic beverages would be increased by between 10 and 35 per cent. and of tobacco by between 5 and 20 per cent. but, more importantly, that the Government would lose revenue of exactly £3 billion, which would have to be made up in other ways.
The Minister also said that the Mafia issue and fraud were completely apart from the issue of 1992 and free trading. He said that with conviction, as though it was absolutely clear. I appeal to him to contact Giovanni Falgone, Sicily's leading anti-Mafia magistrate, who said specifically in a speech, reported in the Financial Times on 24 February that one of the least desirable benefits of a European single market would be to facilitate the export of Mafia crime from Sicily under the guise of apparently respectable business operations.

299
My hon. Friend should not under-estimate the extent of Mafia involvement in the EEC. He will be aware that the House of Lords has said that about £100 million per week is being spent on fraud. He will know that I have repeatedly asked his Department and others what action was taken on the clear example of the 19 million lira paid to the Mafia by the EEC for the non-delivery of non-existent fruit juice to NATO headquarters in Palermo. I have asked that question year after year since it occurred and I have asked about many other examples, but nothing has happened and no information has been forthcoming. If my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that there is no connection between fraud and the Mafia, perhaps he will consult those who seem to specialise in the matter.
My real worry is that in the Council of Ministers we are not able to control matters easily. I should like to ask the Minister about the control of firearms and immigration. The Minister will know that there is a proposal shortly to come before the Council of Ministers about mutual recognition of firearm certificates, which would mean that I could obtain a gun—perhaps a kalashnikov—in Sicily or Greece and then come to London and wander around with it. I understand that the Government oppose that and believe that it will undermine their firearm controls and and basis of the open frontiers.
There is a dispute, because the Commission appears to take the view that that should be decided by a majority vote and the Government take the view that it should be decided by unanimity. I ask the Minister what precise powers we have in that connection. My understanding from previous such occurrences is that, unless the Members of the Council of Ministers unanimously decide to reject the advice of the Commission, there is effectively nothing that we can do about it, apart from seeking to go to the European Court, perhaps three years later, which would not achieve a great deal.
I believe that that point is also relevant to immigration. We shall take a strong view on immigrants from Hong Kong after we hand over the country to the Communist Chinese, but what about the situation of the nearby Portuguese colonies which are classified as the overseas territories of Portugal and places such as French Guiana, which are classified as overseas territory of France? I suggest that the relationship of open frontiers could have an adverse effect on us.
Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
Mr. Taylor: The main question is whether the Minister is really convinced that we are facing up to the real issue of free trade and not just going through a lot of silly nonsense on the various proposals that have come forward so far. I had the pleasure of having a long discussion with a civil servant, who had spent more than a year going backwards and forwards to and from Brussels engaged in the harmonisation of a proposal on clinical thermometers. His professional opinion was that there never had been any problem with clinical thermometers. I cannot see any problem that could emerge from clinical thermometers, but there was a real intention and a real need to get what was alleged to be a common standard.
When we consider the proposals for the noise levels of tower cranes, the regulations for the protection of hotels against fire, the recent modification of the lawn mower harmonisation of noise emission standards regulations and the hygiene conditions of fish—all of which I am sure
300
are important to fish, to lawn mowers and to power cranes—I wonder whether we are really making progress on the real issues of free trade.
If the Minister has any doubts about this, he should think about insurance and banking, which matter a great deal to us. He should consider the implementation of the proposals. Before the Government go ahead and spend a lot more money seeking to persuade businesses of the unique opportunities open to them from a single market, they should try to establish—to some reasonable satisfaction—that the single market is likely to be created.
Sadly, I believe that the single market will not happen, although I wish it would, as it would be good for British business. I believe that we shall simply burden ourselves with a pile of rather foolish bureaucratic measures. We shall not solve the true problems of the EEC, such as the common agricultural policy and inability to control finance. Although it would be grand to say that we are moving towards free trade, sadly I believe that we are simply moving more and more towards protectionism and towards high expenditure, instead of the kind of liberality and freedom that Conservatives would choose.
11.15 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) brings a great deal of information and the fruits of much inquiry to our debates. His logic, however, sometimes deserts him.
The hon. Gentleman has argued that 1992 will create a problem because holders of passports from Macao will be able to enter this country more easily after the abolition of border controls. The problem that the hon. Gentleman describes exists now. The border controls make no difference. The holder of a Portuguese passport issued in Macao is entitled to enter this country now. The disparity between the inhabitants of Macao and those of Hong Kong is of the Government's making and is not changed in any way by the arrival of 1992.
The hon. Gentleman argued that the progress towards the single market is almost non-existent, and he outlined a number of areas where the conditions are less than ideal. He then argued that 1992 will open up a vast range of new opportunities for the Mafia to clean up. The hon. Gentleman has ignored the fact that the single market does not involve the disbursement of funds, which is where fraud has occurred. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways—either the single market will make a difference or it will make no significant difference and therefore will not open up new opportunities for fraud.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, so I do not feel obliged to give way to him. I attempted to intervene earlier to make my point.
The fact that we are debating now, at great length, making a reality of the single market, is a criticism of how the Community has developed. The essence of the creation of the Community was that it should be a single market—that is why it was called the Common Market. Wider political, social and strategic functions were in the minds of the founders of the Community, with the Common Market as its base.
The immediate advantage derived from a large market comparable to that of the United States sold the idea of the Community to many people in Britain. That we should

301
have to set a target date to achieve some of the goals espoused at the Community's creation is a source of disappointment. Lord Cockfield, who is now in such bad odour with No. 10, played a large part in erecting 1992 as the target for achieving what should have been done years ago and thus to clear the way to free trade.
We often do not understand that the creation of common standards is necessary to bring down trade barriers. In that way, we will get away from the problem of another European country denying access to goods, on the grounds that they do not meet the required standard.
It is even more important to establish common standards now that concern about the environmental effects of products is so much greater. That concern has led to more and more necessary pressure for tighter standards. If those standards are not common throughout Europe, they will act as a restraint on trade. We might end up imposing conditions on our manufacturers which, desirable in themselves, may not have to be met by other European manufacturers. As a consequence, our manufacturers will suffer. It is of urgent importance that such common standards are achieved. In the course of achieving that goal, however, the Government have not killed the bogey of unnecessary harmonisation.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Given that this country sometimes has higher standards governing health, safety or consumer protection, it is particularly in our interests that such standards should be harmonised, since otherwise our producers will be undercut in any free trade area—of which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is in favour—by competition from the continent. That applies to manufacturing, where health, safety or environmental standards may be higher in this country, and also applies very much to financial services, a matter of legitimate concern to all parts of this House because it is a major British industry and one where we have very high standards of consumer protection, so it is particularly important that we are not undercut from the Continent by the lack of harmonisation.
Mr. Beith: I agree entirely with that view. It cuts both ways. Our standards are not always higher, whether one looks at some aspects of financial services or pollution standards in cars. We have not always been in the lead, but in some fields we are and have been, and we have a particular interest in ensuring that our standards are also required elsewhere.
Mr. Tim Janman: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Beith: I have just taken a rather long intervention, and I must make progress in what is a short debate. I know that other Members are seeking to take part.
I was about to say that the Government have not entirely killed off the bogey of unnecessary and pettifogging harmonisation in areas where it is not essential. A number of us were last week exchanging arguments with the Minister about goods which are not traded across the Community, buying 3 lb. of carrots or 5 lb of potatoes. When the Minister was saying earlier that this Government were pleased that harmonisation would not involve the imposition of legal restraints on matters
302
not relevant to trade across the Community, I think he rather overlooked our exchanges last week and the likelihood that shopkeepers will be prosecuted for simply giving customers what they want when they weigh out goods on the spot; petty and trifling things like that give the European Community a bad name and give the objective of a single market in which different standards do not intervene a particularly bad name.
I feel the same about much of the VAT harmonisation. I was a member of the Treasury Select Committee when it produced its report critical of the VAT harmonisation proposals because, again, they are not directly relevant to the trading of goods between countries. Goods bear VAT in one country at the level at which it is applied in that country, and it is not a distortion of the price of the imported product that it is charged VAT at the same rate as the domestically produced product. That is another area where there can be an unnecessary degree of harmonisation.
Mr. Janman: The hon. Gentleman talks about what is relevant to the market. Does he not agree that, when we are talking about a market within one member state or a market across western Europe, market forces will determine which goods and services, and therefore that the standards on which those goods and services are based, will win in the marketplace? One does not need Eurocrats and politicians to make decisions on what those standards should be. If the hon. Member believes in a genuine free market across Europe, yes, let us have the free movement of goods and services across national boundaries, but it should be up to the customer within that European market to decide which set of standards will prevail.
Mr. Beith: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is no, it is not possible to assume that the market will sort out standards when national Governments will impose differing standards across the Community. It is not sufficient to assume that the market can be left wide open to the exploitation of the consumers by the failure of producers to apply standards, particularly in matters not immediately apparent to the consumer, on quality, safety or matters which may not harm the consumer but may harm others when he uses the product, such as the emission standards in vehicles. So there are all sorts of reasons why Government action in these areas is necessary, and compelling reasons why that action should not be taken solely by national Governments, because if it is, it will produce different standards and restraint of trade.
There are other anxieties about 1992 and the single market, some of which we ought to be able to dispel. I was quite struck by an article which appeared in The Independent on Monday by Catherine Itzin and Corinne Sweet about pornography. They make the point quite clearly:
"EC deregulation in 1992 will open the UK market to European pornography."
I should be grateful if the Minister will comment on this in his reply. It does not seem to me that the existence of a single market will in any way remove the controls which we have in this country and in other countries on pornography and its distribution, and if it leaves any gap, we should do something about it.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Liberal party, which is the Euro-fanatic party par excellence. Does he not realise that imports cannot be

303
controlled without some scrutiny at borders? He referred to pornography, but the same argument can be applied to drugs. If we remove border controls, we remove scrutiny. We must consider illegal weapons and terrorists, but the Minister did not mention those matters, which are of great concern.
Mr. Beith: It is not true that there is no control over pornography, drugs or terrorism in the absence of border controls. A large proportion of the successful action taken against drugs is taken not by border controls, but occurs as a result of intervention within the country into which the drugs are brought. That occurs from tip-offs and detection work, not as a direct result of border controls. I am not aware of the balance in the case of pornography, but border control plays only a limited role in the detection of the passage of drugs.
Border controls do not stop criminals; they stop policemen and law enforcers. Who stops at the border? Not the person carrying the drugs. The police force stops at the border and must enter another jurisdiction and involve Interpol before it can take effective action across the borders. Criminals do not know these bounds. Where criminality is fuelled by vast sums of money, for example with drugs and pornography, borders are now of virtually no conseqence and are of little importance.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is correct to say that we should have more discussion about border controls and their relevance, not least with regard to entry to the Community as a whole. Much of what enters this country is making its first landfall in the Community. We could have a complicated debate about that.
Mr. Hanley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I want to make progress, because I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
The Government's motion refers to the Government's "strong commitment" to preparing for 1992. Where is that strong commitment with regard to the essential investment which will be required in 1992 if Britain is to compete in the single European market? Where is the commitment to investment in links from the north of England, Scotland and north Wales to the Channel tunnel? Ministers have appeared at meetings and said that that is a matter for British Rail.
There are major strategic decisions to be taken in areas where Governments most legitimately and necessarily are concerned. The French Government have no such inhibitions about involvement in ensuring that investment takes place in transport links to the Channel tunnel. Such investment is very important for industry in the north-east of England if it is to participate in the single European market. We clearly need a sign of the Government's commitment to the single European market in that area.
Where is the Government's commitment to the European monetary system and to the other monetary developments referred to in the report produced by the central bankers yesterday? The EMS is the most obvious first step. The Minister referred to the financial aspects of 1992, but he fails to recognise that industrialists want a stable and satisfactory exchange rate from 1992. Indeed, they want it sooner than that. They do not want to be at the mercy of a rapidly changing currency level or one that is prone to unrealistic valuation.
304
It is clear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer privately shares most of the views expressed by industry. Perhaps the Minister does as well; I do not know. He is not allowed to take that view, because the Prime Minister says that he cannot. The Government are divided on a fundamental issue of economic policy which has implications for this subject and for many others.
An historic statement was made tonight. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) announced from the Labour Front Bench that it was Labour party policy that Britain should join the European monetary system when the time is right. I feel that I must be right, because once again I find myself in disagreement with both the Conservative and the Labour parties, which are in agreement with each other. I think that that is a new development.
Mr. Henderson: Will the hon. Member accept my correction—that we would consider the matter of joining the EMS if the time were right?
Mr. Beith: Of course I accept the hon. Gentleman's clarification. Whereas the Government will join the European monetary system, when the time is right—and we all know that the time will not be right so long as the Prime Minister is in office—the Labour party will consider whether to join the European monetary system when the time is right. Whether the words "when the time is right" refer to the time to join or to the time to consider joining is a matter for further clarification, for which I will not press tonight.
These are all weasel words, designed to escape a fundamental disagreement that now appears to exist between those two parties as to whether we should join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. I submit that that should be in that mechanism. I know that that is the view of the Chancellor, and he is in a ludicrous position to be presiding as Chancellor when he cannot implement it.
11.31 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: What is the future of Europe in the eyes of the Government and the Opposition? The Liberal spokesman, too—the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—failed to tell us his idea of the future. The explanatory document contains what I call high-falutin language about
"the key that will … unlock the door."
Where will this door take us? Anybody who has been in the European Parliament knows that the door will take us to a federal Europe, a united states of Europe, a Europe in which national Parliaments have very little, if any, say.
The explanatory document says:
"we can stride confidently ahead into the new Europe which awaits us."
What is that new Europe?
Mr. Cash: It is not a federal Europe.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman does not know very much about the trends in Europe. He does not know about the President of the Commission. He does not know very much about the votes in the European Parliament. I advise him to take a look at some of those votes.
Let us have a look at the rest of this document. It says:
"we are all the guardians of the future of Europe. The people of Europe expect us to deliver. We must do no less."

305
What do they expect us to deliver? What are the Government telling the people of the United Kingdom they must deliver? The people of this country have a right to know. We have been told that we can make changes. The fact is that, when Europe makes up its mind, we can make no changes. When Europe has made a decision, this Parliament and all the other national Parliaments have to bow to it. That is the sad thing.
This document refers to a "truly European broadcasting area". It says:
"Such an area also involves freedom to broadcast, receive and transmit radio and television programmes".
Who will control that? It will not be controlled by Acts of this Parliament. That is the vision of the great Europe that is ahead.
When we come to the abolition of controls on persons at internal frontiers, we have a very serious situation. If the Commission approves a directive that a person is entitled to carry a firearm, and if someone gets a firearm, say, in Sicily, nobody at a country's frontier can prevent that person from entering or take the gun away.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) talked about the sort of scrutiny we are having tonight. We in Northern Ireland have suffered from that in our own legislation.
Orders in Council cannot be amended, and it is not possible to debate them properly. Now, in respect of Europe, we are into the same category of debate.
People should look very seriously at this matter. It is all very well to talk about a great, grand, new Europe and about doors opening. I should like to know what sort of Europe the Government envisage. What I have learnt from the European Parliament, from the European Commission's President, to whom I have talked, and from all the attitudes of Europe, is that they want a united states of Europe, in which they will govern, and we will be like a parish council with no real authority to govern our own country.
11.34 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I shall follow the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in some personal remarks in a few moments, but first, in my semi-official capacity, I want to refer to the scrutiny procedure.
The Minister said how seriously the Government treat scrutiny. I shall believe that when the time given for debates of this importance is more than that allocated to domestic statutory instruments by a Conservative Government in 1951, who kept the House up all night when such statutory instruments were open-ended. That is a measure of the procedural slippage on our domestic legislation. That our debates on these important matters are still limited to an hour and a half after 10 o'clock shows the concern that Her Majesty's Government have for such matters. It so happens that not many hon. Members are here tonight. That is not commensurate with the importance of the topic. If they were, three hours would be a better time.
I am rather disappointed with the report. It is the halfway stage in the creation of a single market, and document 9756/89 is supposed to tell us what has been happening. Instead of listing 279 documents in an appendix, as I thought it would, it looks ahead at what is
306
still to happen. We do not know how far things have got. There is no index tick sheet or list of where the documents have gone. We know that some have been adopted, some have been proposed and some are in the process of being discussed. There is no appendix to tell us how far that process has gone.
I now switch to a personal hat. I am afraid that Conservative Members are living in an area of unreality, despite the efforts of the noble Lord Young. We keep on referring to 1992. It is not then at all; it is now. It is by the end of 1992. The French refer to 1993, but it is happening now. If business men or Conservative Members want to know what is going on they had better have a look at the weekly reports of the Scrutiny Committee. I do not know how many Conservative Members read them or send them to their chambers of commerce weekly or whether those chambers of commerce buy them. We made 44 reports last year and there will probably be the same number this year. Anything up to 20 complex and detailed proposals and documents are reported on each week. That is what is going on.
Let me deal now with one or two definitions. The EEC is not just a free trade area. As we know, it is something far more. I shall telescope my remarks and my logic because this fills in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North was saying. With the abolition of frontiers, which is what the 1992 package is all about, the frontier is not definable. Until now we have thought of lorries and guns and most of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) made. But surely by definition a frontier marks a difference of jurisdiction—Britain, France, whatever it may be. We may not appreciate that, because if we go from here to Portugal we go to another jurisdiction via the sea. If the law is different from one side of the border to the other, the border exists. Ergo, the dissolution of frontiers means the dissolution of differences of jurisdiction and law. But over what area does that apply?
Recently I asked the Attorney-General to what areas of law the abolition of frontiers did not apply. I think that he said family and criminal law. There is hardly an aspect of life in Britain, whether commecial, industrial, specifications, standards of safety and all sorts of things, which cannot be within the scope of the single European market without frontier. Ergo, it means that our jurisdiction over these matters is ended—the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—and we are subject by and large to a superior jurisdiction, that of the combined institutions of the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. If any Conservative Member wishes to contest that, he is free to do so, but surely one follows from the other. That is what the Single European Act was about. That is why the Government, who want to listen to what we have to say now, did not want to listen in 1986 when the Act was railroaded through on a guillotine.
These debates, important though they are, are only advisory. The Minister can go and do what he does at Brussels at his peril. It is difficult to find out exactly what he does. It is no wonder that not many hon. Members come to these debates even though they are shorter than they should be.
The Government are committed not just to that other jurisdiction but to economic and monetary union. As long ago as 19 June 1983, the Prime Minister signed the solemn declaration on European union at Stuttgart, which reads:

307
"determined to achieve a comprehensive and coherent common political approach and reaffirming their will to transform the whole complex of relations between their States into a European Union."
It may not be the united states of Europe, to which the hon. Member for Antrim, North has just referred, and to which the Prime Minister referred at Bruges. It is something unitary. It is not the united states of Europe because the states do not exist. It is one nation, a European union. Laws are made in a unitary manner. Of that there can be no doubt.
It is not therefore surprising that the latest emanation is the expression of the single market that we had in the Delors banking report yesterday:
"as capital movements are liberalised and as the internal market programme is implemented, each country will be less and less shielded from developments elsewhere in the Community. The attainment of national economic objectives will become more dependent on a co-operative approach to policy-making."
Hon. Members may translate that as they will. Later, it said:
"Although in many respects a natural consequence of the commitment to create a market without internal frontiers, the move towards economic and monetary union represents a quantum jump which could secure a significant increase in economic welfare in the Community. Indeed, economic and monetary union implies far more than the single market programme and, as is discussed in the following two Parts of this Report, will require further major steps in all areas of economic policy-making."
Hon. Members may say that we have not agreed to that. But we have, because on at least two occasions—at Stuttgart and in the preamble to the Single European Act—we signed a declaration that we are in favour of economic and monetary union.
As Mr. Delors and his friends, including in an individual capacity the Governor of the Bank of England, have said, this cannot be done without a central bank, one currency, a single economic policy and, of course, harmonisation of taxation. So it is not just a single market that we are in; it is much bigger. One goes with the other. It is something to which Her Majesty's Government, knowingly or otherwise, are committed but to which I hope that my hon. Friends and I are not.
11.43 pm
Mr. William Cash: I do not share the pessimism that has permeated much of the debate. Many aspects of the single market can and should be welcomed, but I have grave reservations about what I have consistently described as creeping federalism. There is continuing evidence of that. There is no doubt that the European Court of Justice itself has a centre of gravity which inevitably will draw us further in that direction unless we do something about it.
I was heartened—this is one reason for my current state of optimism—by a recent visit that I paid to France with my fellow members of the Select Committee on European Legislation. It transpired while we were there, by coincidence—apparently following the lines that we in this country have been adopting in our small campaign to ensure that federalism does not take a grip—that in the French Parliament—in the National Assembly and in the Senate—Bills of Parliament were introduced to reassert their say over European legislation. Obviously, that say has been diminishing to a point when they could take it no longer.
308
I believe that we shall find that happening elsewhere in Europe. While, therefore, I am a supporter of the single market, for all the reasons that can be adduced—greater liberalisation of capital movements and so on—some of which have been under-estimated in a number of the speeches made tonight, there is now a great opportunity for us, through the national Parliaments of the Community, to make up for what has been described as a democratic deficit. The European Parliament—unless we were to become a federal state—will not do that.
It is vital that we use the fermentation process of debates of this kind to raise the awareness of the people of this country to what is going on in Europe. At the same time, we can alert them to the advantages of what is going on—and the reservations we have. We can then allow the democratic process to do its job. As some French senators told us, Britain is, in effect, leading Europe back into democracy through what we have been doing in this House.
It is indicative that tonight, while we do not have a full Chamber, there are many more Members in attendance at this late hour than there are for many debates which take place in prime time. I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that a disproportionate amount of time is spent on the directives compared with primary legislation. We dealt with the second banking directive in about an hour and a half, whereas we spent about two months looking into the Banking Bill before it was passed in 1987. It seems, from what has been said by the Leader of the House and others, that there will be changes in our procedures.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to what is contained on pages 13 and 14 of the report that is before the House, under the description "The prospect ahead". We find there descriptions that go way over the top of what is involved. For example, we are told that heroic decisions are to be taken to ensure that the internal market is completed.
This is, in many respects, a prosaic exercise with much at stake, and we must get it right. But I have reservations, for example, about the directive on health and safety, which no doubt contains much useful material. If a law is passed but not enforced elsewhere in the Community, that sets up an anti-competitive regime. It means that, whereas the Health and Safety Executive in this country is enforcing the requirements, they may not be enforcing them elsewhere in Europe.
When the hormone regulations were about to go through, we debated them in the House. We made sure that there was a debate before adoption. We should follow that principle—as set down in a resolution of this Parliament in 1980—in every respect.
There are great economic advantages in the single market, but there are distinct disadvantages if we are to go down a federal route. I say that with no apology for repetition. There is a centre of gravity towards federalism; we can and will resist it, but we will be able to do that only by taking effective measures in the House and in the country. Other member states will follow us towards that end.
11 .49 pm
Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) finished on a note that will command widespread support in the House. There may be those in

309
the Community who wish the Community to move in a federalist direction, and he asserts firmly, as I am content to do also, that the Government will resist such a move. It is quite inappropriate, and also quite unnecessary in achieving the real benefits that are to be gained under the provisions of the single European act. I can reassure him and others who have voiced such fears that the Government will continue robustly to resist moves in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) mentioned firearms and frontiers. It is important to be clear about this: steps are being taken and work is being done on removing some of the inconveniences of frontiers for legitimate travellers, and it is perfectly proper that that work should go foward; but we have said repeatedly that the work should come to fruition only as far as is consistent with retaining proper control over the illegal passage of drugs, firearms and other things which concern us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred specifically to the directive on firearms. He is quite right to say that we have opposed this proposal, as have several other member states. We shall continue to do so. Article 36 of the treaty allows restrictions on imports which are justified on the grounds of public security, and we shall continue to uphold our right to restrict the import of things which come under this heading.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the free circulation of pornography. The self-same article of the treaty allows import restrictions justified on grounds of public morality. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. We will maintain our right to impose checks at frontiers to control the movement of drugs, pornography, terrorists and firearms.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East also referred to the problems of inner-German trade. I recognise that there is concern about this. That is why officials of my Department have been in Bonn today to discuss with the German Government their control methods and their checks to deter fraud. The German Government put a great deal of effort into checking goods at the inner-German borders to ensure that goods are not being diverted from other eastern bloc countries. They carry out checks at factories in Germany, all of which must be authorised before they can carry on inner-German trade. They have taken severe action where fraud has been found, and people have been sent to prison for such frauds. For all these reasons, leakage of East German goods into member states is low, but we will follow up any specific cases which the hon. Member for Southend, East or any other hon. Member cares to raise with us.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked much good sense on this subject, greatly at odds, if I may say so, with what was aptly described as the "Euro-fanaticism" of many in his party. He took a practical view of what the single market can achieve. There are real benefits for this country, but we must not allow ourselves to be diverted—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 17.

Division No. 165]

[11.54 pm

AYES

Amess, David

Knowles, Michael

Amos, Alan

Lang, Ian

Arbuthnot, James

Lawrence, Ivan

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Lightbown, David

Atkinson, David

Lilley, Peter

Batiste, Spencer

Livsey, Richard

Beith, A. J.

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lord, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Boswell, Tim

Maclean, David

Bowis, John

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Mans, Keith

Brazier, Julian

Maude, Hon Francis

Bright, Graham

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Miller, Sir Hal

Browne, John (Winchester)

Mills, Iain

Burns, Simon

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Burt, Alistair

Neubert, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Nicholls, Patrick

Carrington, Matthew

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Cash, William

Norris, Steve

Chapman, Sydney

Paice, James

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Portillo, Michael

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

Raffan, Keith

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Rhodes James, Robert

Day, Stephen

Sackville, Hon Tom

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Shaw, David (Dover)

Durant, Tony

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Fallon, Michael

Stern, Michael

Fearn, Ronald

Stevens, Lewis

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Forman, Nigel

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Summerson, Hugo

Forth, Eric

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Fry, Peter

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Gill, Christopher

Thurnham, Peter

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hanley, Jeremy

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Wallace, James

Harris, David

Waller, Gary

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

Watts, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Wheeler, John

Irvine, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Jack, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Jackson, Robert

Wilshire, David

Janman, Tim

Wood, Timothy

Johnston, Sir Russell

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. Stephen Dorrell and

Knapman, Roger

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Dixon, Don

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Foster, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Spearing, Nigel

Haynes, Frank

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Henderson, Doug

Wareing, Robert N.

Kilfedder, James

Loyden, Eddie

Tellers for the Noes:

McFall, John

Mr. A. J. Beith and

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Bob Cryer.

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9756/88 on completing the Single Market and 10413/88 on technical standards and regulations; recognises that the Single Market will bring important opportunities and challenges for business and benefits for the consumer; welcomes progress to date on the Single Market

311
and endorses the Government's strong commitment to completing it, and welcomes the Government's campaign to encourage UK business to prepare now for the Single Market.

Transport Infrastructure (Private Investment)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fallon.]
12.4 am
Mr. Peter Fry: When I was first elected Member of Parliament for Wellingborough nearly 20 years ago, a local journalist asked me what I wanted to achieve as a new Member of Parliament. I replied that what was needed was better road communication. My interest in transport infrastructure was one of my first concerns as a Member of Parliament. Now, after 15 years as joint chairman of the parliamentary road study group, my interest has not diminished but has squared to the national scene.
My constituency, lying between the M1 and the A1, and with the long-awaited M1/A1 link to run just north of it, is crucially placed in our road network. Although much has been done to improve communications locally and nationally, problems are beginning to emerge. Congestion is not reducing, and even in medium-sized towns such as Wellingborough or Kettering there are increasingly long queues at peak hours every morning and evening. Any temporary hold-up on any major road can lead to considerable road chaos.
The really important roads, the lifeblood of our country, are becoming hopelessly overloaded. I have the misfortune to use the M1 regularly. Even when the M40 is completed, whole stretches of the M1 will be well over design capacity. It has now reached the point at which my constituents cannot estimate the time that they will arrive in London using the M1 because of the congestion and the fact that the most minor accident, or one motorist applying his brakes too quickly can create very long delays.
On the other side of the county, the A1 is totally inadequate for the purpose which it has to serve. It desperately needs widening and turning into a proper motorway for most of its length. Construction of the essential cross-country link, the M1/A1 link, has only just started, 15 years after the then Transport Minister, now Lord Mulley, announced the original scheme, describing it as the link that was vital to the economy of the country and for trade to the east coast ports and to the continent.
Our present situation and the forecasts for the future are not very encouraging. We have the most congested main roads of all the developed countries in the world. In terms of the average annual and daily traffic flow, we have the worst and most crowded motorways and trunk roads. Despite that overcrowding, car ownership per thousand persons is below that in the United States, France, West Germany, Italy, Japan and, perhaps more surprisingly, Sweden and Norway. But we are beginning to catch up. The economic success of the Government's policy and the real increase in incomes mean that many more people are buying cars and will continue to do so. Even the Department of Transport forecasts that there will be up to 30 per cent. more vehicles by the year 2000. The British Road Federation estimates that the increase will more likely be about 45 per cent. to 50 per cent. No forecasts show that there will be a fall in the number of vehicles on our roads.

313
After the years that I have spent studying transport problems, I have started to ask myself what can be done to alleviate, let alone improve, the situation that we see developing. At present, the Select Committee on Transport, of which I am privileged to have been a member since its institution, is now studying the question of roads for the future. In instigating this debate, I want to make it clear that I do not wish to show any disrespect to the Select Committee. For some time now I have been developing ideas of my own based on observation and experience and I felt that I would like to express them before the Committee reported and before it took evidence on the private funding of the transport infrastructure. Furthermore, I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be preparing a paper on this subject and I was anxious to make some contribution before it was published. I want to assure the House that I have not used any of the evidence submitted to the Committee, but I hope to add a little of my own.
Before outlining my suggestions, I must emphasise that I have made two assumptions, with which not everyone will agree. First, I believe that there is a need for new roads because we have already seen the appalling congestion on the major arteries of the country, the M1, the M6 and the M25. That will continue whatever we do about public transport. Secondly, I believe that the Treasury alone will not find enough money to provide the cost of all that is needed. I welcome the increase in transport expenditure under this Government and especially the increase announced in the Autumn Statement. But, realistically, I do not expect sufficient extra resources to be made available to deal adequately with the problem.
Those two assumptions lead me to inquire what can meet the task if public money alone cannot. I accept that already private contributions to some schemes have been significant. Added value or access to a site can be of great advantage to a private developer. Many county councils have been able to obtain large sums to improve local schemes or to build new schemes. Similarly, there have been some large-scale private developments, such as the Dartford bridge crossing, the Docklands light railway and the Channel tunnel, and the Government are to be commended for encouraging such projects. However, as yet there seems to be no acceptable scheme for dealing with the problem of major new roads. The only proposal put forward so far on a major scale was by Tarmac a few years ago for the west midlands, and it was turned down.
The policy until now seems to have been that major road building in particular can be from only public sources and that private investment has been found too difficult to combine with it. I find that a little disappointing in view of the way in which this Government have brought about joint financing, whether of the city technology colleges, the urban development corporations or the renovation of our city centres. One must ask oneself whether there is a means of harnessing private investment with public expenditure to improve our transport infrastructure.
I suggest that before we consider any individual way of doing that, we must make certain provisions. First, no scheme is worth attempting unless there is a clear redefinition of the Ryrie rules, which will mean that
314
transport budget expenditure is not reduced by the input of any private investment, otherwise no additional infrastructure will be made available to us.
Secondly, far more progress is needed to shorten the enormous period between the conception of a new project and its completion. Fifteen years is far too long for the schemes that we need to put into effect. Thirdly, I accept that there needs to be some degree of risk if private investment is to make a contribution.
What would fit those criteria? We should recall that the Chancellor is encouraging us all to save. He has announced a number of new initiatives with the intention of trying to ensure that less money is spent on immediate consumption and that more is put into preparation for the future. My right hon. Friend is lucky that for the first time for many years there is no competition for the need to sell gilts. The Government's—or the Treasury's—opposition to any other such scheme of investment, in competition with gilts, no longer applies. Why can we not use the principle behind the BEST scheme that the Chancellor has already developed, to obtain money for a new transport infrastructure? That idea could apply to a great many transport schemes, even to the high-speed Channel rail link that is mooted for the next few years and could also cover new Underground lines in London and other major cities.
In my view, a developer could attract a considerable amount of money, provided that the investment was tax-free. That would be a suitable initiative. The capital received from that investment could begin to pay for the project and initially would get it off the ground and pay the interest in the early years. Once the project was completed, the developer, whoever that may be—could decide whether to make additional charges which would provide revenue. Such charges could either be in the form of tolls or, if it were a public transport venture, in fares.
I do not think that the proposals that I am going to make are tremendously revolutionary, but money could be made available at an earlier stage than now to bring about many of the needed improvements in our road and transport infrastructure. Once the road is in use, I suggest that there needs to be public investment because no level of tolls is ever likely to be sufficient to cover the maintenance, the interest on the money borrowed or the repayment of the capital. There will always be some gap between what has been raised in tolls and total expenditure. That is why I believe that the public sector must be brought in. It is essential to ensure that any project is approved by both the Department of Transport and the Department of the Environment so that assistance can be given in planning and early implementation. In other words, the scheme should be stamped as a "necessary" one.
Once the road is open, I see no reason why shadow tolls should not be paid according to actual traffic flows. That is where the risk comes in, because obviously not all schemes would reach their full potential at the same time or over the same period. The question of fixing the toll or, in the case of public transport, of fixing the fares, would be a matter of fine calculation. However, as the public contribution increases, so the loan debt could be repaid and eventually the road could revert to the public sector just as is planned for the Channel tunnel.
There are four advantages of this way of going forward. First, saving would be encouraged. Secondly, public spending would be delayed for some years. Thirdly, the

315
cost to the taxpayer would be considerably less than if the whole project had to be paid for from the public purse. Indeed, taxpayers would start paying only when they themselves were using the facility either as drivers or as passengers.
Fourthly—this is the most important point—the infrastructure would be made available much earlier than is likely under present procedures. The mixing of public and private finance in transport infrastructure merits further consideration for that last reason. For far too long—under several Governments—this country has been deprived of that kind of investment. Transport has always been the poor relation after some of the more obvious social needs—education, health and housing.
I give full credit to the Government, the Secretary of State and the Minister for at long last realising the size of the task confronting us. However, I believe that the situation is not standing still, but is actually deteriorating. I believe that the problem is such that—just as in dealing with the economy as a whole—the Government cannot do it all alone. The Government need investment from outside.
My proposals may not be perfect and may not be the eventual way in which the Government will decide to go forward, but I am sure that we must evolve some method of bringing private money into transport infrastructure schemes. If we do not, we face the danger that we shall not be able to deal with the increasing problems of all the modes of traffic congestion.
Failure to do that could be disastrous for our national economy.
12.20 am
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on gaining this Adjournment debate. I have listened to his speech with great interest. I had already read the drift of his argument during his questioning of witnesses in the Select Committee on Transport. I agree with my hon. Friend on many points.
In recent years, the private sector has come to play a significant role in providing transport infrastructure, and the Government believe that that process can be taken much further. While the public sector will be the predominant provider of roads for as far ahead as we can envisage, we would be foolish if we did not encourage the private sector to supplement that provision, not least because of its enterprise and management skills. That is necessarily an evolutionary process, but progress so far has been encouraging. An important step forward will be taken when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State publishes a consultative document on private finance aimed at developing further a private sector in roads. As I cannot anticipate what he will say, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I am not in a position yet to say much about the way forward.
I shall say something about the story so far. The area where we have seen most consistent success has been the funding by developers of some or all of the costs of road schemes that can benefit their developments. There has been a fruitful partnership between them and Government at both national and local level. Since April 1986, developers have contributed about £12 million by means of agreements under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980
316
towards the costs of 58 schemes on the national road network. The pace is quickening, and another 50 or so schemes are at an advanced stage of preparation.
Even larger numbers of schemes undertaken by local highways authorities have been wholly or partly funded by developers through agreements under section 52 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Again, the scale of activity is growing.
In many ways, those successes have gone largely unremarked and, understandably, attention has been focused more on the big, privately financed infrastructure projects. The Channel tunnel is the pre-eminent example, but the Dartford bridge, the extension to the docklands light railway and the new high-speed rail link from Paddington to Heathrow are other examples where private sector finance is contributing to the provision of transport infrastructure. The second Severn crossing, the new high-speed rail link to the Channel tunnel and privately operated light rail systems in Manchester, and perhaps in Avon and elsewhere, are further examples of where the private sector may have a major contribution to make.
The Government are determined to move the provision of transport services, and the infrastructure needed to support them, nearer to the market place. It is only in that way that we can ensure that services are responsive to what the customer wants and not to what the centre prescribes. By progressively opening up to the private sector the opportunity to finance, design, build and operate the supporting infrastructure, we can also give full scope to entrepreneurial imagination and the sort of management skills that are not always evident in the public sector.
The question that my hon. Friend raised this evening is whether, as things stand at present, the private sector can be expected to make a contribution to developing the infrastructure that we shall need or whether we need a significant change in the present arrangements to ensure that private investment is readily forthcoming.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the time scales involved in major projects are such that private investors will be discouraged by the long pay-back periods. He has argued that, by offering tax incentives, we can expect the private sector to generate sufficient cash up front to get major private sector projects off the ground. He argued that, even then, revenues from the toll booth or fare box may be insufficient to remunerate fully the large sums involved. Therefore, Government may still need to make a contribution, perhaps based on the volume of traffic using a privately built road or passengers using a railway. I accept that pay-back periods can be long and that what my hon. Friend proposes may offer a solution, but I am not so sure whether the problems warrant special treatment of private investment in one particular area.
I would not want to dismiss my hon. Friend's proposals out of hand, but experience to date suggests the long pay-back periods of major projects may not be as insuperable a problem as perhaps my hon. Friend fears. It has not been a problem with the Channel tunnel or with infrastructure developments which have been firmly in the private sector for many years—Felixstowe is one obvious example—or a more recent development, such as the London City airport.
I do not accept the accusation made by some that we are stifling private finance. The examples I have given are enough to dispel such a notion, but I accept the need for clear ground rules on private finance within which the private sector can operate. To an extent, they are still

317
evolving, but some of the principles governing the introduction of private finance are unlikely to change. Most important—my hon. Friend recognised this—is the Government's belief that a privately financed and operated piece of transport infrastructure should be genuinely private sector.
The promoters must carry the risks associated with transport infrastructure projects, not the Government. The users of the infrastructure should generally reimburse the cost of developments—again, not the Government. That tends to rule out so-called shadow tolls.
There has been some misunderstanding about the Ryrie rules. They are designed to test whether it makes sense to undertake a project in the public or private sectors. If it is to be in the private sector, that is where the risks must be taken and any extra costs resulting from the use of private finance should be offset by the transfer of risk to the private sector. The Ryrie rules have not stopped a number of major privately financed infrastructure projects which might have been built in the public sector, but which were not.
There are some sorts of deal, however, which may masquerade as "private finance" of no benefit to the taxpayer. We are not interested in accounting arrangements which mean public expenditure by another name; or in arrangements simply designed to circumvent controls on public expenditure. We are not attracted to projects which require guarantees from the state.
There are other issues which I know concern potential promoters of private sector infrastructure. "Exclusivity" seems to feature strongly. In my discussions with the private sector, many firms have argued that the originator of an idea should have exclusive rights to it for a period; or should be financially recompensed if someone else uses the idea. Otherwise, so the argument goes, firms will be unwilling to spend time and money developing an idea.
I can see the attraction of this argument, and I confess that it has some merit. On the other hand, there are very strong arguments for competition. As my hon. Friend will recognise, it is difficult to square the Government's general commitment to competition with the case for exclusivity, and I fear that there is no neat answer. Nevertheless, it is clearly a matter of genuine concern to many firms and, even if we cannot agree to exclusivity as such, we must ensure that there is some way in which to recognise the money and effort firms spend on developing ideas.
Additionality is another issue which frequently comes up as a bone of contention, but I am not sure just how
318
important it really is from the private sector's point of view, despite the fact that it is often raised. I suspect that it reflects the fact that many of the promoters or potential promoters of new infrastructure, particularly roads, are construction companies. Seen in their terms, I can understand why additionality should matter. Any construction company worth its salt will want private sector developments to be additional to the public sector programme because it means more business, but there is no immutable law which says that construction companies are the natural promoters of new private roads, for example. Indeed, to judge from the private sector generally, one would expect that not to be the case. The usual experience is that construction companies build what othes want and can finance.
I suspect that in time we shall find the same is increasingly true of privately financed transport infrastructure. Once we get to that stage, promoters will evaluate projects on their merits. They will no longer be seen as simply another opportunity for extra construction activity, and additionality as an issue will lose much of its force.
I should like to say a word finally about environmental issues. If ever we needed reminding about the importance which the public attaches to such questions, the reaction to British Rail's proposals for routing the new high-speed line through Kent has obviously brought it home to us all. It is difficult to over-estimate the interest which the public takes in the environmental aspects of new infrastructure developments. We of course expect the private sector to bring new ideas, but there can be no reduction in the environmental standards which apply to privately financed roads or railways. The public will demand that the same high standards apply as in public sector developments. So will the Government.
It is difficult to do full justice—I apologise to my hon. Friend for this—to the many aspects of private investment in transport infrastructure, particularly at a time when the Government are about to bring forward some proposals. However, the Government have, in the run-up to the new proposals, encouraged a wide-ranging debate over the last year or two, and have been pleased by the interest shown and the quality of the ideas that have been brought forward. Obviously, the Government will respond shortly to that debate.
I thank my hon. Friend for the very keen interest he has shown in those matters, for the opportunity for a debate tonight, and for contributing, I believe very valuably, to the debate with a most interesting and thoughtful speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to One o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  River Conservation
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action has been taken to ensure that the national freshwater quality classification scheme will consider the conservation status of rivers, in terms of their ability to support and maintain aquatic plant and animal communities.

  Mr. Howard
  The existing classification schemes for rivers and estuaries are currently under review and my right hon. Friend will be publishing a consultation paper on possible revisions later in the spring. The paper will address the ability of watercourses to support aquatic flora and fauna.

  Pollution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain a copy of "Pollution-Controlling the Problems" and "Nuclear Waste and Radiation Risks" recently published by the Association of District Councils for his departmental library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Copies of these two reports are in the Department's library. We have taken note of their contents.

  Pyrton Depot Site
  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the residual land on the depot site in the parish of Pyrton in Oxfordshire is surplus to the Crown's requirements; and what plans he has to return it to agricultural use.

  Mr. Ridley
  The depot site is surplus to the Crown's requirements. There are no plans to return it to agricultural use.

  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Property Services Agency will relinquish rights assumed in wartime over the depot site in Pyrton, Oxfordshire.

  Mr. Ridley
  No. Rights were not assumed in wartime. Records show that rights were established before the war when the buildings were erected.

  Mr. Heseltine
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of any documents held by(a) the Property Services Agency and (b) his Department, relating to the acquisition, planning status, construction, rating and occupancy of the depot site in the parish of Pyrton in the county of Oxfordshire which have not been released to the Public Record Office.
  76
  Mr. Ridley
  I have arranged for copies of such documents to be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Circulars
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many circulars from his Department since 1970 have dealt with land needs for(a) housing, (b) employment, (c) shopping and (d) outdoor recreation.

  Mr. Ridley
  I invite my hon. Friend to refer to my Department's "Planning Guidance: Index of Extant Circulars", a copy of which is in the Library. The index lists seven circulars, two development control policy notes and two planning policy guidance notes relating to housing development; two circulars relating to employment; three circulars and one planning policy guidance note relating to retail development; and three circulars relating to sport and recreation.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which urban development corporations have signed agency agreements with local authorities for development control work, and which urban development corporations are using consultants for development control work.

  Mr. Trippier
  All urban development corporations, other than Bristol and London Docklands, have agency agreements with their local authorities for development control work. Bristol DC uses consultants for this work; London Docklands DC uses in-house staff.

  Housing
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes were built by(a) local authorities and (b) housing associations in 1988.

  Mr. Trippier
  It is provisionally estimated that there were 15,300 local authority completions and 9,200 housing association completions in 1988.

  Multiple Occupation
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate any changes he proposes to make following his consultation exercise in 1988 on houses in multiple occupation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Possible changes are still under consideration.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to monitor problems arising from the new regulations on fixing of rent levels for houses in multiple occupation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  We shall monitor the impact of the new private renting regime in relation to all types of dwelling, including houses in multiple occupation.

  Housing Investment (Stockton)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what housing investment programme allocation has been made to the borough of Stockton-on-Tees in the current year.
  77
  Mr. Trippier
  Details of local authorities' housing investment programme allocations for 1989–90 were announced on 8 December 1988. Stockton-on-Tees borough council's allocation is £2,241,500 which includes £37,500 for the homes insulation scheme.

  Capital Receipts (Stockton)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what capital receipts were available to the borough of Stockton-on-Tees at the beginning of the current financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not yet available.

  Housing Projects (Stockton)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estate action and other housing projects his Department is undertaking in Stockton-on-Tees.

  Mr. Trippier
  Two ongoing housing schemes, on the Clarences and Eastbourne estates, are being supported by estate action resources in 1989–90.

  Shopping Areas
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about neglect of shopping areas awaiting redevelopment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  This issue is sometimes raised in the context of development plan policies, individual planning applications and proposals for inner-city regeneration. The most recent representations are those raised by my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on 10 April, to which I replied.

  Roman Remains
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the significance of and need to safeguard the Roman remains discovered on the Hammerson Group site, Cannon street.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  English Heritage has informally advised that the existing consent will enable satisfactory recording of the majority of the archaeological remains. It is in touch with the developers and the Museum of London. To date we have received no other representations.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take immediate action to safeguard the Roman remains discovered on the Hammerson Group site, Cannon street.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Scheduling ensures that any works to the site require scheduled monument consent. Our information is that some of the remains will be destroyed but most of these areas were already partly damaged by the foundations of the previous building. The scheduled monument consent granted in December 1988 allowed for preservation by record of this part of the site. The majority of the remains, some 75 to 80 per cent. will be preserved beneath adjoining buildings.
  78
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has regarding the historic significance of the Roman remains discovered on the Hammerson Group site, near Cannon street station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The site was scheduled in June 1986, being one of the largest Roman baths found in Britain. Recent discoveries have confirmed the existence of extensive and high quality remains.

  Amusement Arcades
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been received seeking a tightening of the town and country planning law relating to amusement arcades; and whether the Government have any plans for future amendments to the law.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations about planning decisions affecting amusement centres. Although some people regard them as socially or morally undesirable, amusement centres are a lawful use of land, and any applications for planning permission to establish them must be judged on their merits in terms of their land use planning implications. I do not consider that any amendment of planning law would be appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for the licensing arrangements under the Gaming Act 1968, and for byelaws under the Public Health Act 1961, which regulate the operation of amusement centres.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funding has recently been awarded to the Teesside development corporation; and for what projects it has been allocated.

  Mr. Trippier
  The external financing limit of the Teesside development corporation in 1989–90 has been agreed at £34 million. The corporation will continue to fund a number of major projects, including the redevelopment of the Teesdale area and the Tees offshore base.

  Good progress has been made on the reclamation of the Teesdale site, the proposals for which include housing, offices and leisure facilities. The comprehensive redevelopment of this site will require the construction of a new bridge and barrage across the River Tees. These schemes are the subject of a Private Bill which was laid before Parliament in November last year.

  The Tees offshore base is being developed as a joint venture between Teesside development corporation and the Tees and Hartlepool port authority. A number of major companies have already located at the base which is expected to provide 1,000 new jobs by the end of 1989.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons
  79
  Commission, what rights exist for safety representatives to inspect and take copies of accident reports and statistics in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  There is no restriction on safety representatives who are members of the House of Commons Safety Committee, inspecting and taking copies of accident reports and statistics in the House.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what health and safety training is being provided for young workers in the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  The accepted definition of "young workers" is those between 16 and 18 years of age. The House does not employ staff in this category. Training in health and safety is available, however, to staff of the House as part of the general training programme organised on a departmental level.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, how many industrial injuries were sustained by workers in the House by category in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Beith
  Information on reported accidents which have been classified as industrial injuries is not readily available. The number of reported accidents from 1979 to date is as follows:

  House of Commons staff

  Property Services agency staff

  1979

  n/a

  24

  1980

  n/a

  23

  1981

  64

  26

  1982

  40

  31

  1983

  49

  19

  1984

  67

  23

  1985

  45

  22

  1986

  47

  22

  1987

  29

  30

  1988

  36

  10

  n/a = not available

  Fire Drills
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, when the House of Commons last held a fire drill.

  Mr. Beith
  Thursday 16 February 1989.

  Members' Cloakroom (Losses)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what have been the reported losses of property from the House of Commons Members' cloakroom in 1988 and 1989 to date.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A coat, a cap and umbrella, and some champagne were reported lost from the House of Commons Members' Cloakroom in 1988. The coat was subsequently found. A blue holdall is the only reported loss, to date, this year.

  Organic Food
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, answering on behalf of the House of Commons Commission, what is the policy of the House of Commons Commission on the purchase of organic food for sale in the restaurants of the House of Commons.

  Mr. Beith
  Direct responsibility for the purchase of foodstuffs for use in the House lies not with the Commission but with the General Manager of the Refreshment Department, whose policy is to purchase adequate and regular supplies of good quality food at reasonable prices. It is understood that the Refreshment Department will use organic foods whenever these criteria are satisfactorily met.

  Visitors (Shelter)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will list in specific terms the difficulties currently preventing more satisfactory arrangements for parties of visitors to the Palace of Westminster to shelter from inclement weather while queueing to join the Line of Route; what steps are being taken to overcome these difficulties; and when the issue will be finally resolved and new arrangements put in place.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on 17 April 1989. It would not be appropriate at this stage for me to identify the difficulties involved or the steps being taken to resolve them. However, it is hoped that mutually acceptable arrangements will be agreed shortly and that these new arrangements will be put in place as soon as possible thereafter.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Special Needs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average annual cost of(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special needs pupils in the United Kingdom for the year 1987–88; and what is the average cost per pupil in Durham for (a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special needs for the same year.

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

  Net Institutional Expenditure1 per pupil2—1987–88

  Nursery and primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Special education

  £

  £

  £

  Durham

  1,050

  1,405

  4,620

  England

  1,010

  1,520

  4,925

  1 Net institutional expenditure includes the cost of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services. It does not include the cost of school meals central administration and inspection, debt charges or revenue contributions to capital outlay.

  2 The figures are based on LEA expenditure returns to DoE and pupil number returns to DES.

  Information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Alcohol and Drugs
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what programmes exist which teach children about(a) the dangers of alcohol, (b) the dangers of smoking and (c) the dangers of illegal drugs; and if there is evidence of local education authorities encouraging their schools to run any such schemes.

  Mr. Butcher
  An increasing number of schools now provide pupils with education about the dangers associated with alcohol and drug misuse and cigarette smoking. Such education programmes have increased as a result of Government and LEA funding of drugs education co-ordinators and in-service training for teachers. The order recently laid for science in the national curriculum makes specific provision for the teaching of different aspects of health education, including education about alcohol, drugs and smoking.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what per cent. of teachers trained in United Kingdom in the years 1970 to the latest date available remain in the profession for at least five years and 10 years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. However, on the basis of teacher entry, wastage and re-entry rates for the year ending March 1986 (the latest for which figures are available), it can be estimated that 61 per cent. of those completing initial teacher training in England and Wales are in full-time service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England and Wales five years later. The proportion in service 10 years after qualification is 47 per cent. Thereafter, the numbers leaving and re-entering service are in balance, so that the proportion in service 20 years after qualification is still 47 per cent.

  Broadcast Loan Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has considered making extra funds available to the Open university to allow for the reintroduction of the broadcast loan scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced on 2 November last year an increase in the Open university's grant of £4·2 million in the financial year 1989–90 and similar additions for the next two years. The detailed allocation of these additional resources within the undergraduate programme is a matter for the university. It is receiving £68·4 million in recurrent grant in 1989.

  School Building Replacement Scheme
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money he has allocated in each of the last five years to local education authorities in respect of the school building replacement programme; and if he will make a statement on the criteria he applies in reaching decisions about the allocation of funds to the replacement programme.

  Mr. Butcher
  Local education authorities are responsible for the maintenance of school buildings. Under the 82
  Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, each year authorities receive block allocations of prescribed expenditure for the main service blocks, including education, but it is for them to decide how to spend their allocations. My right hon. Friend sets the local education authorities' allocations of prescribed expenditure for education. In formulating these capital allocations, priority is given to committed expenditure up to the levels previously indicated to authorities, new projects to meet population growth and new projects to remove surplus places in the schools sector. Any remaining funds are allocated for improvement and replacement projects. In accordance with the criteria the allocations for schools in the last five years are set out in the table.

  £ million

  County and voluntary controlled schools

  Voluntary aided and special agreement schools

  1985–86

  230·0

  35·3

  1986–87

  232·9

  27·8

  1987–88

  254·0

  39·1

  1988–89

  319·0

  47·1

  1989–90

  311·4

  56·1

  Notes:

  1. The table provides details of the notional schools capital allocation.

  2. The allocations shown are those announced before the start of the financial year in question and do not include subsequent revisions.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his best estimate of the numbers of young people in further or higher education or on Government training schemes under the age of 25 years who will be liable for at least 20 per cent. of the community in(a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. Jackson
  All students (excluding school pupils) aged 18 to 24 will be liable for at least 20 per cent. of community charge. In 1987–88 there were some 110,000 full-time and part-time students aged 18 to 24, excluding those on training courses, studying in Scotland and 970,000 in England and Wales. The Training Agency estimates that in 1987–88 there were on average 6,000 people aged 18 or over on the youth training scheme in Scotland and 71,000 in England and Wales. In addition, 12,000 trainees aged 18 to 24 started on employment training in Scotland and 78,000 in England and Wales between 5 September 1988 and 31 March 1989.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of(a) the number of educational establishments in the Greater London area which will require certification officers for the introduction of the community charge in April 1990 and (b) the number of students who will require certification in the Greater London area.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is estimated that, excluding private and independent establishments, there are 114 educational establishments within the area of the London boroughs which will require certification officers for the introduction of the community charge. There is no reliable estimate of the numbers of independent and private establishments requiring certification officers. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the numbers of students requiring certification for community charge purposes within the
  83
  area of the London boroughs because the criteria for registration as a student do not coincide with categories of students for whom figures are collected.

  University Posts
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to ensure that applicants for academic and non-academic university posts are interviewed by a selection committee whose chairman does not enjoy sole executive authority.

  Mr. Jackson
  That is a matter for the universities.

  Pupil—Teacher Ratios
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the current pupil— teacher ratios for both primary and secondary education in each local education authority.

  Mr. Butcher
  In January 1988 the pupil—teacher ratios in maintaned primary and secondary schools in each local education authority in England were as follows:

  Pupil teacher ratios by LEA January 1988

  Primary Pupil: teacher ratio

  Secondary Pupil: teacher ratio

  Barking

  20·9

  14·7

  Barnet

  20·1

  14·2

  Bexley

  22·4

  16·0

  Brent

  18·5

  11·1

  Bromley

  23·0

  15·8

  Croydon

  21·8

  15·1

  Ealing

  19·3

  13·9

  Enfield

  21·7

  15·1

  Haringey

  19·0

  11·9

  Harrow

  21·8

  15·6

  Havering

  22·6

  15·1

  Hillingdon

  22·0

  15·6

  Hounslow

  20·1

  14·9

  Kingston upon Thames

  21·5

  14·2

  Morton

  21·6

  15·9

  Newham

  21·5

  14·1

  Redbridge

  24·0

  16·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  20·9

  15·5

  Sutton

  22·7

  16·5

  Waltham Forest

  21·2

  11·8

  Inner London

  17·6

  13·1

  Birmingham

  23·2

  16·0

  Coventry

  22·5

  14·4

  Dudley

  22·7

  14·0

  Sandwell

  22·4

  14·0

  Solihull

  23·1

  15·5

  Walsall

  20·8

  13·9

  Wolverhampton

  20·1

  13·8

  Knowsley

  20·7

  13·4

  Liverpool

  21·0

  14·4

  St. Helens

  22·3

  14·0

  Sefton

  23·2

  16·1

  Wirral

  21·6

  15·7

  Bolton

  22·9

  15·1

  Bury

  22·4

  15·0

  Manchester

  21·4

  12·9

  Oldham

  22·4

  15·5

  Rochdale

  22·3

  14·1

  Salford

  21·7

  13·8

  Stockport

  23·3

  15·0

  Tameside

  23·4

  15·5

  Trafford

  21·9

  14·8

  Wigan

  21·2

  13·6

  84

  Primary Pupil: teacher ratio

  Secondary Pupil: teacher ratio

  Barnsley

  21·6

  15·2

  Doncaster

  21·4

  15·4

  Rotherham

  21·2

  15·3

  Sheffield

  19·9

  14·0

  Bradford

  19·8

  15·2

  Calderdale

  22·8

  15·5

  Kirklees

  20·9

  15·0

  Leeds

  20·0

  14·7

  Wakefield

  21·8

  15·2

  Gateshead

  20·7

  14·6

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  19·7

  13·8

  North Tyneside

  18·6

  12·9

  South Tyneside

  20·6

  14·3

  Sunderland

  22·1

  15·1

  Isles of Scilly

  13·1

  9·1

  Avon

  23·8

  16·4

  Bedfordshire

  22·0

  16·8

  Berkshire

  23·4

  16·0

  Buckinghamshire

  24·0

  16·2

  Cambridgeshire

  23·4

  16·2

  Cheshire

  23·6

  16·2

  Cleveland

  22·3

  15·1

  Cornwall

  23·4

  16·3

  Cumbria

  21·7

  14·9

  Derbyshire

  21·2

  14·4

  Devon

  23·3

  16·6

  Dorset

  23·3

  16·3

  Durham

  22·0

  16·0

  East Sussex

  22·7

  16·2

  Essex

  22·7

  16·6

  Gloucestershire

  22·6

  16·0

  Hampshire

  22·5

  16·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  23·7

  16·6

  Hertfordshire

  21·7

  15·4

  Humberside

  22·2

  15·0

  Isle of Wight

  23·5

  16·4

  Kent

  24·0

  16·4

  Lancashire

  23·3

  15·6

  Leicestershire

  22·9

  15·0

  Lincolnshire

  23·9

  16·6

  Norfolk

  22·6

  15·9

  North Yorkshire

  22·0

  15·9

  Northamptonshire

  22·9

  16·1

  Northumberland

  22·8

  16·1

  Nottinghamshire

  21·0

  14·8

  Oxfordshire

  23·0

  16·6

  Shropshire

  21·4

  15·3

  Somerset

  23·1

  16·3

  Staffordshire

  23·2

  16·3

  Suffolk

  22·4

  16·7

  Surrey

  21·4

  15·4

  Warwickshire

  21·9

  16·0

  West Sussex

  22·9

  16·7

  Wiltshire

  22·6

  15·4

  England

  22·0

  15·4

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in tabular form(a) the number of teachers in each local education authority in England and Wales, (b) the number of pupils in each and (c) the pupil-teacher ratio of each.

  Mr. Butcher
  [pursuant to his answer, 11 April 1989, c. 428.]: The figures for England are as follows. Corresponding figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon.. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  85

  Pupils, Teachers and PTR's by LEA January 1988

  Local Education Authority

  Total FTE Pupils

  Total FTE Teachers

  Pupil/ Teacher ratios

  Barking

  22,615

  1,388

  16·3

  Barnet

  39,078

  2,545

  15·4

  Bexley

  31,480

  1,783

  17·7

  Brent

  32,136

  2,523

  12·7

  Bromley

  35,033

  1,979

  17·7

  Croydon

  41,475

  2,541

  16·3

  Ealing

  36,445

  2,346

  15·5

  Enfield

  37,304

  2,255

  16·5

  Haringey

  25,026

  1,827

  13·7

  Harrow

  25,170

  1,471

  17·1

  Havering

  35,533

  2,157

  16·5

  Hillingdon

  30,839

  1,808

  17·1

  Hounslow

  29,681

  1,863

  15·9

  Kingston upon Thames

  16,621

  1,063

  15·6

  Merton

  20,242

  1,268

  16·0

  Newham

  33,862

  2,281

  14·8

  Redbridge

  29,574

  1,664

  17·8

  Richmond upon Thames

  15,992

  958

  16·7

  Sutton

  21,668

  1,250

  17·3

  Waltham Forest

  29,644

  2,184

  13·6

  Birmingham

  166,487

  9,575

  17·4

  Coventry

  46,820

  2,895

  16·2

  Dudley

  44,721

  2,713

  16·5

  Sandwell

  47,655

  2,842

  16·8

  Solihull

  32,633

  1,859

  17·6

  Walsall

  45,199

  2,831

  16·0

  Wolverhampton

  39,795

  2,598

  15·3

  Knowsley

  26,398

  1,670

  15·8

  Liverpool

  75,461

  4,701

  16·1

  St. Helens

  30,051

  1,819

  16·5

  Sefton

  44,397

  2,419

  18·4

  Wirral

  50,463

  2,950

  17·1

  Bolton

  43,365

  2,567

  16·9

  Bury

  25,578

  1,509

  17·0

  Manchester

  67,376

  4,445

  15·2

  Oldham

  37,224

  2,218

  16·8

  Rochdale

  34,648

  2,207

  15·7

  Salford

  36,042

  2,108

  17·1

  Stockport

  42,922

  2,529

  17·0

  Tameside

  34,839

  1,878

  18·6

  Trafford

  28,088

  1,706

  16·5

  Wigan

  50,753

  3,284

  15·5

  Barnsley

  33,998

  2,012

  16·9

  Doncaster

  47,000

  2,799

  16·8

  Rotherham

  41,776

  2,488

  16·8

  Sheffield

  70,448

  4,524

  15·6

  Bradford

  79,596

  4,946

  16·1

  Calderdale

  31,271

  1,837

  17·0

  Kirklees

  60,719

  3,725

  16·3

  Leeds

  103,174

  6,574

  15·8

  Wakefield

  47,421

  2,865

  16·6

  Gateshead

  29,415

  1,842

  16·0

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  38,401

  2,513

  15·3

  North Tyneside

  29,625

  2,082

  14·2

  South Tyneside

  23,594

  1,437

  16·4

  Sunderland

  48,987

  2,832

  17·3

  Isles of Scilly

  279

  27

  10·3

  Inner London

  269,994

  20,020

  13·5

  Avon

  130,030

  7,121

  18·3

  Bedfordshire

  81,988

  4,772

  17·2

  Berkshire

  104,683

  5,890

  17·8

  Buckinghamshire

  92,589

  4,949

  18·7

  Cambridgeshire

  95,504

  5,110

  18·7

  Cheshire

  150,143

  8,362

  18·0

  Cleveland

  96,211

  5,480

  17·6

  Cornwall

  66,779

  3,744

  17·8

  Cumbria

  72,926

  4,407

  16·5

  Derbyshire

  137,654

  8,353

  16·5

  Devon

  129,531

  7,109

  18·2

  Dorset

  79,911

  4,480

  17·8

  Durham

  91,765

  5,019

  18·3

  East Sussex

  79,267

  4,445

  17·8

  Essex

  223,116

  11,969

  18·6

  Gloucestershire

  73,987

  4,193

  17·6

  Hampshire

  208,983

  11,674

  17·9

  86

  Local Education Authority

  Total FTE Pupils

  Total FTE Teachers

  Pupil/ Teacher ratios

  Hereford and Worcester

  94,764

  5,273

  18·0

  Hertfordshire

  146,085

  8,828

  16·5

  Humberside

  136,026

  7,895

  17·2

  Isle of Wight

  16,606

  973

  17·1

  Kent

  216,556

  11,784

  18·4

  Lancashire

  208,597

  11,828

  17·6

  Leicestershire

  135,891

  7,658

  17·7

  Lincolnshire

  82,384

  4,556

  18·1

  Norfolk

  101,307

  5,527

  18·3

  North Yorkshire

  97,533

  5,548

  17·6

  Northamptonshire

  92,508

  5,236

  17·7

  Northumberland

  47,362

  2,684

  17·6

  Nottinghamshire

  146,479

  8,702

  16·8

  Oxfordshire

  71,946

  4,103

  17·5

  Shropshire

  60,732

  3,595

  16·9

  Somerset

  62,256

  3,379

  18·4

  Staffordshire

  157,255

  8,746

  18·0

  Suffolk

  88,751

  4,929

  18·0

  Surrey

  120,234

  6,946

  17·3

  Warwickshire

  70,929

  4,085

  17·4

  West Sussex

  89,580

  4,817

  18·6

  Wiltshire

  77,496

  4,371

  17·7

  ENGLAND

  6,832,378

  401,507

  17·0

CIVIL SERVICE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Office.

  Mr. Luce
  Senior grades in my Department are recruited by the Civil Service Commission. The commission has recently run publicity campaigns aimed at increasing awareness amongst ethnic minorities of career opportunities in the Civil Service. The commission monitors the ethnic origin of all applicants.

THE ARTS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Luce
  Senior grades in my Department are recruited by the Civil Service Commission. The commission has recently run publicity campaigns aimed at increasing awareness amongst ethnic minorities of career opportunities in the Civil Service. The commission monitors the ethnic origin of all applicants.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Local Authority Income
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent his Department has studied the possibility of replacing locally collected local authority income with a hypothecated amount within the income tax system; and if he will list such research or studies which have taken place over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Major
  This approach of "assigned revenues" has been considered and rejected in successive studies of local
  87
  government finance, most recently in the 1983 White Paper "Rates: Proposals for rate limitation and reform of the rating system" (Cmnd. 9008). It is not the practice of the Government to hypothecate revenues from a particular tax to particular areas of expenditure.

  11 Downing Street (Works of Art)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish a table showing(a) the works of art, objects or artefacts currently on loan from national museums and galleries at 11 Downing street, (b) the museum or gallery from whose collections they are loaned and (c) the term of each loan.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The works of art on loan to No. 11 Downing street from galleries are as follows. Details of the terms of loan for each painting can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Portrait Gallery

  Painting—Shackleton John—Pelham, Henry (C1695–1754) Prime Minister C1752

  Painting—Long Edwin—Iddesleigh, Stafford Henry Northcote, 1st EARL (1818–87)

  Painting—Watts George Frederick—Sherbrooke, Robert Lowe, 1st Visc. (1811–92) Chanc/Exch

  Painting—Hall Sydney Prior—Gladstone, William Ewart (1809–98) Prime Minister

  Painting—Childers Emily Maria—Childers, Hugh Culling Eardley (1827–96) Statesman

  Painting—Sargent John Singer—Hill, Octavia (1838–1912), Social Reformer

  Painting—Millais John Everett—Beaconsfield, Benjamin Disraeli, Earl (1804–81)

  National Gallery

  Painting—Zais Giuseppe—Landscape with a Ruined Tower

  Painting—Corot J. B. C.—The Waggon-Souvenir of Saintry 1874

  Painting—Hobbema Meyndert—A Stream by a Wood

  Painting—Bakhuisen Ludolf—A Beach Scene with Fishermen

  Painting—Corot J. B. C.—Souvenir of a Journey to Coubron

  Painting—Corot J. B. C.—A Flood

  Tate Gallery

  Painting—Opie John—Reynolds, Mrs. S. W.

  Painting—Anon 18C British School—Family Group in a Landscape

  Painting—Orpen William—Orpen, Lady

  Painting—Laszlo Philip A. De—Wantage, Lady

  Painting—Orchardson William Q.—Her First Dance

  Painting—Raeburn Henry—Fraser, Pringle

  Painting—Raeburn Henry—Lauzun, Mrs. H. W.

  Painting—Gainsborough Thomas—Blackstone, Sir William

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been removed from the United Kingdom at the expense of the carriers under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, by country of destination.

  Mr. Renton
  None. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 does not contain powers to remove people from the United Kingdom.

  Rape and Child Abuse
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department towards 88
  encouraging courts in England and Wales to allow rape or child abuse victims to give their evidence behind screens to try to stop intimidation of such people; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is for the courts to decide in the circumstances of each case whether or not to use screens. In addition, section 32 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 enables children under the age of 14 to give evidence by live television link from outside the courtroom in trials on indictment for violent and sexual offences. An advisory group chaired by his honour Judge Thomas Pigot QC is considering whether video-recorded evidence by children and other vulnerable witnesses should be admissible in criminal proceedings, and we look forward to receiving its report in the summer. We will examine any proposals for further protecting witnesses from courtroom intimidation in the light of group's findings.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights in England; and which organisations made these representations.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Representations are regularly received, both from individuals and organisations, which might be interpreted as alleging violations or denials of human rights in relation to specific cases or generally. No central record is kept of such representations or of the organisations making them.

  Police Sporting Schemes
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment has been made of whether police schemes for providing young people with purposeful activity of a sporting nature during their leisure time or vacation provided any evidence of a reduction in criminal referrals; how many such schemes are in operation; and what assessment has been made as to the costs of these schemes compared with the cost of referrals.

  Mr. John Patten
  There are no central records of schemes of this kind, although we are aware of many being run throughout the country, most of which draw local sponsorship and voluntary effort. It is for chief officers to decide whether to establish such schemes and to assess their value within the general cost-effective management of each force. One scheme, the Staffordshire police activity and community enterprise programme, (SPACE) in Staffordshire, has been the subject of a Home Office crime prevention unit paper which concluded that there was a possible link between SPACE and changes in the local crime pattern, but that other factors could also be involved. In Avon and Somerset, police schools liaison officers run over 100 different schemes and activities.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch,Official Report, 1 December 1988, column 396, what response he has had from the Law Officers in Jersey and the Isle of Man in respect of amending their laws on consensual homosexual acts between males.
  89
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The island authorities in Jersey and the Isle of Man have indicated that they have under consideration the question of legislation on this matter in order to enable them to conform with the European convention on human rights.

  Women Prisoners
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking on the recommendations of the National Association of Probation Officers recent report on the imprisonment of women with dependent children, a copy of which he has been sent.

  Mr. John Patten
  We published last year proposals for the development of non-custodial sentences. The national standards for community service orders, introduced on 1 April, ask probation areas to ensure that community service placements are available for women offenders, including those who are pregnant and those with young children. A review is taking place of policies on mothers and babies in prison.

  Guildford and Woolwich Pub Bombings
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost hitherto of the current investigation into the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings; how far this is apportioned between(a) the Home Office, (b) Avon and Somerset policy authority; how many officers are absent from duties in Avon and Somerset and whether full account is taken of this; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The inquiries by the Avon and Somerset constabulary into the new evidence which had been made available to my right hon. Friend in this case have been concluded. Following the issue of a writ the matter of costs is sub judice.

  The case was referred to the Court of Appeal on 16 January and the conduct of the prosecution case now rests with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  Murders (Chinatown)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the progress of investigations into the recent murders in London's Chinatown.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. The conduct of the investigation is a matter for the commissioner.

  Single Market (Immigration)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what effect the single European market in 1992 will have on immigration arrangements for people from(a) Montserrat and (b) other British dependencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Drunkenness (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief 90
  constable of Wiltshire as to the number of (i) soldiers and (ii) civilians arrested by Wiltshire constabulary in (a) Salisbury and (b) Amesbury and subsequently charged with being drunk and disorderly or causing a breach of the peace in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information available centrally relates to the number of persons found guilty or cautioned for offences of drunkenness in the Wiltshire police force area in 1987. This information was published in Home Office statistical bulletin 31/88, a copy of which is in the Library.

  To produce such information for each month of 1987 would involve disproportionate cost. Information is not collected centrally on the occupation of persons found guilty or cautioned nor can the area breakdown requested be given. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Immigration
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of(a) fiances and (b) male spouses who have been refused entry clearance and had an appeal against that refusal turned down on more than one occasion over the last five years.

  Mr. Renton
  The information requested is not available; the information available centrally does not separately identify re-applicants.

  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what positive practical proposals are being considered by his Department for continued or future support for schemes including bail support provision and other measures as a means of tackling overcrowding in(a) Her Majesty's prison Armley and (b) other prisons with a view to reducing the number of unconvicted young prisoners on remand; and what further measures he proposes.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Government continue to demonstrate their commitment to reducing the number of young people remanded in custody and to relieving prison overcrowding.

  An extensive development programme is under way to provide 500 extra bail places at approved hostels by April 1991. The first two hostels in this programme are due to open shortly and one of these is in Bradford. We are considering proposals of establish further approved bail hostels in West Yorkshire.

  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is preparing improved training on bail decisions for magistrates. We are encouraging the development of bail information schemes which give courts better information on which to base decisions about bail. A scheme is proposed for Leeds and is now subject only to final approval.

  By the mid-1990s over 25,000 new prison places will have been delivered by the prison building programme. The programme is frequently enhanced. We are now considering proposals to build two 300-place remand centres by 1991. One of these is at Everthorpe on Humberside. The building programme includes a refurbishment project at Her Majesty's prison Leeds which will increase its certified normal accommodation by 226 in 1992 and by 500 in 1997.
  91
  At the end of February this year there were over 600 fewer young prisoners on remand than 12 months previously.

  Immigrants (Literacy Test)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to introduce a language or literacy test for immigrants seeking to settle in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Renton
  We have no plans to apply such a test to those who wish to come to this country for settlement. But anyone wishing to acquire British citizenship by naturalisation is already subject to a language requirement.

  Television Licence Fee
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what prior notice and publicity of the recent increase in TV licence fee charges was given(a) in Stoke on Trent North and (b) nationally.

  Mr. Renton
  The increase from 1 April 1989 was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend on 27 October 1988, and was widely reported. Counter grille notices were displayed at Post Offices from 20 March. Reminders were also enclosed with renewal notices for licences expiring on 31 March; though I understand that in some areas these were delayed in the post. The Post Office is inquiring into the reasons for this.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the level of TV licence fees(a) generally, (b) for the elderly and (c) for those in sheltered accommodation.

  Mr. Renton
  Increases in the standard licence fee will remain linked to RPI increases until April 1991. There are no plans to alter these arrangements before then. Licence fees for the elderly and those in sheltered accommodation have been discussed on a number of occasions, and we are not persuaded of the need for further review.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) the police and fire services and (c) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangements on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: A total of 181 vehicles was purchased by the Home Office in 1988, at a cost of £1·95 million. Of these, 173 were described by the manufacturers as United Kingdom-produced, on the definition employed by the Department of Trade and Industry for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom-produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value.

  Information on the country of origin of vehicles purchased by individual police forces and fire brigades and by public sector agencies is not held centrally. However, about 80 per cent. of the vehicles in use in the police service in 1988 are reported to be United Kingdom-produced.

  War Crimes Inquiry
  Mr. Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to publish the forthcoming report of the war crimes inquiry, which is currently investigating persons suspected of involvement in Nazi crimes and now resident in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Hurd
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: As I indicated to the House in exchanges following my statement on 8 February 1988 announcing the establishment of the inquiry, publication of its report will depend on the nature of its contents. I shall consider this matter carefully when I have received the report.

  Amusement Machines
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the law governing licences for the installation of amusement machines; and whether the Government proposes to review the law in this area.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: We have received representations from a wide range of organisations and individuals concerning the provisions of the Gaming Act 1968 as they apply to amusement-with-prizes machines, in particular on the question of possible excessive involvement of children and young people in playing such machines. As a result we undertook a review, including research by the Home Office research and planning unit, during 1987–88 and we announced our conclusions on 28 July 1988 at columns 423–24. The results of the research showed that, while for a small minority of young people public concern is well-founded, the scale of the problem does not justify legislation. We have, however, initiated various steps, including consultation with all interested parties, to deal with problems identified in the review.

  We have also received representations to allow amusement-with-prizes machines in licensed betting offices, but have no current plans to do so.

  Mr. K. Vinayagamoorthy and Mr. A. Anapatan
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the immigration and work permit status of the late Mr. Kandiahkanapathy Vinayagamoorthy and the late Mr. Ambikaipahan Anapatan.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Both men had been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom, which entitled them to take employment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in the Department of Trade and Industry are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Forth
  The figures as at 13 April 1989 are:
  93

  Number

  Percentage

  (a) Women

  G1

  Nil

  —

  G2

  1

  8·3

  G3

  3

  5·4

  G4

  Nil

  —

  G5

  24

  10·9

  G6

  14

  8·0

  G7

  110

  11·4

  All staff

  5,974

  43·4

  (b) Ethnic minorities1

  G1–4

  Nil

  —

  G5

  2

  0·9

  G6

  4

  2·3

  G7

  16

  1·7

  All staff

  1,147

  8·3

  1 From 86 per cent, response to survey.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Department of Trade and Industry last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  An ethnic survey of DTI staff was completed in April 1988. The resulting data base is continuously updated.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Forth
  Recruitment to senior grades is normally conducted on the Department's behalf by the Civil Service Commission. On those few occasions when DTI recruits directly, the Department makes clear in its advertisements that it is an equal opportunity employer.

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the future status of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory.

  Mr. Forth
  Today the National Weights and Measures Laboratory has been established as a next steps agency. The laboratory is responsible for ensuring that the measurement aspects of retail and wholesale trade are accurate and fair through its work to approve designs of equipment such as scales, petrol pumps and weighbridges. It will play an important role as the EC becomes a single market in 1992.

  As an agency, the NWML will have increased financial and management freedoms to enable it to operate more effectively and efficiently. The change to agency status will give Dr. Peter Clapham, the chief executive, and the laboratory greater freedom to meet the challenges arising from the rapid development of technology as well as from the single European market.

  The NWML remains part of the DTI and its 50 employees will continue to be civil servants. It will continue to serve both local authority customers and industry, as well as advising on technical matters relating to measurement and trade.

  Details are set out in the laboratory's policy and resources framework document, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Single Market
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what effect the single European market in 1992 will have on trade arrangements with(a) Montserrat and (b) other British dependencies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Removal of remaining internal trade barriers after 1992 will make it easier for everyone to do business throughout the Community. The Community will undoubtedly continue to offer preferential access to developing country products under the ACP/Lomé and other arrangements.

  New Companies (Share Capital)
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what percentage of new companies formed in 1987 and 1988 had a nominal share capital of £100 and £100 to £1,000.

  Mr. Maude
  In 1987–88 a total of 38·3 per cent. of new companies in Great Britain were incorporated with nominal share capital of up to and including £100, and 0·5 per cent. with nominal share capital of over £100 and under £1,000. This and other information about companies is available from "Companies in 1987–88" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Accounting Standards (Stock Exchange Letter)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish the text of his Department's letter to the stock exchange complaining about the exchange's publicly expressed hostility to the proposals of Sir Ronald Dearing in his report on the future making of accounting standards.

  Mr. Maude
  No. The hon. Member may have seen a further press release from the international Stock Exchange, which the Government welcome.

  Arms Contracts (Losses)
  Mr. Chris Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on how many arms contracts losses have been incurred under the export credits guarantee scheme for each year since 1979; and what has been the total involved for each year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: Separate figures are only available for arms business underwritten on ECGD's section 2 (national interest) account. On this basis, total figures for premium, claims and recoveries are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Premium £000s

  Percent age of Total Premium received by ECGD

  Claims £000's

  Percent age of Total Claims paid by ECGD

  Recoveries £000's

  1979–80

  13,192

  8·7

  26,162

  9·9

  4,011

  1980–81

  6,357

  4·2

  31,684

  10·9

  3,847

  1981–82

  9,238

  3·9

  7,471

  2·5

  10,701

  1982–83

  12,196

  3·5

  5,183

  0·9

  4,012

  1983–84

  17,465

  10·7

  18,502

  2·7

  5,747

  1984–85

  10,754

  6·7

  10,445

  1·2

  924

  95

  Financial Year

  Premium £000's

  Percentage of Total Premium received by ECGD

  Claims £000's

  Percent age of Total Claims paid by ECGD

  Recoveries £000's

  1985–86

  22,375

  13·1

  8,212

  1·1

  447

  1986–87

  20,667

  13·0

  29,909

  3·8

  594

  1987–88

  15,013

  10·7

  46,000

  4·7

  154

  The figures relate to cash flows in the relevant financial year. Claims figures should not be equated with losses; in particular, substantial recoveries can be expected from the proceeds of on-going rescheduling agreements. The figures indicate that ECGD's general experience on this arms business has been better than on other trade sectors.

  Vehicles
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many vehicles and at what value were purchased by(a) his Department, (b) the Post Office and (c) other public sector agencies for which he is responsible, in 1988; and how many of these vehicles were British-made within the definition of British as set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in its arrangement on content with the European Community.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: My Department purchased 77 vehicles in 1988 at a total cost (including VAT) of £583,000. Seventy-six of these vehicles were produced in the United Kingdom on the basis of the definition employed by my Department for statistical purposes, under which a vehicle is classified as United Kingdom produced if the United Kingdom content exceeds 50 per cent. of the ex-works value. Vehicle purchases by the Post Office are a matter for the board, and information relating to public bodies for which my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State is responsible is not available centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  Transport and Energy Planning
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Transport, Environment and Energy, relating to transport planning and energy use matters; and if she will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Transport, Environment and Energy, relating to transport planning and energy use matters.

  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding her recent visit to Africa.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding her recent visit to Africa.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) earlier today.

  NATO
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the 40th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the 40th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the 40th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not received any recent representations on NATO's anniversary, although she is regularly involved in a range of matters regarding the United Kingdom's relationship with the allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

  Rastafarians
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the employment of Rastafarians in the public service.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to afford equal opportunity for employment within the public service to all eligible persons. This requires that employees are selected on the basis of their ability, qualifications and fitness for work and that there is no discrimination on racial grounds. This policy applies to all ethnic groups.

  United States President
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next intends to meet the President of the United States of America.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will see President Bush when he is in Europe for the NATO summit meeting at the end of May.

  Namibia
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister what is her assessment of the prospects of a peaceful solution to the political problems of Namibia.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  We very much regret the early difficulties encountered in the implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence and deplore the incursion which led to these. We welcome the agreement on the return of SWAPO forces to positions north of the 16th parallel in Angola. It is essential that this is put into effect and that henceforth all sides abide by their undertakings in the United Nations plan.

  Eastlands
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Eastlands in Rugby.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has no plans at present to do so.

  Elections (Publicity)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister what is the total amount of money being spent by Her Majesty's Government Departments on publicising the individual's right to vote in the forthcoming(a) county council and (b) European elections.

  The Prime Minister
  Every person registered to vote at these elections will receive a poll card specifying the election, and when and where polling will take place: the cost to the Treasury at the forthcoming European parliamentary elections is expected to be in excess of £3 million; a corresponding figure for the county council elections is not readily available. The cost of delivering candidates' election addresses at the European parliamentary elections, expected to be in excess of £4 million, will also be met by the Treasury. An annual campaign undertaken by the Home Office at a cost of around £0·5 million publicises the need to be included in the electoral register in order to secure the right to vote at all elections in the forthcoming year.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 April.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have been asked to reply.

  This morning my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister addressed the conference on security and co-operation in Europe forum at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. This afternoon my right hon. Friend will attend the 150th anniversary of independence celebrations in Luxembourg.

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  HCS

  DS

  Aid Wing (at 1 April 1989)

  Diplomatic Wing (at 31 December 1988)

  Aid Wing Diplomatic Wing (at 1 April 1989)

  Aid Wing Diplomatic Wing at 31 December 1988)

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1–3

  Senior grade

  0

  4

  0

  2·6

  4

  No DS equivalent

  0

  —

  0

  —

  5

  DS4

  4

  10

  10

  3·5

  6

  No DS equivalent

  3

  —

  4·6

  —

  7

  DS5

  19

  35

  11

  9·8

  All grades

  DS1 mainstream

  663

  759

  43·8

  24·3

  1 Information concerning all Home Civil Service equivalent grades in the FCO at 31 December 1988 is not yet available.

  There are no members of ethnic minority groups at DS5 and above in the diplomatic wing. The total number of

  EC (Monetary Union)
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will place in the Library a copy of the Delors committee's report on economic and monetary union in the European Community.

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Football Violence
  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken to enforce the convention on spectator violence at sports events signed on 19 August 1985 by Ministers of 10 nations, including the United Kingdom; what specific results have been achieved in the implementation of each of the 17 articles of this convention, and if she has any plans to assure the European Union of Football Associations that the convention will be fully implemented so that English football clubs can be re-admitted to European football competitions.

  The Prime Minister
  Fifteen countries have signed and ratified the European convention which was initiated and drafted by the United Kingdom following the Heysel stadium tragedy in 1985. The United Kingdom was the first signatory to the convention and chairs the standing committee which monitors its operation. Considerable progress has been made by the Government, the police and the football authorities to give effect to the measures contained in the convention. The Football Spectators Bill will provide further measures to counter hooliganism at football matches in this country and abroad. We will continue to keep UEFA informed of progress on these matters.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The most recent information available as regards women officers in the aid wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in the equivalent diplomatic service grades is as follows:

  staff in the diplomatic wing who have identified themselves as coming from ethnic minorities is 97, representing 1·8 per cent. of respondents.
  99
  In the aid wing, 1·7 per cent. of staff above grade 7 are from ethnic minorities. The total number of aid wing staff who have identified themselves as coming from ethnic minorities is 89, representing 5·9 per cent. of respondents.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  New recruits are asked to complete a form concerning their ethnic origins when they join the diplomatic or aid wings of the FCO.

  An initial survey of the ethnic origins of existing staff was carried out in April 1986 with follow-up exercises in September 1986, and January-February 1988. There are no plans for a further survey of this kind.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no direct recruitment into the top grades of the FCO—above DS8–7D, equivalent to AT/HEO/D in the home Civil Service.

  Appointments in the aid wing are by internal promotion or by open competition, and an equal opportunities policy is applied.

  The FCO is an equal opportunity employer. This policy is made clear in recruitment literature and advertising, including, on occasions, in the ethnic press.

  Rain Forest
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with Senor Londono, Foreign Minister of Colombia, during his visit to London on rain forest problems.

  Mr. Eggar
  During his visit to London from 10 to 13 April, I raised with Senor Londono the strong concern felt in this country about the problems of the tropical rain forests. I stressed that we were willing to co-operate with South American Governments on this issue.

  Namibia
  Mr. Robert Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for the United Nations peace plan of recent outbreaks of violence in Namibia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Recent events in Namibia have demonstrated that implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence can be a success only if all parties abide by their undertakings in that plan. We have been active diplomatically in helping to put the United Nations plan back on track.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if there are any immediate plans to deploy the 7,500 United Nations troops in Namibia as specified under United Nations Security Council resolution 435.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This is a matter for the United Nations Secretary General. We have made it clear that, as a100
  permanent member of the Security Council, we would consider promptly and sympathetically any request by the United Nations Secretary General for reinforcing the United Nations transition assistance group. He has made no such request.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Nations troops were in Namibia on 1 April; how many were proposed to be there under the original United Nations plan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The strength of UNTAG's military component on 1 April was over 750. The full strength of UNTAG's military component is 4,650 as recommended in the United Nations Secretary General's report of 23 January. This is a reduction from the original level of 7,500 set out in 1978. The rate of deployment of UNTAG was for the United Nations to decide, once authorisation had been given by the General Assembly. We regret that delays, not of our making, in the Security Council and the General Assembly gave the secretary general inadequate lead-in time.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East,Official Report, 10 April, column 359, when he expects a decision on how the 10 million ecus earmarked by the European Community for the Namibia development trust are to be spent: and if he will make a further statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No decision has yet been taken on how the sum to which my hon. Friend refers is to be spent. It has not however been earmarked for the Namibia development trust. The Namibia development trust is simply one organisation which will be eligible to receive funds if it submits suitable projects. The European Commission is well aware of the need for assistance to Namibia to be strictly impartial during the transition to independence.

  South Africa
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action within the Council of Ministers Her Majesty's Government took in relation to a proposed joint EEC statement on the South African Disclosure of Foreign Funding Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have drawn attention within meetings of the Council of Ministers to the need for careful consideration of the Bill's implications for positive measures programmes in South Africa. A demarche on behalf of the Twelve was subsequently made by the Spanish ambassador in Cape Town. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said on 16 March, we have also made bilateral representations to the South African Government.

  Diplomats
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many serious offences were allegedly committed in 1988 by persons entitled to diplomatic immunity; and how many foreign diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in that year as a result of alleged offences.
  101
  Mr. Eggar
  Forty-four alleged serious offences by persons entitled to immunity were drawn to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1988. "Serious offences" are defined in accordance with the report to the Foreign Affairs Committee "The abuse of diplomatic immunities and privileges (1985)" as offences falling into a category which could in certain circumstances attract a penalty of six months or more; we are advised that very few of the alleged offences would have been likely to attract a custodial sentence. The majority involved drinking and driving and shoplifting.

  Fourteen diplomats were withdrawn from their posts in Britain in 1988 following alleged offences.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the number of unpaid parking fines incurred by each diplomatic mission in London during 1988.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is given in the table. The table also includes those international organisations which have incurred unpaid fines. The figures may be reduced by late payment.

  The total for 1988 (10,079) indicates a 30 per cent. reduction over the total 1987 figure (14,437) and is only 9 per cent. of the 1984 figure (108,845) the last to be published before the introduction in May 1985 of the Government's policy on parking by members of diplomatic missions in May 1985.

  We welcome the further reduction in unpaid parking fines that has been achieved during 1988 and appreciate the co-operation of diplomatic missions since the introduction of the parking policy. We shall continue to monitor carefully the level of unpaid fines, and bring pressure to bear on diplomatic missions to reduce this still further.

  Unpaid parking fines

  1988

  1987

  Egypt

  668

  799

  Soviet Union

  656

  622

  Saudi Arabia

  357

  382

  Poland

  340

  329

  Cameroon

  311

  159

  Spain

  310

  435

  Cote d'lvoire

  300

  138

  Sudan

  286

  236

  Brunei

  281

  127

  Iraq

  274

  424

  Greece

  259

  258

  Malaysia

  237

  329

  Pakistan

  228

  394

  Qatar

  228

  413

  Turkey

  201

  254

  Israel

  195

  216

  Thailand

  188

  246

  Morocco

  182

  263

  Korea

  175

  149

  China

  167

  551

  Tunisia

  158

  166

  Sierra Leone

  157

  189

  Zaire

  141

  150

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  123

  130

  United Arab Emirates

  122

  358

  France

  112

  513

  Japan

  110

  153

  Portugal

  109

  170

  Ghana

  105

  205

  Venezuela

  105

  116

  Brazil

  120

  149

  Germany (Democratic Republic)

  91

  185

  Algeria

  88

  172

  Bulgaria

  88

  80

  102

  1988

  1987

  Yugoslavia

  88

  104

  Jordan

  87

  165

  Ethiopia

  80

  82

  India

  79

  207

  Bangladesh

  77

  71

  Peru

  75

  155

  Cyprus

  72

  96

  Norway

  72

  60

  Kuwait

  70

  186

  Italy

  69

  302

  Canada

  66

  130

  Liberia

  61

  70

  Finland

  59

  82

  Senegal

  58

  43

  Tanzania

  58

  48

  Romania

  54

  59

  Barbados

  50

  172

  Sweden

  50

  58

  Ecuador

  49

  24

  Belgium

  45

  57

  Zambia

  45

  60

  Hungary

  44

  53

  Nigeria

  44

  251

  PDR Yemen

  44

  53

  Fiji

  43

  40

  Ireland

  43

  74

  Cuba

  41

  26

  Jamaica

  41

  68

  Kenya

  40

  138

  Indonesia

  38

  65

  Uruguay

  38

  55

  Burma

  37

  88

  Angola

  36

  0

  Somalia

  36

  41

  Czechoslovakia

  35

  38

  Lebanon

  35

  41

  Zimbabwe

  34

  223

  Iran

  33

  183

  Mauritius

  32

  25

  Uganda

  32

  41

  Gabon

  31

  78

  Paraguay

  31

  33

  Nicaragua

  29

  10

  Yemen Arab Republic

  29

  44

  Gambia

  28

  27

  Guyana

  27

  42

  Oman

  26

  295

  Philippines

  26

  45

  Malawi

  22

  6

  United States of America

  22

  77

  Honduras

  16

  16

  Iceland

  16

  51

  Trinidad

  16

  31

  Dominica

  14

  2

  Panama

  12

  22

  Lesotho

  11

  19

  Togo

  11

  18

  Colombia

  10

  23

  Mexico

  10

  35

  Afghanistan

  9

  8

  Seychelles

  9

  10

  Guatemala

  8

  0

  Netherlands

  8

  6

  Antigua and Barbuda

  6

  13

  Austria

  6

  12

  Chile

  6

  76

  Vietnam

  6

  4

  Bolivia

  5

  5

  Botswana

  5

  29

  Eastern Caribbean

  5

  8

  Nepal

  5

  10

  Sri Lanka

  5

  8

  Mongolia

  4

  I

  Luxembourg

  3

  2

  Switzerland

  3

  0

  Bahamas

  2

  7

  Denmark

  2

  5

  E1 Salvador

  2

  0

  103

  1988

  1987

  Singapore

  2

  2

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  3

  Australia

  0

  0

  Bahrain

  0

  6

  Belize

  0

  0

  Costa Rica

  0

  20

  Grenada

  0

  0

  Holy See

  0

  0

  Malta

  0

  0

  Mozambique

  0

  0

  New Zealand

  0

  0

  South Africa

  0

  19

  Swaziland

  0

  5

  Tonga

  0

  0

  International Organisations

  Commonwealth Secretariat

  21

  75

  Cocoa

  13

  7

  WEU

  10

  15

  IMO

  1

  13

  EEC

  1

  0

  UN

  0

  0

  Coffee

  0

  0

  Immarsat

  0

  0

  Sugar

  0

  0

  Totals

  10,079

  14,437

TRANSPORT

  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to discuss with the British Railways Board the further electrification of the St. Pancras-Sheffield midland line.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no plans to do so. It is for BR to propose such a scheme if it believes it to be worthwhile.

  Ryrie Rules
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had concerning the Ryrie rules for(a) road projects and (b) rail projects.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend and I have meetings from time to time with potential private sector operators about the interpretation of these rules.

  Lindane Container (English Channel)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the individual amounts of expenditure laid out by his Department in the attempt to recover the lost container of lindane in the Channel.

  Mr. Portillo
  The container of lindane was on board MV Perintis which sank in international waters in the English Channel on 13 March.

  As the result of an Anglo-French air-sea search the floating container of lindane was located in a French area of responsibility on 15 March and taken under tow towards Cherbourg by the French authorities. While in transit the container was lost again. The French have subsequently carried out a very extensive but unsuccessful search but have not sought—or required—British assistance.

  The exact location of the container is still unknown but is thought to be about 15 km north-west of Cap de la
  104
  Hague, in a sector of the Channel for which the French authorities are fully responsible for taking counter-pollution action. Accordingly the Department has not been involved in the search.

  Only £302·24 has been expended by the Department in the search for the lindane, on an aerial surveillance flight by an MPCU aircraft on 15 March as part of the initial, successful, search for the floating container.

  M1-M25 Junction
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average lengths of peak hour tailback on the M1 at its junction with the M25.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We do not systematically record information about the lengths of tailbacks.

  M1 (Traffic Flow)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State For Transport, pursuant to the answer of 11 April to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, if he will identify the types of vehicles and numbers in the quoted traffic flow of 5,200 between junctions 9 and 10 on the M1.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Typical peak flows by vehicle types are:

  A.M. peak southbound Per cent.

  A.M. peak northbound Per cent.

  Motorcycles

  0·5

  0·8

  Cars/taxis

  71·0

  77·4

  LGV

  8·0

  9·3

  HGV

  20·0

  11·5

  Bus/coach

  0·5

  1·0

  TOTAL

  100·0

  100·0

  M1 (Accidents)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles were involved in accidents between junctions 9 and 10 on the M1 for each month since January 1985.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The number of vehicles involved in injury accidents between junctions 9 and 10 on the M1, by month, from 1985 to 1987, are shown in the table. Detailed figures for 1988 are not yet available.

  Number of vehicles involved in accidents

  1985

  Number of vehicles

  January

  0

  February

  4

  March

  1

  April

  5

  May

  1

  June

  0

  July

  1

  August

  6

  September

  0

  October

  8

  November

  6

  December

  12

  Total

  44

  105

  Number of vehicles involved in accidents

  1986

  Number of vehicles

  January

  4

  February

  1

  March

  5

  April

  7

  May

  0

  June

  5

  July

  2

  August

  20

  September

  3

  October

  21

  November

  4

  December

  15

  Total

  87

  Number of vehicles involved in accidents

  1987

  Number of vehicles

  January

  0

  February

  2

  March

  0

  April

  14

  May

  0

  June

  9

  July

  7

  August

  4

  September

  12

  October

  24

  November

  5

  December

  5

  Total

  82

  Container Terminal (Hull)
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the present situation with regard to the closed container terminal in Hull.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that this terminal in the port of Hull ran at a loss for many years. After trying without success to secure the registered dock workers' agreement to reduced manning levels in order to make the terminal competitive, Associated British Ports announced its temporary closure last August. This January ABP announced that the closure would be permanent. The future of the terminal site is a commercial decision for ABP.

  Roads
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he intends to publish proposals on the future road network in the north-east region;

  (2) when he expects to announce changes in the roads programme;

  (3) when he expects to publish a White Paper on the future of the road system.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are currently reviewing the trunk road programme, including routes in the north-east region. We expect to announce the results in the early summer.

  Traffic Area Organisation
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to carry out a review of the traffic area organisation.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We have commissioned a review of the functions of the traffic commissioners and of the traffic area offices to identify any changes which would improve efficiency or standards of performance. The review will be carried out by Mr. J. Palmer, CB, who was a deputy secretary in the Department until his retirement. Any views or representations can be sent to Mr. Palmer at the Department's headquarters at 2 Marsham street.

  "Motorcycling Safety"
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions he has reached in the light of comments received on his paper "Motorcycling Safety", issued in February 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The proposals for change were warmly received. There was a general recognition that the urgent need was to make motorcycling safer. The proposal that prospective moped riders and motorcyclists should be trained before being allowed to ride on their own received particularly widespread support.

  The aspects of the proposals which led to most comment, were those dealing with progression to more powerful machines (over 400cc), and the duration of provisional motorcycle licences, which we propose reducing to one year. On the former, many commentators advocated a power limit either as well as, or instead of, the 400cc limit. On the latter, there was widespread concern that one year was not long enough, although the need for a firm incentive for provisional licence holders to take training within a year at most was widely recognised. Comments were also received on the proposed changes to the car licence holders, moped and motorcycle entitlements, and on the proposed prohibition on learners carrying passengers on the road.

  In the light of these comments we have reached the following conclusions:

  1. Car drivers' full moped entitlement will in future be provisional. This will make the position regarding moped the same as that for motorcycles. Car drivers' provisional motorcycling entitlement will be retained.

  2. Car drivers will have to undergo the same training as other prospective motorcycle and moped riders before their provisional licence entitlement comes into effect.

  3. The compulsory training, to be known as "basic training", will not necessarily have to be completed on one day. In the light of representations, there will be waivers of the basic training requirement for certain offshore islands, but these will be subject to tight conditions. We are to start mandatory training in mid-1990. In the meantime, training schemes will be phased in on a voluntary basis wherever possible. Detailed discussions are now well advanced with training bodies, local authorities, motorcycle manufacturers and dealers about the content of the training courses and the arrangement for ensuring that motorcyclists can take the training with the minimum practical difficulties.

  The proposal to reduce the validity of provisional licences from two years to one will be modified. A licence will be valid for one year in the first instance and will be extended for a further year if the holder has taken but failed a test before the end of the year or has booked a test which, for good reason, could not be taken.

  4. The proposal to create a licence category for motorcycles in excess of 400 cc will be amended to incorporate a power limit. We favour a system under which drivers will be

  107
  able to progress to larger machines after two years' riding experience on a full licence. The technical definition of the power limit, and the scope of the two years' experience qualification, will be considered further in the light of consultations on the European Commission's proposal for a second directive on driver licensing which covers both points. We are still considering whether an additional test could be provided for those exceptional cases where a rider might have gained sufficient experience to ride a bigger machine in less than two years.

  5. As proposed in the original package, learner riders will be banned from carrying passengers. Concern expressed in the consultation exercise about the degree to which carrying pillion passengers changes the handling characteristics of motorcycles (particularly smaller ones) far outweighed comments favouring continuation of the present arrangements.

  BREL (Sale)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the sale of British Rail Engineering Ltd. is to be completed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am pleased to announce that the railways board has today completed the sale of its engineering subsidiary BREL (1988) Ltd. to the consortium comprising the management and employees of BREL, Trafalgar house plc and Asea Brown Boveri Ltd.

  Traffic Noise
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the noise levels on the db(A) scale at which compensation or soundproofing grants may be payable for the United Kingdom and the other members of the European Economic Community in respect of new roads or railway lines.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: For England and Wales road traffic noise is covered by the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975. Broadly comparable regulations apply to Scotland. There are no such regulations applying to Northern Ireland. We do not have (for either road or rail) detailed information of arrangements in the other EC countries.

  The 1975 regulations apply a threshold level of 68db(A)L10 18 hour. Where it is estimated that noise levels from traffic will within 15 years be at or in excess of this level at dwellings within 300 m of the new road, a duty is imposed on highway authorities to offer secondary glazing provided that:

  (a) the traffic noise level will be at least 1 db(A) more than the level before the road was built; and

  (b) noise from traffic using the new road will contribute at least 1 db(A) to the calculated level.

  There is no statutory noise standard for new railways. For further information on rail noise insulation, I refer to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on 10 April at column 409.

  Ferries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list by name, for each of the seven passenger ferries which do not comply with the enhanced safety standards recommended after the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the reason why modification is not a realistic proposition(a) because it is technically impossible to make the modification, (b) because financial
  108
  consideration prevents work being carried out, or (c) due to any other specified reason; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) on 4 April 1989, at column 20, which named the ferries that the owners have indicated will not be retained for more than about another three years. Modification would be so extensive that they do not believe it to be economically realistic.

WALES

  Beef
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the present state of the beef sector of the agricultural industry in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The beef sector in Wales is in a healthy condition. The June 1988 agricultural census results show that the total beef herd in Wales increased by 2 per cent. over the previous year while the number of heifers in calf intended mainly for rearing calves for beef rose by 24 per cent., reflecting producers' optimism for the beef market.

  Water Charges (Fire Service)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that the fire service will be exempt from charges for water when Welsh Water is privatised.

  Mr. Grist
  Clause 79(1) of the Water Bill currently before Parliament specifically precludes the privatised companies from making charges in respect of water taken for the purposes of extinguishing fires, testing apparatus installed or equipment used for extinguishing fires.

DEFENCE

  Disarmament
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the achievements made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in multilateral disarmament of(a) conventional weapons, (b) chemical and biological weapons and (c) nuclear weapons since 1959.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have been asked to reply.

  With regard to conventional weapons, all NATO states are signatories of the agreement reached in Stockholm in September 1986 on a range of confidence-building measures designed to increase openness and predictability about military activities in Europe NATO states are currently participating in a further round of such talks in Vienna designed to build on the results achieved in Stockholm. Also in Vienna, NATO/Warsaw pact negotiations have just begun on conventional armed forces in Europe with the aim of establishing a stable balance of forces in Europe: the mandate for these negotiations is based largely on Alliance proposals. These new talks supersede the MBFR negotiations, in which a number of Alliance countries participated: these concluded on 2 February.
  109
  In the field of biological and chemical weapons an international convention prohibiting the development, production and stockpiling of biological weapons was concluded in 1972. All NATO member states are a party to it. The multilateral negotiations for a global ban on chemical weapons continue at the 40-nation conference on disarmament in Geneva.

  In respect of nuclear weapons NATO countries actively supported the successful negotiation of the INF treaty removing ground based intermediate range nuclear missiles from Europe: the elimination of these missiles was first proposed by NATO in 1981.

  Soldiers (Arrests)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers have been arrested by the military police in(a) Salisbury and (b) Amesbury and subsequently charged with being drunk and disorderly or causing a breach of the peace in each of the past 12 months.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Royal Military police made no arrests for alcohol-related offences in Salisbury during the last 12 months. In Amesbury however, they arrested one soldier in July 1988, two in August 1988 and one in March 1989 for such offences.

  DROPS
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what grounds he has made payments to Leyland Dal, in connection with DROPS, additional to contract; when these payments were made; if he plans to make further such payments; in what form, and in favour of which company, these payments were made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Following experience from the validation trials, the Ministry of Defence decided to combine features from the evaluation truck and the validation truck in finalising the production build standard for the medium mobility vehicles. Appropriate amendments were therefore made to the contract and payments were authorised to Leyland Daf reflecting these amendments. These payments were contained within the original approved programme limits. No further such amendments for DROPS equipments are envisaged.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from Leyland Daf on errors in the DROPS requirements as originally framed by EASAMS; what assessment he has made of the implications for defence procurement of these errors; to what extent companies competed against standards outwith the formal requirements; if he plans to seek to recover from EASAMS sums paid to Leyland Daf for rectification of the problems caused by these errors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  There have been no such representations from Leyland Daf. Companies competed against target figures laid down by the Ministry of Defence, not EASAMS Ltd. who were employed in the role of management support only. The statement of requirement made clear to the competing companies that these targets would be difficult to meet in combination and that trade-offs between parameters would be allowed.

  Swimming Pool (Mount Troodos)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received calling for the construction of a swimming pool at RAF Mount Troodos in Cyprus; and whether he intends to install such a facility.

  Mr. Neubert
  No bid has been received for a swimming pool at RAF Troodos. Moreover, the current scales for the funding of swimming pools at public expense provide only for their installation and maintenance if the pool meets a service training requirement; there is none in this case.

  Tornado
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received about training of aircrew on Tornado aircraft.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the operational capacities of the Tornado; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The operational capabilities of the RAF's front-line aircraft are kept under constant review. The build-up of the Tornado F3 force is proceeding satisfactorily, and the fourth squadron is due to become operational this year. As for the Tornado GR1, my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, informed the House during the Royal Air Force debate on 9 March at columns 1055–56 that we have decided to proceed with a mid-life improvement programme (columns 1055–56). A contract for the development phase of the programme was placed on Panavia on 16 March.

  RAF Leeming (Security)
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last reviewed the security of RAF Leeming in Yorkshire.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A comprehensive security inspection by command staffs took place in February 1989 and interim inspections are conducted by the station security staff.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to erect a perimeter fence at RAF Leeming.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is already a boundary fence which delineates the extent of MOD property. Where it has been considered necessary to provide enhanced physical security, additional fencing has been erected.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many unauthorised intrusions have occurred at RAF Leeming in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There were no reports of any unauthorised intrusions.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement about proposed United States military construction at RAF Upper Heyford, Oxfordshire;
  111
  (2) when his Department was first notified of the decision of the United States Air force to apply for funding for (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop at RAF Upper Heyford, in fiscal year 1990;

  (3) on what date representations were first received from his United States counterpart regarding proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop;

  (4) when he was first aware that the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop had been added to the United States military construction budget request for fiscal year 1990;

  (5) on what date or dates design work started on the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop;

  (6) which company or companies have been awarded conracts for design work on the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop;

  (7) on what date or dates the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop is scheduled to be started;

  (8) which construction contracts for the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop have been awarded; and to which company or companies;

  (9) on what date or dates the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop is scheduled to be completed; and when these facilities are scheduled to be operational;

  (10) whether it is normal practice for the United States Air Force to start design work for proposed construction in the United Kingdom before approval for such construction has been given by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The budget for the United States military construction programme submitted to Congress at the end of January 1989 for the fiscal years 1990–91 included proposals for additions to the flight simulator facility, the avionics maintenance shop and the jet engine shop at RAF Upper Heyford. The hon. Member was informed of these budgetary proposals in the reply that I gave him on 6 February at columns 515–16.

  Congress has not yet approved these proposals, nor has the United Kingdom Government authorised work to proceed. Consequently, no contracts have been let for these projects. However, in accordance with normal United States forward planning procedures, some preliminary design work was commissioned from the PSA in August 1988 and the Ministry of Defence was informed of the proposals in parallel.
  112
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will describe the role and function of the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop;

  (2) what variants of the F-111 aircraft will be supported by the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop;

  (3) how many aircraft will be supported by the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop;

  (4) if he will describe the new mission that will be supported by the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government have not agreed to any changes to the role or aircraft of the USAF 20th Tactical Fighter Wing stationed at RAF Upper Heyford, nor have they authorised any proposals to alter or expand the facilities at the station, other than for the aircraft currently based there.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyforcl of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop was not included in the answer to the hon. Member for Leyton,Official Report, 9 June 1988, columns 660–62 regarding United States military construction in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  These proposals were knot submitted to Congress until January 1989.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries have been informed of the proposed construction at RAF Upper Heyford of (i) additions to the flight simulator facility, (ii) additions to the avionics maintenance shop and (iii) additions to the jet engine shop.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has regarding United States military construction at RAF Upper Heyford for the next five fiscal years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 6 February 1989 at columns 515–16.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has regarding the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation funded military construction at RAF Upper Heyford for the next five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO infrastructure funding for 1990 onwards has not yet been approved.

  Dual-Capable Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy on granting approval to
  113
  the United States Air Force for construction of new facilities to support the basing of new dual-capable aircraft in advance of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation decisions on nuclear modernisation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No construction required to support new dual-capable aircraft will be authorised in advance of NATO decisions; no early decisions are expected.

  United States Air Force
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on whether it is normal practice for the United States Air Force to request funding for proposed construction in the United Kingdom before approval for such construction has been given by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am informed that it is not unusual for the United States Administration to request budgetary authority in advance of construction approval because of the long lead times in the United States programming and budgeting process.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what special circumstances in the last five years Royal Air Force aircrew have been authorised to fly at a height less than that set out in joint service publication 318 and the United Kingdom military low flying handbook, as provided in section 51(b) of the Air Force Act 1955.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The military flying regulations (JSP 318) set out special circumstances under which flight at a height less than that provided for in those regulations is allowed.

  Joint Warfare Wing
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates, at what cost to his Department, and on what topics guest speakers have been invited to the joint warfare wing or its successor establishment since 1978.

  Mr. Neubert
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: I have taken the hon. Member's question to relate to non-Government guest speakers, but including those who have retired from Government service or the armed forces. Records of visits by such speakers to the joint warfare wing 1978–1982 are no longer available. Full records for the period 1982 onwards are not available but topics on which guest speakers can be identified as having lectured include aspects of the Soviet threat; campaigns since world war 2; current international affairs; arms control negotiations; counter-terrorism; the conventional balance in Europe; the strategic defence initiative; the role of conventional land/air forces; and aspects of modern media and publicity techniques. Speakers are offered a fee in the region of £50 to £80, together with travel expenses.

SCOTLAND

  Wildlife and Countryside Act
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in the Official Report the annual
  114
  payments by district council area made in respect of compensation agreements approved under section 30 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in 1988 and each of the preceding four years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Nature Conservancy Council (Scotland) has advised me that it has received no claims for compensation under section 30 of the 1981 Act in the period 1984–88. Had claims been made I would be unable to divulge details for reasons of confidentiality.

  Federation Internationale des Vins et Spiritueux
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what approach he has received about the hosting of a reception for the Federation Internationale des Vins et Spiritueux during its forthcoming assembly in Scotland organised by the Scotch Whisky Association; and what has been his response.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not received any such approach.

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total cost and value of third party insurance for the consequences of any nuclear accident at Torness power station; and if he will make a statement on the proportion of the risk which is carried by the Government, the South of Scotland Electricity Board and insurance companies, respectively.

  Mr. Lang
  The Nuclear Installations Act 1965 requires all operators of nuclear sites to make provision, either by insurance or other means, to meet claims for compensation in respect of injury or damage arising from a nuclear accident. The level required under the Act is currently £20 million. The cost to the South of Scotland Electricity Board of providing this cover is a matter for the board. Any claims in excess of the operator's liability and up to a sterling equivalent of 300 million special drawing rights (about £230 million) would be met from public funds. Beyond that, the Act provides that claims shall be satisfied to such extent and out of funds provided by such means as Parliament may determine.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will set out Her Majesty's Government's policy on adult education in Scotland;

  (2) what plans he has to issue guidelines to local authorities regarding provision of adult education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what proposals he has to promote adult education in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Education authorities in Scotland have a duty under the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to ensure that there is available in their areas adequate and efficient provision of further education, and this includes voluntary part-time and full-time courses of instruction for persons over school age and social, cultural and recreative activities. Adult education is one element of this provision. Education authorities decide for themselves the level of provision in the light of local needs and
  115
  circumstances, and having regard to the activities of other institutions providing further education or promoting its development.

  The Government monitor developments in further education and, using resources available centrally, encourage particular areas of activity and provide support to a range of bodies and voluntary organisations whose functions include the promotion, development and provision of further education. But the education authorities determine their own adult education programmes and respond to needs as they arise in their localities. The Government have no plans to issue guidelines to authorities.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to earmark central Government educational expenditure grant for the provision of adult education in local education authorities in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  General support for local authority services is provided through revenue support grant which affords local authorities maximum discretion to choose their own spending priorities. The excellent revenue support grant settlement for 1989–90 should afford authorities plenty of scope to provide such adult education services as they deem appropriate.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list in the Official Report figures for the past five years showing what financial resources were devoted to adult education in Scotland broken down by education authority area on a per capita basis;

  (2) if he will list in the Official Report total expenditure on adult education in Scotland shown at constant 1979 prices for 1979 to the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Expenditure on adult education is one element of expenditure on further, higher and community education and cannot be identified separately.

  REPLAN Scheme
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce a similar scheme in Scotland to the REPLAN scheme in England and Wales.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No. Education authorities have a responsibility to ensure that adequate and efficient further education is available in their areas. The flexibility of the modular system of further education applying in Scotland and the Scottish wider access programme have both increased the opportunities available for all adults—including those not currently in employment—to benefit from education and updating. Education provision for the unemployed is also available through voluntary organisations supported by Scottish Education Department funding, and through the Training Agency's employment training programme.

  Adult Counselling
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has plans to expand and develop adult counselling in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 gives education authorities powers to provide 116
  vocational guidance services for persons other than those attending or leaving schools and colleges. Advice was given to education authorities in "The Careers Service—Memorandum of Guidance to Education Authorities in Scotland" issued in March 1988. Guidance and counselling for adult students is an important element of the provision being made by education a ill authorities under the Scottish wider access programme.

  Open Learning Centres
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has plans to expand and develop open learning centres in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office is providing funds towards the establishment and development of an open learning centre in Whitfield, Dundee. I hope that this initiative will provide valuable experience in delivering adult basic education, which may lead to the establishment of further centres in Scotland.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many representations he has received about the denial of human rights in Scotland; and which organisations made these representations.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available. My right hon. and learned Friend receives a large number of representations from individuals and organisations covering a wide range of subjects. While a number of these could no doubt be regarded as alleging breaches or denials of human rights, such representations are not separately identified and details of their origin and number cannot therefore be provided.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will instigate research into the suitability of the drug L.Threonine for the treatment of motor neurone disease;

  (2) what proportion of his budget is spent on research into motor neurone disease.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Home and Health Department is not funding any research relating to the drug L.Threonine or motor neurone disease, but sympathetic consideration would be given to applications for any soundly based research project. The Medical Research Council funds research into aspects of motor neurone disease and is presently supporting two projects based in Edinburgh and two in Glasgow.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Department are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The number and percentage of women officers in grades 1 to 7 and overall in the Scottish Office and associated departments are shown in the table:
  117

  Women

  Women per cent.

  Grade 1

  —

  —

  Grade 2

  —

  —

  Grade 3

  1

  4·0

  Grade 4

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  8

  6·8

  Grade 6

  25

  14·3

  Grade 7

  42

  10·7

  Overall

  3,185

  41·8

  None of the staff in unified grades 1 to 7 describe themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority. Of the total staff 0·4 per cent, are from the ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department last conducted a survey of the ethnic origin of its employees; when it next plans to do so; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department conducted a voluntary survey of the ethnic origins of staff in 1987. Since then all new entrants have been asked to complete a questionnaire in order to keep this information up-to-date. I have no plans to conduct a further survey.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department does not conduct recruitment for top grades.

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mrs. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current pupil-teacher ratios for each of the Scottish education authorities in both primary and secondary education.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The provisional average pupil-teacher ratios in education authority schools at September 1988 are set out in the table.

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borders

  17·9

  12·3

  Central

  20·2

  13·3

  Dumfries/Galloway

  18·7

  11·6

  Fife

  19·9

  13·1

  Number of schemes

  Schemes on transitional funding grant before April 1989

  Schemes run by local authorities

  Schemes run by community and voluntary organisations

  Total YTS schemes

  Schemes run by local authorities

  Schemes run by community and voluntary organisations

  Total YTS schemes on transitional funding

  Borders

  4

  —

  7

  2

  —

  2

  Central

  13

  —

  90

  7

  —

  8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  7

  —

  51

  6

  —

  7

  Fife

  12

  2

  90

  5

  —

  8

  Grampian

  7

  1

  36

  2

  1

  3

  Highland

  20

  2

  43

  6

  —

  7

  Lothian

  29

  8

  179

  12

  8

  20

  Orkney

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  2

  —

  4

  1

  —

  1

  Strathclyde

  94

  8

  605

  56

  2

  67

  Tayside

  7

  5

  31

  3

  5

  8

  Western Isles

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  200

  26

  1,140

  100

  16

  131

  118

  Primary

  Secondary

  Grampian

  19·2

  13·1

  Highland

  18·1

  12·2

  Lothian

  20·0

  12·7

  Strathclyde

  21·3

  12·8

  Tayside

  19·7

  11·6

  Orkney

  16·1

  10·2

  Shetland

  13·6

  9·5

  Western Isles

  15·0

  10·0

  ALL SCOTLAND

  20·2

  12·6

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the amount of timber lost through wind blow during the storm that struck Scotland on 13 February; what measures he has taken to compensate the owners of such timber; and what has been the total cost of such measures.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An estimated 300,000 cu m of timber were blown down in Scotland on 13 February. As regards compensation, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  YTS
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many YTS schemes are run by voluntary and community organisations in each Scottish region;

  (2) how many YTS schemes are run by the local authorities for each Scottish region;

  (3) what is the total number of YTS schemes run in each local authority region in Scotland;

  (4) how many YTS schemes are run by voluntary and community organisations which received a transitional funding grant before 1 April for each Scottish region;

  (5) how many YTS schemes are run by local authorities which received a transitional funding grant before 1 April for each Scottish region;

  (6) how many YTS schemes were paid a transitional funded grant in respect of training before 1 April for each Scottish region.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Details requested are set out in the table:
  119
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many YTS schemes trainees are on schemes run by local authorities in each Scottish region;

  (2) what is the total number of YTS scheme trainees in each local authority region in Scotland;

  (3) how many trainees are on transitional funded YTS schemes run by local authorities for each Scottish region before 1 April;

  Number of trainees on schemes

  Schemes on transitional funding grant before I April 1989

  Schemes run by local authorities

  Schemes run by community and voluntary organisations

  Total YTS schemes

  Schemes run by local authorities

  Schemes run by community and voluntary organisations

  Total YTS schemes on transitional funding

  Borders

  168

  —

  231

  129

  —

  129

  Central

  921

  —

  3,384

  357

  —

  387

  Dumfries and Galloway

  642

  —

  1,383

  142

  —

  212

  Fife

  1,262

  200

  3,666

  432

  —

  496

  Grampian

  948

  59

  3,908

  99

  59

  158

  Highland

  633

  89

  2,065

  302

  —

  340

  Lothian

  1,608

  341

  5,254

  588

  341

  929

  Orkney

  150

  —

  150

  —

  —

  —

  Shetland

  106

  —

  114

  99

  —

  99

  Strathclyde

  5,764

  807

  25,185

  3,505

  306

  4,372

  Tayside

  1,320

  503

  3,868

  100

  276

  376

  Western Isles

  217

  —

  217

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland

  13,739

  1,999

  49,425

  5,753

  982

  7,498

HEALTH

  Westminster and Chelsea Teaching Hospital
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when it is planned that demolition work will begin on the site of St. Stephen's hospital, Fulham, in preparation for the construction of the new Westminster and Chelsea teaching hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand from North West Thames regional health authority that contractors will be starting work on the St. Stephen's hospital site on 15 May 1989.

  Constituency Sizes
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the 25 largest constituencies in England, in terms of numbers of electors on the register as at the current date.

  Mr. Freeman
  The 1989 electoral statistics for local authority areas will be published in "OPCS Monitor EL89/1" on 25 April. Electoral statistics for parliamentary and European constituencies are still being prepared. They will be published in "Electoral Statistics, 1989" (Series EL No. 16) at the end of May, and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received the second report of the committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The committee for monitoring agreements on tobacco advertising and sponsorship has submitted its
  120
  (4) how many YTS trainees are on schemes run by voluntary and community organisations in each Scottish region;

  (5) how many trainees were on YTS transitional funded schemes run by voluntary and community organisations in each Scottish region before 1 April;

  (6) how many trainees were on YTS transitional funded grant schemes in each region in Scotland before 1 April.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Details requested are set out in the table:

  second report and copies have been placed in the Library. I am grateful to the committee and its chairman, Sir Peter Lazarus, for their excellent work in continuing to monitor the arrangements and for their second report. The report shows that, in general, the system of voluntary agreements, which govern tobacco advertising, health warnings and sports sponsorship, are continuing to work well and that the tobacco companies are honouring their commitments. This view is supported by the fact that the level of complaints to the committee has dropped substantially since its first report was published last year.

  The chairman has expressed the hope that the Government and the tobacco industry will soon embark on renegotiating the voluntary agreements. We note his concern, and intend to discuss the way forward with the industry shortly. We also note and share his concern about older permanent advertisements which do not carry health warnings.

  Bottled Water
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost in 1987 and 1988 of bottled water supplied to families with young babies by the East Anglian regional health authority and the Norwich district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  The health authorities did not supply bottled water to families with young babies.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of National Health Service funding, by region, is dedicated to services for(a) premature senile dementia, (b) youth mental illness services and (c) forensic services;
  121
  (2) if he will list the estimated cost by region of maintaining hospitals for the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and elderly.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information on health authorities' expenditure specifically on premature senile dementia, youth mental illness services and forensic services is not collected centrally.

  For information on regions' total revenue expenditure on hospital services analysed to types of hospital (including "Geriatric", "Mental Illness" and "Mental Handicap") I refer the hon. Member to tables in the Department's annual publication "Health Services Costing Returns" (the latest being for 1986–87), copies of which are held in the Library.

  NHS (Resources)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what criteria were employed to determine the allocation of

  1985-Based Population Projections for Standard Regions

  Percentage of elderly population

  England and Wales

  Regions

  Age

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  North

  Over 75

  6·62

  6·71

  6·73

  6·68

  6·65

  6·91

  7·15

  7·34

  7·46

  7·57

  7·67

  Over 85

  1·31

  1·37

  1·42

  1·49

  1·55

  1·60

  1·65

  1·70

  1·75

  1·80

  1·84

  Yorkshire and

  Over 75

  6·91

  6·95

  6·92

  6·83

  6·76

  6·97

  7·14

  7·26

  7·32

  7·37

  7·41

  Humberside

  Over 85

  1·44

  1·50

  1·55

  1·61

  1·67

  1·72

  1·76

  1·80

  1·84

  1·88

  1·92

  East Midlands

  Over 75

  6·63

  6·69

  6·68

  6·60

  6·54

  6·76

  6·94

  7·07

  7·14

  7·21

  7·26

  Over 85

  1·37

  1·43

  1·48

  1·54

  1·60

  1·64

  1·69

  1·74

  1·78

  1·82

  1·86

  East Anglia

  Over 75

  7·61

  7·66

  7·65

  7·57

  7·51

  7·77

  7·94

  8·06

  8·13

  8·19

  8·23

  Over 85

  1·63

  1·70

  1·77

  1·85

  1·92

  1·99

  2·04

  2·10

  2·16

  2·22

  2·27

  South East

  Over 75

  7·08

  7·09

  7·05

  6·94

  6·85

  7·03

  7·16

  7·25

  7·29

  7·32

  7·33

  Over 85

  1·59

  1·64

  1·69

  1·75

  1·81

  1·85

  1·89

  1·93

  1·96

  2·00

  2·03

  Greater London

  Over 75

  6·91

  6·87

  6·78

  6·62

  6·49

  6·60

  6·66

  6·69

  6·67

  6·64

  6·59

  Over 85

  1·56

  1·61

  1·66

  1·71

  1·75

  1·79

  1·82

  1·84

  1·86

  1·88

  1·90

  Remainder of South East

  Over 75

  7·19

  7·23

  7·22

  7·13

  7·07

  7·29

  7·47

  7·60

  7·67

  7·73

  7·78

  Over 85

  1·60

  1·66

  1·71

  1·78

  1·84

  1·89

  1·94

  1·98

  2·03

  2·08

  2·12

  South West

  Over 75

  8·60

  8·63

  8·60

  8·48

  8·40

  8·64

  8·79

  8·89

  8·93

  8·97

  8·99

  Over 85

  1·95

  2·02

  2·09

  2·18

  2·25

  2·32

  2·38

  2·44

  2·49

  2·55

  2·60

  West Midlands

  Over 75

  6·22

  6·30

  6·32

  6·26

  6·22

  6·45

  6·66

  6·81

  6·91

  6·99

  7·05

  Over 85

  121

  1·27

  1·32

  1·38

  1·44

  1·48

  1·53

  1·57

  1·62

  1·66

  1·69

  North West

  Over 75

  6·77

  6·80

  6·77

  6·67

  6·59

  6·78

  6·94

  7·04

  7·09

  7·13

  7·16

  Over 85

  1·38

  1·44

  1·49

  1·55

  1·60

  1·65

  1·69

  1·73

  1·76

  1·80

  1·83

  Wales

  Over 75

  7·24

  7·30

  7·33

  7·30

  7·30

  7·54

  7·73

  7·87

  7·97

  8·07

  8·17

  Over 85

  1·53

  1·59

  1·65

  1·71

  1·77

  1·83

  1·87

  1·92

  1·97

  2·02

  2·06

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, for each district health authority, the total number of people(a) receiving mental illness services for up to six months, (b) receiving mental illness services for six months to one year and (c) receiving mental illness services for over one year.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested on duration of receipt of mental illness services in residential accommodation or on a non-residential basis is not held centrally.
  122
  the additional resources made available to the National Health Service as set out in the 1988 Autumn Statement (a) to regional health authorities and (b) from regional health authorities to district health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply of 21 December 1988 to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) at columns 316–18.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by region the estimated growth in the population of(a) over 75-year-old and (b) over 85-year-old people as a percentage of the total population for each of the next 10 years.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has given to regional health authorities on the funding of resettlement projects for the mentally ill.

  Mr. Freeman
  Resources for care in the community are made available from the main programme expenditure of health authorities and local authorities. Although no guidance has been given centrally, is is for health authorities and local authorities to determine how to deploy these resources in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Within health authority budgets, a specific allocation of joint finance is identified for community schemes jointly agreed between health authorities, local authorities, family practitioner committees and voluntary organisations.
  123
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has issued any guidelines to regions for achieving targeted growth in mental illness services.

  Mr. Freeman
  Last summer we issued planned guidelines to health authorities which included a requirement that by 1991 each district must have developed a "care programme" to provide a system of co-ordinated continuing care for people chronically disabled by mental illness, but living mainly in the community.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has issued any guidelines to health authorities on the way in which they determine the proportion of resources they should devote to services for the mentally ill.

  Mr. Freeman
  In general, allocations to regional health authorities do not make separate provision for individual clinical services or client groups. It is for authorities to determine how the resources available to them should be spent in line with national policy guidelines and their assessment of local needs and priorities.

  Maternal Deaths (Anaesthesia)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women of non-Caucasian origin were among the 19 maternal deaths and one late maternal death in England and Wales in 1982, 1983 and 1984 associated with anaesthesia.

  Mr. Freeman
  Four.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the source of(a) his statement on 5 December that 1,000 people had been affected by outbreaks of salmonella traced back to eggs and (b) his Department's statement on 6 December that 7,000 cases of salmonella had been so traced.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 17 February 1989]: My statement on 5 December 1988 at column 19 that

  Table A

  £ million

  Main service provision 1988–89

  1989–90 main service provision

  Initial cash levels1

  Column 1 adjusted to 1989–90 cash levels

  Initial cash levels1

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Northern

  735

  793

  832

  Yorkshire

  830

  894

  937

  Trent

  1,010

  1,089

  1,147

  East Anglian

  438

  472

  497

  North West Thames

  808

  871

  913

  North East Thames

  1,007

  1,086

  1,137

  South East Thames

  898

  968

  1,018

  South West Thames

  746

  804

  844

  Wessex

  615

  662

  699

  Oxford

  482

  520

  558

  South Western

  732

  789

  832

  West Midlands

  1,186

  1,278

  1,340

  Mersey

  586

  631

  664

  North Western

  1,005

  1,083

  1,140

  124
  "up to the end of October there had been 46 reported outbreaks of salmonella food poisoning in England and Wales involving about 1,000 cases"

  related to cases where the infection was directly attributable to the consumption of eggs. Over the same 10-month period there had been a total of 23,039 salmonella isolations of which 10,544 were salmonella enteritidis phage type 4, the type predominantly associated with chicken and eggs.

  My Department has never made any statement on 6 December or at any other time about 7,000 cases being traced.

  Health Authorities (Allocations)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the cash allocations to regional health authorities in 1988–89 and 1989–90 in standard prices using 1989–90 as the base; and if he will estimate the cash allocations to regions on a weighted capitation basis for 1990–91 and 1991–92 using 1989–90 as the price base, assuming the total flow of resources as per the public expenditure White Paper, assuming population forecasts as per the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, and before taking account of inter-regional direct payments;

  (2) what are the actual allocations made to regional health authorities for 1988–89 and for 1989–90 both on a current and standard price basis; and, in the case of the 1989–90 cash allocations, what are their percentage distances from the 1988–89 resource allocation working party target adjusted (a) by inflation and (b) by the percentage change between 1988–89 and 1989–90 in total nominal cash resources between 1989–90.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 16 March 1989]: Initial allocations to regional health authorities in 1988–89 and 1989–90 at the price bases requested are shown in the following tables, together with 1989–90 allocation distances from 1988–89 RAWP targets adjusted as requested. The level of resources which will be allocated to direct payments between regions will be discussed with regional health authorities, and, until this process is complete, it is not possible to speculate about the distribution of funding in future years.
  125

  1 Initial cash limit main provision. Excludes earmarked sums, for example, supra-regional services, AIDS, breast cancer screening and additional funding for the review body pay awards.

  Table B

  2Distance from 1988–89 targets adjusted by:

  1989–90 main service provision1

  Inflation 1988–89 to 1989–903

  Actual increase in cash resources between 1988–89 and 1989–90

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Column 1

  Column 2

  Column 3

  Northern

  832

  +6·1

  -1·58

  Yorkshire

  937

  +6·1

  -1·41

  Trent

  1,147

  +5·2

  -2·78

  East Anglian

  497

  +3·9

  -4·15

  North West Thames

  913

  +12·4

  4·27

  North East Thames

  1,137

  +15·4

  6·79

  South East Thames

  1,018

  +9·9

  1·66

  South West Thames

  844

  +8·8

  0·96

  Wessex

  699

  +6·4

  -1·82

  Oxford

  558

  +7·2

  -2·64

  South Western

  832

  +6·9

  -1·41

  West Midlands

  1,340

  +6·2

  -1·34

  Mersey

  664

  +9·6

  1·45

  North Western

  1,140

  +6·6

  -1·36

  1 As column 3 of Table A.

  2 Targets calculated from total resources available in 1988–89.

  3 As measured by the Gross Domestic Product Deflator.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farmers
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of farmers derive a significant proportion of their income from non-agricultural activities; and what proportion of national agricultural output is produced by those farmers.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Sea Disposal Licences
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those operations for which sea disposal licences for the deposit or incineration of waste at sea have been granted under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The number of licences issued under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 for disposals in England and Wales is as follows:

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Marine incineration

  20

  13

  15

  Liquid industrial waste

  26

  20

  18

  Solid industrial waste

  3

  8

  11

  Sewage sludge

  17

  17

  15

  Dredged spoil

  100

  101

  138

  All licences are now issued on an annual basis; until 1988 some solid industrial waste disposals were covered by five-year licences. With the exception of the dredged spoil category virtually all licences issued were renewals of existing licences.

  Details of licences issued are maintained by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a public register.

  Storm Damage
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the amount of timber lost in the storm which struck England during October 1987; and what is the total cost of the measures taken as a result of the storm.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is estimated that some 4 million cu.m of timber were blown down in England in the October 1987 storm. The Forestry Commission is expecting to pay in the region of £3 million in supplementary grants for the restocking of woodlands damaged in the storm.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice or recommendations he has received from the working party on pesticide residues on the enforcement of existing, or introduction of new, pesticide regulations, or other legislation, as a means of helping to reduce the use of pesticides against wildlife.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The working party on pesticide residues' remit is to collect and report data on pesticide residues: it does not make recommendations concerning the use or misuse of pesticides, since that is the task of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I believe that it is for the enforcement authorities to control the misuse of pesticides against wildlife, taking advantage of the improved opportunity for prosecuting those responsible which results from the introduction of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his reply of 23 March,Official Report, column 726–27, what advice and recommendations he has received from the advisory committee on pesticides on the enforcement of existing, or the introduction of new, pesticide regulations, or other legislation, as a means of helping to reduce the use of pesticides against wildlife.
  127
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The advisory committee on pesticides has taken the view that enforcement of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 is a matter for the competent enforcement agencies. The level of misuse of pesticides against wildlife has not suggested the need for additional measures or legislation.

  Alar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hectares of orchards were sprayed with Alar in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Under the regular cycle of surveys, data have been collected for 1987 but not for 1988. The 1987 data are now being collated and will be published as soon as possible.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the crops on which the chemical Alar is used and the purposes for its use.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  From the information available Alar products are currently used as growth regulators on apples, pears, chrysanthemums and other ornamentals, seed potatoes and on field beans for animal consumption.

  Original budget (concluding supplementary budgets)

  Supplementary budget

  Outturn

  National United Kingdom contribution

  United Kingdom receipts

  Conversion rota

  mua

  mua

  mua

  mua

  mua

  lmu = £

  1973

  3,263

  —

  3,786

  333

  152

  0·416667

  1974

  3,839

  —

  3,228

  355

  279

  0·416667

  1975

  4,306

  —

  4,914

  668

  848

  0·416667

  1976

  5,490

  717

  5,793

  939

  517

  0·416667

  1977

  6,581

  934

  6,964

  1,340

  422

  0·416667

  mecu

  mecu

  mecu

  mecu

  mecu

  lecu = £

  1978

  9,131

  —

  9,000

  1,386

  480

  0·663759

  1979

  10,022

  725

  10,880

  1,904

  593

  0·649236

  1980

  11,878

  —

  11,943

  2,484

  941

  0·805540

  1981

  13,401

  -1,070

  11,581

  2,490

  1,198

  0·556891

  1982

  14,533

  —

  13,077

  3,165

  1,357

  0·557801

  1983

  14,786

  1,763

  16,637

  3,677

  1,849

  0·586581

  1984

  17,288

  1,848

  19,092

  4,166

  2,244

  0·583969

  1985

  20,755

  —

  20,549

  4,011

  2,016

  0·588051

  1986

  23,104

  —

  23,028

  3,340

  2,084

  0·647851

  19871

  24,174

  -73

  23,963

  3,882

  1,840

  0·719320

  19882

  29,001

  —

  na

  na

  na

  0·662252

  19893

  28,618

  —

  na

  na

  na

  0·645161

  Source: EC budget, EAGGF financial reports, EC Court of Auditors reports, implementation of the budget reports.

  Notes: Before 1978, Community expenditure was expressed in units of account. As this unit had a different basis from the present ecu the figures for 1973–77 are not directly comparable with those for later years.

  1 Covers expenditure on market support for first 10 months only. In addition the PDB contains 640 mecu for depreciation of old stocks, 800 mecu for reimbursement of butter disposals in 1987–88 and a monetary reserve of 1,000 mecu.

  2 Covers expenditure on market support from November 1987 to 15 October 1988. In addition, the budget contains provision of 1,240 mecu for depreciation of old stocks and a monetary reserve of 1,000 mecu.

  3 Covers expenditure on market support from 16 October 1989 to 15 October 1989. In addition the PDB contains 640 mecu for depreciation of old stocks, 800 mecu for reimbursement of butter disposals in 1987–88 and a monetary reserve of 1,000 mecu.

  Insecticides (Cattle)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has of residues in cattle hides resulting from the use of pour-on insecticides; and if he has any evidence of any consequential problems for the tannery industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Like all veterinary medical products, pour-on insecticides for use on cattle are subject to the licensing requirements of the Medicines Act 1968. A licence is granted only if the company making a product
  128
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much Alar was sold in the United Kingdom in 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Such information is not collected by my Department.

  EC Budget
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will bring up to date the information in the reply dated 28 July 1988,Official Report, columns 389–90, concerning the European Community agricultural budget and outturn and the United Kingdom contribution; and if he will add the forecast up until 1991 as used in the compilation of the forecast in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm 621).

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is set out in the table. The United Kingdom contributes to the budget as a whole rather than to individual components, so the figures shown for the United Kingdom contribution are notional. It is not the Government's practice to produce calendar year forecasts for future years.

  can show that it is effective and of good quality and can be used safely. I am not aware of any problems in the tanning industry.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has as to how many people discharged from mental illness hospitals in
  129
  Northern Ireland in the last year after a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses, having been proved vulnerable boarders, subsequently became voluntary boarders.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not available.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many local authority residential places are currently available for those discharged from mental illness hospitals in Northern Ireland; what is the current rate of occupancy; and what are the projected figures for the next two years.

  Mr. Needham
  Statutory residential accommodation for the mentally ill in Northern Ireland is provided by the four health and social services boards. On 31 December 1987 the boards' homes and hostels provided 202 places for the mentally ill. The occupancy rate was 73·3 per cent. Information on projected figures for the next two years is not available centrally.

  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mental illness beds there were in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and what was the rate of occupancy; and what is the planned number for the current year.

  Mr. Needham
  The numbers for each of the last five years for which information is available are as follows:

  Year

  Beds

  Occupancy rate

  1983

  4,732

  79·3

  1984

  4,599

  78·8

  1985

  4,478

  81·99

  1986

  4,330

  79·7

  1987

  4,163

  80·2

  The planned number for the current year is not available centrally.

  River Roe
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to extend the European Community salmonid designation to the tributary streams of the River Roe.

  Mr. Needham
  As explained in my answer of 1 March 1988 at column 524, it is the Department's intention to extend designation of salmonid waters under the European Community directive 78/659/EEC as soon as resources permit. Consideration will then be given to designating the tributary streams of the River Roe together with other eligible rivers in Northern Ireland.

  Under-age Drinking
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the introduction on 22 March 1989 in the Province of an over-18 card by the Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  I welcome the federation's action, which should assist in combating the problem of under-age drinking.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the current pupil-teacher ratios for both primary and secondary education in each of the education and library board areas in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Available information relates to the 1987–88 school year and is as follows:

  Education and library board

  1Primary

  2Secondary

  Belfast

  22·6

  13·9

  Western

  23·6

  15·2

  North-Eastern

  23·5

  14·9

  South-Eastern

  23·7

  15·0

  Southern

  24·2

  15·0

  1 Includes nursery classes in primary schools and preparatory departments of grammar schools.

  2 Consists of secondary intermediate schools and secondary departments of grammar schools.

  Kincora Boys' Home
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the reply of 9 March,Official Report, column 1024, to the hon. Member for Brent, East, what is the precise number of other claims for compensation from ex-residents of the Kincora boys' home which are being processed; and if he will make a statement on the length of time taken to agree such settlements.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 4 April 1989]: In addition to the three claims which have been settled, eight other claims from ex-residents of Kincora boys' home are currently being processed. Settlements are normally the result of negotiations between parties and their legal advisers and I am not privy to them.

  Disability
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the survey of disability in Northern Ireland will take account of the criticisms made by the Disablement Income Group of the surveys undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: The study of disability in Northern Ireland is modelled closely on the study carried out in Great Britain by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys so as to facilitate valid comparisons of the findings. As in Great Britain, the views of the Disablement Income Group will be taken into account in considering the findings of the Northern Ireland study.

  Anti-terrorist Co-operation (Firearms)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will state the conditions with regard to the carrying of firearms which have to be observed by police officers from the Republic of Ireland whilst in Northern Ireland for the purpose of discussing anti-terrorist co-operation with their counterparts in the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 14 April 1989]: A police officer from the Republic of Ireland, like any visitor,

  131
  may not lawfully carry a firearm in Northern Ireland unless he is in possession of the appropriate authorisation from the Chief Constable of the RUC.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Chief Adjudication Officer (Report)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking in response to the recommendations contained in the annual report of the chief adjudication officer, 1987–88.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The recommendations contained in the annual report of the chief adjudication officer, 1987–88 are currently being considered and the responses will be published in the next annual report as is the normal practice.

  Attendance Allowance
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for attendance allowance there were in each of the last five years; how many of these claims were(a) unsuccessful, (b) awarded the lower rate and (c) awarded the higher rate; how many of the successful claims (i) satisfied the attendance conditions and (ii) satisfied the supervision conditions; and how many of the unsuccessful claims were applied for on grounds of meeting the supervision conditions.

  Mr. Scott
  Not all the requested information is available: the information which is available is in the table.

  Attendance Allowance

  Initial Claims 1984–1988

  Numbers Received and Decided, Disallowed and Awards Made

  Year

  Claims received and decided

  Claims disallowed

  Awards made

  Higher rate

  Lower rate

  1988

  318,600

  110,527

  74,058

  133,795

  1987

  300,581

  91,888

  78,338

  130,355

  1986

  250,561

  76,497

  61,457

  112,607

  1985

  255,125

  70,526

  66,218

  118,381

  1984

  239,804

  57,430

  67,445

  114,325

  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has completed his review of the introduction of attendance allowance for severely mentally and physically disabled children under the age of two years.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) on 22 February at column 682.

  "Poverty"
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy with regard to the use of the word "poverty" in official governmental reports.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is our policy that, in reports prepared by the Department, the word "poverty" should be used whenever it is the appropriate word.

  Supplementary Benefit
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table using regional 132
  classification to show expenditure in 1988–89 on supplementary benefit payments for occupants of (a) private residential homes and (b) hostels.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The table shows the estimated expenditure on payments of income support to people in private and voluntary residential care homes. I regret that reliable figures for hostel cases are not available.

  Social security region

  Annual equivalent expenditure (nearest £ million)

  North Eastern

  64

  London North

  78

  London South

  125

  Wales/South West

  99

  Midlands

  73

  North Western

  76

  Scotland

  39

  Great Britain

  555

  Source: August 1988 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many vaccine damage payments were made in 1987; and if he will categorise these according to the age of the child, when the vaccination took place, the year of the vaccination and the nature of the vaccination.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Ten payments were awarded in 1987 under the provisions of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. Details are in the table.

  Vaccine damage payments scheme awards made in 1987 by age of child at date of vaccination; year of vaccination and type of vaccination

  Age at date of vaccination (months)

  Year vaccine was given

  Type of vaccination cited on the claim form

  1 3–6

  1981

  Triple

  2 3–6

  1983

  Pertussis

  3 3–6

  1979

  Triple/polio

  4 3–6

  1984

  Triple/polio

  5 6–9

  1978

  Pertussis

  6 3–6

  1985

  Polio

  7 3–6

  1982

  Triple/polio

  8 3–6

  1984

  Pertussis

  9 6–9

  1985

  Triple/polio

  10 3–6

  1983

  Triple/polio

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide figures indicating the proportion of people of pensionable age in receipt of inflation-proofed occupational pensions in the following age bands(a) 60 to 65 years, (b) 65 to 70 years, (c) 70 to 75 years, (d) 75 to 80 years, (e) 80 to 85 years and (f) 85 years and over.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the national insurance contributions yield in 1989–90 and the first full year of the proposed reformed system for those workers at or below
  133
  (a) 25 per cent. average earnings, (b) 33 per cent. average earnings, (c) 50 per cent. average earnings, (d) average earnings, (e) twice average earnings, (f) five times average earnings, (g) 10 times average earnings, and (h) £150 per week.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 7 April 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Estimated yield: Class 1 primary national insurance contributions

  £ billions

  Earnings at or below

  1989–90

  1990–91

  (a) 25 per cent, average earnings

  01

  01

  (b) 33 per cent, average earnings

  0·3

  0·3

  (c) 50 per cent, average earnings

  10

  10

  (d) average earnings

  6·5

  6·2

  (e) twice average earnings

  12·8

  12·5

  (f) (g) three times average earnings

  13·4

  13·1

  (h) £150 per week

  2·2

  1·7

  All earners

  13·7

  13·4

  The Government Actuary's Department has supplied the estimate of the yield from national insurance contributions. Average earnings are those of all full-time male and female employees. Insufficient information is available to enable the yield from people earning five and 10 times the average to be calculated, and the table, therefore, includes figures based on earnings of three times average earnings and of all earners instead. All figures are rounded.

  Disabled People and Deaf People
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the amount of money given under section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 to(a) all organisations working with and for disabled people and (b) all organisations working with and for deaf people, for each year from 1980 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 13 April 1989]: I have been asked to reply.

  The following table, which relates to England only, gives as close an estimate as possible of the amounts given in each of the financial years 1979–80 to 1988–89 under the section 64 general scheme to (a) organisations working exclusively or primarily with or for physically disabled and sensorily impaired people: and (b) organisations working with or for deaf and hearing-impaired people. These totals do not include grants paid to some organisations concerned with specific medical conditions or organisations working primarily with mentally handicapped or mentally ill people, even though some of these also work with physically disabled people. Also excluded are the awards recently made following the error in calculating the retail prices index. During the period specified by the hon. Member, grants paid under the section 64 general scheme to organisations working with physically disabled and/or sensorily impaired people totalled approximately £20·2 million. Of that, approximately £2·03 million was awarded to organisations working with or for deaf or hearing impaired people.

  Total disabled

  Deaf/hearing impaired

  £

  £

  1979–80

  1,058,457

  54,060

  1980–81

  1,641,283

  155,420

  1981–82

  12,031,507

  158,600

  134

  Total disabled

  Deaf/hearing impaired

  £

  £

  1982–83

  1,837,190

  173,333

  1983–84

  2,129,394

  289,500

  1984–85

  2,153,267

  193,054

  1985–86

  2,339,083

  241,950

  1986–87

  2,535,750

  232,000

  1987–88

  2,528,043

  256,300

  1988–89

  21,975,965

  273,944

  1 This total includes the continuation of a number of grants related to the International Year of the Disabled in 1981.

  2 This total excludes the sum of £686,000 paid to Motability in 1988–89, as that grant was removed from the Section 64 general scheme in that year. Grants to Motability are included in the totals for earlier years.

ENERGY

  Margam Pit
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he now anticipates that a start will be made on the Margam pit.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The timing and priority of major projects is a matter for British coal, which keeps its capital expenditure programme under regular review. In the case of Margam, the timing will depend on the successful conclusion of a detailed agreement on six-day working and an up-to-date assessment of the project's commercial prospects.

EMPLOYMENT

  Construction Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of accidents that go unreported in the construction industry.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of accidents that go unreported in the construction industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All cases of fatal injury in the course of work activity are reported to the enforcement authorities. It is not known what proportion of other reportable injuries to people employed in construction go unreported, but it is thought to be significantly more than 50 per cent.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the fatal and major injury rates in construction industries in 1974, 1978 and 1988.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the fatal and major injury rates in construction industries in 1974, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for employees is shown in the table. More than one third of the people employed in the industry are classified as self-employed. Prior to 1981, injuries to the self-employed were not reportable and under current regulations they are not reportable for self-employed people working on their own. Figures for the self-employed are therefore not included in the table, but the provisional 1987–88 figure for the number of employees and self-employed killed in the course of construction activity was 141.
  135

  Injury rates per 100,000 employees in the construction industry1

  Fatal Injuries

  2Major Injuries

  3All reported Injuries

  1974

  13·6

  n/a

  2,830

  1978

  10·4

  n/a

  2,976

  41987–8

  10·1

  206·6

  1,914

  1 Defined as Order 20 of the 1968 Standard Industrial Classification in 1974 and 1978 and Division 5 of the 1980 SIC in 1987–88.

  2 The classification of injuries as major was first introduced in 1981.

  3 Includes all reported injuries causing more than three days' absence from work. Comparisons between years may be affected by variable under-reporting of non-fatal injuries.

  4 Provisional.

  n/a Not available.

  Factory Inspectors
  Mr. Heffer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors have left the Health and Safety Executive in the last 12 months; and how many were retirements and how many resignations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Of the 39 factory inspectors who left the Health and Safety Executive between 31 March 1988 and 1 April 1989, eight retired and 27 resigned. A further four transferred to other Government Departments.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many factory inspectors were conducting preventive inspections on the following dates: 6 June 1988, 7 September 1988 and 23 January 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Factory inspectors in the Health and Safety Executive's area offices are not employed solely on preventive inspection but also make visits in response to accidents or other incidents, complaints, inquiries or to follow up previously identified shortcomings.

  Staffing figures are recorded on the first of each month. The numbers of factory inspectors in area offices on 1 June 1988, 1 September 1988 and 1 February 1989 were 520, 522 and 533 respectively.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many additional factory inspectors would he required to enable the percentage of reported accidents investigated to rise to 10 per cent.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information is not available in the form requested. Health and Safety Executive plans are not expressed in terms of a fixed percentage of reported accidents to be investigated. The 1989–90 plans provide for some 10,800 investigations of incidents (including occupational diseases, and dangerous occurrences, as well as accidents) reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Industrial Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations. This compares with 9,900 planned in 1988–89.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of construction factory inspectors in post as at 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1989 there were 99–5 inspectors employed on the inspection of construction activities.

  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the target numbers set for preventive inspections for factory inspectors in 1986, 1987 and 1988.
  136
  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's Factory Inspectorate does not set target numbers for preventive inspections and therefore the information requested is not available.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the number of factory inspectors in post in 1979, 1987 and 1989 on 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1979, 1987 and 1989 the Health and Safety Executive employed 742·5, 621·5 and 604 factory inspectors respectively.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage mature experienced workers to remain in their jobs and not take early retirement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Government believe that the age at which a person retires is a matter to be settled between the individual and the employer. As the numbers of young people decline, it will increasingly be in employers' interests to make full use of the contribution which mature, experienced workers can make, and the Government are using a range of media to put this message across.

  Compact Initiative
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many schools are currently taking part in the compact initiative; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The Training Agency has received proposals for operational compacts in 28 inner city areas to date. These plans indicate that once the proposals are approved and begin operation in September a total of 260 schools in these areas will be covered. All compacts have plans to expand in subsequent years.

  The quality of applications have been impressive and show what can be achieved when education and business work together to meet the needs of their locality.

  YTS
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of YTS trainees in 1986–87 gained a vocational qualification during their time on YTS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The figure for the period 1986–87 relates to all qualifications, vocational qualifications cannot be separately identified. A total of 21 per cent. of young people who left during 1986–87 gained a qualification while on YTS.

  Figures for the latest available period (two years up to October 1988) show that 65 per cent. of young people completing YTS gained a qualification.

  Employment Ministers
  Mr. Ground
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the Employment Ministers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries to discuss levels of employment; and if he will make a statement.
  137
  Mr. Lee
  There are no current plans for joint meetings with Ministers from other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

  Levels of employment in the United Kingdom compare very favourably with those of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. In the United Kingdom, a greater proportion of the population is in employment than is the case in our major European competitors and in many other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. This is partly the result of the rapid employment growth we have enjoyed since 1983.

  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the Employment Ministers of the United Kingdom's European Community partners to discuss levels of unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he proposes to meet the Employment Ministers of the European Community to discuss the social proposals of the European Final Act; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I refer my hon. Friends to my statement on the last European Community Social Affairs Council, which appeared in the Official Report on 12 April 1989 at column 588. The next meeting of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers will be on 12 June at a meeting of the Labour and Social Affairs Council. The United Kingdom will continue its efforts to ensure that training and employment growth are Community priorities. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are continuing our programme of bilateral contacts with members states.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many businesses were started during the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  In 1987, the latest year for which figures have been published, the estimated number of new registrations for value-added tax was 205,000. The net increase in the number of VAT-registered businesses in 1987 was 45,000, or nearly 900 a week on average. The indications are that the rate of increase during 1988 has been faster.

  Small Businesses (Advice)
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his plans for co-operation between enterprise agencies and training and enterprise councils for the delivery of advice to small businesses.

  Mr. Cope
  Support for new and expanding businesses will be a key responsibility for training and enterprise councils. They will assess what advice and other services are needed in their area and will seek to develop a coherent high quality system of support through local enterprise agencies and others who already contribute to the aim of assisting small business growth.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the 138
  Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the introduction of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Fowler
  I have no immediate plans to meet the Director-General of the CBI. The CBI has strongly supported our proposals to introduce training and enterprise councils and I look forward to its continued involvement as the initiative develops.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received on the introduction of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress is being made on establishing training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from industry and commerce in response to his plans to set up training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I published a prospectus on 10 March inviting employers to form training and enterprise councils. The response from employers has been excellent; almost 4,000 individuals and organisations have expressed an interest.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the number of employers likely to be involved with the training and business programmes which will be organised by the training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Cope
  Training and enterprise councils will ensure that a greater number of employers are involved with training and enterprise activities at a local level. One of the major tasks of TECs will be to encourage employers to invest in training and developing their own staff as well as supporting the training and business programmes of the TEC. I published a prospectus on 10 March inviting employers to form TECs. Response has been excellent and there is already considerable interest throughout the country.

  Mines (Occupational Health Services)
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the levels of occupational health services provided by British Coal under the requirements of the Coal Mines (Nationalisation) Act 1946 and by private sector employers in mines and quarries.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 replaced earlier legislative requirements relating to provision of occupational health services. There are no specific requirements as to how this should be implemented by employers in the mining and quarrying industries. However, British Coal provides an extensive range of services and employ over 600 qualified staff to operate them. Full details of this are published in the annual report of the British Coal medical service. No such detailed information is available for non-British Coal mines or for quarries.

  Small Firms Service
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proposals he has for the future of the small firms service following the creation of training and enterprise councils; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The small firms service now forms part of the Training Agency. This brings together the closely linked services of counselling and training, and will lead to a more coherent and effective approach to small business support.

  The training and enterprise councils will become responsible for the counselling activity of the SFS. This will help ensure that TECs become the natural focus for the local small business support network.

  The SFS will maintain its counselling service in each area covered now until a TEC is established. The SFS information service will remain as a national service.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people currently in training on the employment training programme had previously been unemployed for two years or more; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures for those currently in training on employment training who were previously unemployed for two years or more are not available. However, of the 239,000 entrants to the programme by 31 March, it is estimated that some 38 per cent. or 91,000 had been unemployed for two years or more. This is an outstanding achievement as the programme is specially aimed at the longer-term unemployed.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many local authorities have supported employment training; and how many have opposed it.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As at 28 February 1989, a total of 263 local authorities were participating in employment training as training agents or training managers. There is no record held centrally by the Training Agency on the number of local authorities which have decided not to participate.

  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are currently undertaking training on employment training; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  By 31 March there were over 175,000 people in training. They clearly recognise the benefits the programme has to offer and the opportunity it provides to help them get a job.

  Tourism
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement about the future of section 4 grants for tourism.

  Mr. Lee
  The section 4 scheme of assistance is being considered as one of a range of issues arising from the review of tourism policy. An announcement about the outcome of that review of policy, including the future of the section 4 scheme, will be made in due course.
  140
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current capital investment in the hotel and tourism industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lee
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 14 March 1989,Official Report, column 195.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what plans he has to promote industrial tourism in the north-east of England.

  Mr. Lee
  Every opportunity will be taken to promote the benefits of industrial tourism in all parts of the country including the north-east and I welcome the initiative of the Northumbria tourist board to encourage more companies to open their doors to visitors by organising a conference on industrial tourism on 19 June at the Nissan factory, Washington new town.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest figure for savings for 1988 as a result of investigations of fraudulent claims; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The net benefit saving from my Department's fraud investigation work during 1988 was £65 million.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people were prosecuted for benefit fraud offences as a result of investigations by unemployment benefit fraud officers between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  As a result of investigations into benefit fraud offences, my Department prosecuted 3,981 people during the period from 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Competent Persons
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will meet the chair of the Health and Safety Commission to discuss the role of competent persons.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. Many provisions in health and safety legislation require specified tasks to he carried out by competent persons. The Health and Safety Commission keeps these provisions under review. If the commission wishes to make proposals to my right hon. Friend which would affect the role of competent persons in any particular area, he will consider those proposals most carefully.

  Pre-entry Closed Shop
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his proposals to reform the pre-entry closed shop.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Our Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", which was published on 20 March, contains the proposal that legislation should provide a right of complaint to an industrial tribunal for any individual whom an employer refuses to engage on the
  141
  ground of non-membership of a trade union or of any particular trade union, or on the ground of refusal to agree that he will become a member after his employment has started. The Government believe that this proposal, together with existing legislation, would create a climate in which individuals will no longer have their livelihoods threatened simply because they are not members of a particular union or do not wish to belong to any union.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimate he has as to the number of workers in the United Kingdom covered by pre-entry closed shop restrictions.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Our Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment", which was published on 20 March, estimates the total number of people covered by all types of pre-entry closed shop arrangements in Great Britain as being of the order of 1.3 million. This estimate is derived from a recently specially commissioned survey, a summary of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received following the publication of his Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment" on the reform of the closed shop; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Our Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment" was published on 20 March and the closing date for comments will be 20 June. We are, therefore, in the very early stages of the consultation period. To date we have received four representations on our proposal concerning the pre-entry closed shop and all expressed support for the Government's proposals.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special help is given to the unemployed who need training in literacy and numeracy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Considerable help is available to enable unemployed people receive literacy and numeracy training through YTS and ET. Additional support in YTS became available at the beginning of April through improved levels of funding. In ET, almost one in five trainees is receiving literacy and numeracy training. Further initiatives to improve the quality of provision are in hand.

  Chemical Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the fatal and major injury rates in the chemical industries in 1974, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Injury rates per 100,000 employees in the clinical industry1

  Fatal injuries

  2Major injuries

  3All reported injuries

  41974

  11·3

  n/a

  2,419

  1978

  3·2

  n/a

  2,699

  51987–88

  1·2

  160·4

  1,051

  1 Defined as Order 5 of the 1968 Standard Industrial Classification in 1974 and 1978 and Class 25 of the 1980 SIC in 1987–88.

  142

  2 The classification on injuries as major was first introduced in 1981.

  3 Includes all reported injuries causing more than 3 days absence from work. Comparisons between years may be affected by variable under-reporting of non-fatal injuries.

  4 Includes 28 people killed and 36 others who were injured by the explosion at the Flixborough Works and NYPRO (UK) Limited on I June 1984.

  5 Provisional.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of accidents that go unreported in the chemical industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All cases of fatal injury in the course of work activity are reported to the enforcement authorities. It is not known what proportion of other reportable injuries to people employed in the chemical industry go unreported, but it is thought that it may be less than 50 per cent.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work the employment medical advisory service is currently undertaking on salmonella poisoning in poultry workers.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work the employment medical advisory service is currently undertaking on salmonella poisoning in poultry workers.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The employment medical advisory service is not aware of any cases of salmonella poisoning in poultry workers. However, the Health and Safety Executive has established a task force on occupational zoonoses, that is, diseases transmissable from animals to man. The task force will be considering the possible transmission of salmonella in the workplace as part of its remit. It will also be examining proposals for a study to investigate salmonella in air from poultry houses.

  King's Cross Fire
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of the Health and Safety Executive's research budget was expended as a result of the King's Cross fire investigations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Some 5 per cent. of the budget of the executive's research and laboratory services division was expended on the King's Cross fire investigation.

  Dangerous Machinery
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to improve current standards relating to the guarding of dangerous machinery.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I am satisfied that the standards required under United Kingdom legislation for the guarding of machinery are already high and I see no need for further legislation at present. However, we are awaiting the adoption of two European Community directives which may require some changes to United Kingdom legislation in due course.

  Health and Safety Executive (Research)
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the level of the Health and Safety Executive's medical division budget for extra-mural research in 1986, 1987, 1988 and the current financial year.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Annual budgets for extramural biomedical research managed by the Health and Safety Executive's medical division for each of the four years are as follows:

  Year

  £

  1986–87

  1,411,000

  1987–88

  1,435,000

  1988–89

  1,506,000

  1989–90

  1,529,000

  Young People (Fatalities)
  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged 18 and under have been killed at work in each of the past three years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Figures from all enforcing authorities show that in the year ended 31 March 1987, a total of 21 young people aged 16 to 18 were reported as killed in the couse of their employment. The corresponding provisional figure for the year ended 31 March 1988 is 19. I regret that figures for earlier years are not available on this basis.

  Wages Inspectorate (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many prosecutions were undertaken by the wages inspectorate south-east division in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Four prosecutions were instituted by the south-east division in the last 10 years. One of these was in 1986, two in 1987 and one in 1988.

  Wages Inspectorate (Wales)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reduction in the wages inspectorate in Wales and its impact on rates of pay in Mountain Ash and the Cynon Valley.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The reduction of inspection activity in Wales was part of a general reduction throughout Great Britain in 1986–87. It reflected the simpler and quicker task of checking compliance with wages orders and the expectation that the level of compliance would rise following the reform of the wages council system in 1986. There is no simple link between wages inspection and rates of pay, but in Wales, as in Great Britain as a whole, the percentage of workers found to be underpaid in checks by the wages inspectorate has reduced. Inspection results are not available for areas smaller than Wales as a whole.

  Skill Training
  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the national training task force to discuss the improvement of levels of skill amongst the United Kingdom work force.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have frequent meetings with Mr. Wolfson, the 144
  chairman of the national training task force. He will be advising me on the establishment of the new training and enterprise councils and their plans for improving the skills of the work force in their area.

  Productivity
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the increase in productivity for the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  Productivity in manufacturing, as measured by output per person employed, was 6·5 per cent. greater in the three months ending February 1989 than in the corresponding period ending February 1988. This compares favourably with the average of 4·2 per cent. a year recorded for the period 1979 to 1988. Since 1980 growth in United Kingdom manufacturing productivity has exceeded that of the other major industrialised countries.

  Productivity for the economy as a whole was 0·5 per cent. higher in the fourth quarter of 1988 than it was in the fourth quarter of 1987. However the 1988 figure was adversely affected by the Piper Alpha disaster and other oil industry interruptions.

  VDUs (Health Risks)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work is currently being undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive's medical division on the health risks of visual display units.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has published a guidance note and a free booklet on VD Us and is participating in the development of national and international standards for VDUs, including discussions within the European Community on a proposed VDU directive. The executive is also supporting four research projects in universities and research institutes on, or directly related to working with VDUs.

  British Venture Capital Association
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to meet the chairman of the British Venture Capital Association to discuss the development of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  I have no immediate plans to meet the chairman of the BVCA in the near future but I do have regular contact with the association.

  Agriculture (Accidents)
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will estimate the number of accidents that go unreported in the agriculture industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  All cases of fatal injury in the course of agricultural work activities are reported to the Health and Safety Executive's Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate. It is not known what proportion of other reportable accidents from agricultural activities go unreported, but it is thought to be more than 50 per cent.

  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many children died in accidents on agricultural premises in 1974, 1979, 1984 and 1988.
  145
  Mr. Nicholls
  The figures for fatal accidents to children under the age of 16 years on agricultural premises for the years in question are:

  Number

  1974

  25

  1979

  24

  1984

  4

  11988

  10

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the fatal and major injury rates for agriculture in 1974, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information for employees is shown in the table. It has not been possible to produce a series of injury rates for the large number of self-employed and others involved in agricultural activity.

  Injury rates per 100,000 employees in the agricultural industry1

  Fatal injuries

  Major injuries2

  1974

  8·7

  n/a

  1978

  7·1

  n/a

  31987–88

  5·8

  152·8

  1 Defined as minimum list heading 001 of the 1968 standard industrial classification in 1974 and 1978 and class 01 of the 1980 SIC in 1987–88.

  2 The classification of injuries as major was first introduced in 1981.

  3 Provisional.

  Community Programme
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline recent or proposed changes in the community programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  From 5 September 1988 the community programme was replaced by the adult training programme, employment training.

  Unemployment Register
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will review the Government's ruling which prevents men over 60 years from registering as unemployed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no ruling preventing men aged over 60 from claiming unemployment benefit in the normal way. Under a special concession men, over 60 who do not qualify for UB or whose entitlement is exhausted may claim income support and—or be credited with national insurance contributions without regularly attending the unemployment benefit office to sign on as unemployed. Jobcentre services are available to everyone, regardless of whether they are claiming at a UBO and staff are happy to discuss options with anyone seeking work, whatever their age.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his future plans for enterprise agencies.

  Mr. Cope
  Responsibility for the future development of local enterprise agencies, which are independent private sector led organisations, rests primarily with their boards and private sector backers.
  146
  The introduction of training and enterprise councils will provide those LEAs able to demonstrate high-quality service with the opportunity to contract for counselling and other enterprise programmes.

  Elderly People (Job Prospects)
  Mr. Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps the Government has taken to improve job prospects for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  The Government believe that the best way to improve job prospects for all age groups is to maintain a strong economy and to allow the labour market to work efficiently. Recruitment decisions must be left to employers, but in making them they should not discriminate unfairly on age grounds. Demographic trends make it particularly important at present that the contribution which older workers can make to the economy is fully utilised. We are putting these messages across to employers through various media, and I am encouraged by evidence that some firms are already adopting a more positive approach in their recruitment and employment practices.

  Construction Industry (Training)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the current statutory arrangements for training in the construction industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Construction Industry Training Board was established by the Industrial Training (Construction Board) Order 1964 for the purpose of encouraging the adequate training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the construction industry.

  As envisaged in the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s" (Cm. 540) I have asked the chairman of the board to bring forward proposals for future arrangements.

  Mining (Accidents)
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the fatal and major injury rates in mining in 1974, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the fatal and major injury rates in mining in 1974, 1978 and 1988.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Injuries in the mining industry reported to enforcing authorities1

  Incidence rates (per 100,000 employees)

  Fatal

  Serious/major

  Fatal

  Serious/major

  1974

  Coal mines4

  48

  2497

  18·7

  2193·6

  Other mines

  2

  214

  n/a

  n/a

  TOTAL

  50

  2511

  n/a

  n/a

  1978

  Coal mines4

  63

  2·494

  25·4

  2199·1

  Other mines

  6

  217

  n/a

  n/a

  Total

  69

  2511

  n/a

  n/a

  147

  Incidence rates (per 100,000 employees)

  Fatal

  Serious/major

  Fatal

  Serious/major

  1987–885

  Coal mines4

  12

  3756

  11·2

  3708·5

  Other mines

  1

  314

  n/a

  n/a

  TOTAL

  13

  3770

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a—Not available.

  1 Reported to HSE's Inspectorate of Mines and Quarries and all other relevant enforcing authorities.

  2 Serious injuries as reported under 1954 Mines and Quarries Act.

  3 Major injuries as reported under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) 1985, which widened the definition of serious injury as compared with the 1954 Act definition.

  4 Excludes opencast coal mining.

  5 Provisional data for the year commencing 1 April 1987.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of accidents in coal mining in the last 12 months occurred in private coal mines.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Provisional accident figures for the 12-month period ending 31 March 1989 indicate that fatal and major injuries at private coal mines represented 10 per cent. and 3·3 per cent. respectively of the total reported accidents in these categories at all coal mines.

  It is not possible to differentiate the over three-day accidents recorded under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Skill Shortages
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received in the last six months regarding skill shortages in the south-east.

  Mr. Cope
  In addition to seven questions asked in the House, we have been approached by two organisations in the last six months, regarding skill shortages in the south-east or in London.

  Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the target figure for the number of nuclear installations inspectors to be in post by 1 April 1989; and what are the target figures for 1 April 1990 and 1 April 1991.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive planned to have 140 nuclear installations inspectors in post on 1 April 1989 and to increase this to 160 by I April 1990. Staffing beyond these dates depends on future work loads which cannot be predicted with precision.

  Young Workers (Accidents)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met representatives of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to discuss the accident rates of young people at work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  My right hon. Friend's meeting with representatives of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive cover the full range of their responsibilities.
  148
  Young people's accident rates have been raised in correspondence in the context of the Department's consultative document "Restrictions on the Employment of Young People and the Removal of Sex Discrimination in legislation".

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he intends taking to reduce the number of accidents to young people at work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Latest figures from the Health and Safety Executive suggest that injury rates for young people aged 16 to 24 are now lower than the corresponding injury rates for employees as a whole. The Government will continue to support the efforts of the Health and Safety Commission and Executive to reduce accidents to workers of all ages.

  Secondary Industrial Action
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received on the proposals contained in his Green Paper to reform further the law covering secondary industrial action.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Our Green Paper "Removing Barriers to Employment" was published on 20 March and the closing date for comments is 20 June. We are, therefore, in the very early stages of the consultation period. To date, one representation has been received on these Green Paper proposals.

  "Employment for the 1990s"
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many representations he has received in response to the White Paper, "Employment for the 1990s."

  Mr. Cope
  We have received several hundred representations following publication of the White Paper "Employment for the 1990s", the majority of which have expressed interest in and support for the introduction of training and enterprise councils. The prospectus inviting local groups led by employers to submit proposals for forming training and enterprise councils in their areas was published on 10 March.

  Agriculture Safety Inspectorate
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the frequency with which the agricultural safety inspectorate plans to visit all the premises for which it is responsible.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectorate's programme of preventive visits is planned on the basis of a rating system. There is no fixed period between inspections; premises with poor standards, poor management or high-risk potential being inspected more frequently. Visits to investigate accidents, dangerous occurrences and complaints are made on a reactive basis.

  Harbour Areas (Safety)
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the implementation of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations in harbour areas.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations which come into force on 1 October,
  149
  will apply to any store-based work activities in harbour areas where substances hazardous to health are used or given off. The only exceptions will be asbestos, lead and ionising radiations which are covered by other regulations.

  The regulations will also apply to certain activities on board ships in dock. The COSHH will not impose duties on the master or crew of a seagoing ship or their employer in relation to the normal shipboard activities of a ship crew under the direction of a master.

  Food and Environment Protection Act
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training and information has been given to the agricultural inspectorate on environmental assessment associated with the Food and Environment Protection Act.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Prior to undertaking their enforcement responsibilities under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Health and Safety Executive's agricultural inspectors are given a week's specific training on the requirements and implications of the Act. This is supplemented as required by further local and national training.

  Agricultural Inspectors
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many agricultural inspectors were conducting preventive inspections on the following dates, 6 June 1988, 7 September 1988 and 23 January 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Agricultural inspectors in the Health and Safety Executives area offices are not employed solely on preventive inspections but also make visits in response to accidents or other incidents, complaints, inquiries or to follow up previously identified shortcomings.

  Staffing figures are recorded on the first of each month. The numbers of agricultural inspectors in area offices on 1 June 1988, 1 September 1988 and 1 February 1989 were 137, 145 and 142 respectively.

  Training Scheme Allowance
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on(a) the future operation of the employment training scheme allowance following the introduction of the community charge in Scotland and (b) his plans for its operation in England and Wales after April 1990.

  Mr. Nicholls
  As announced on 12 April, the benefit-related part of employment training, training allowances will be increased in line with the general uprating in benefits. When he announced this uprating on 27 October 1988, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security explained how the new levels of benefit allow for individual liability for the community charge in Scotland, England and Wales.

  Pesticides (Wildlife)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what advice or recommendations he has received from the Health and Safety Executive on the enforcement of existing, or introduction of new, legislation as a means of helping to reduce the use of pesticides against wildlife.
  150
  Mr. Nicholls
  The advisory committee on pesticides advises Ministers on pesticides and their usage. All pesticides undergo a full environmental safety assessment before being approved by Ministers for use.

  The Health and Safety Executive enforces all aspects of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 under the terms of an agency agreement. However, where incidents affecting wildlife come to the attention of HSE's inspectors, they refer them to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which has existing arrangements for investigating such incidents.

  Hazardous Substances
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the differences between the assessment processes required under the Asbestos and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There are no significant differences.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training is being provided for Health and Safety Executive employees on the implementation and enforcement of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what training is being provided for Health and Safety Executive employees on the implementation and enforcement of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive has established a comprehensive programme of internal conferences and special meetings to train its employees on the aspects of the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations appropriate to their individual responsibilities. Although the principles of occupational hygiene now enshrined in the regulation are not new to Health and Safety Executive inspectors, doctors and scientists, the training and briefing on the implementation of the regulations now being provided will ensure a consistent approach.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are registered as unemployed in Greater London; and what was the comparable figure 10 years ago.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in Greater London, was 230,200, compared with 115,700 in March 1979 on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Dover
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average monthly fall in the number of unemployed during the last quarter for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the quarter ending March 1989, the average fall in unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 39,800 per month. Unemployment has now fallen over 32 consecutive months by 1,215,100 since July 1986, the longest and largest sustained fall since the war.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the number of people employed in a
  151
  part-time capacity within the employment areas of South Yorkshire; and what was the comparable position 10 years ago.

  Mr. Lee
  The available information on a comparable basis is from censuses of employment taken in September 1981 and September 1984. The table gives the available information for each of the travel-to-work areas in South Yorkshire.

  More up-to-date estimates from the September 1987 census of employment will become available later this year.

  Employees in part-time employment1 in the travel-to-work areas in South Yorkshire

  Travel-to-work areas

  September 1981

  September 1984

  Barnsley

  14,400

  13,700

  Doncaster

  17,300

  18,600

  Rotherham and Mexborough

  17,500

  19,900

  Sheffield2

  53,400

  56,200

  1 Excludes the self-employed and members of Her Majesty's forces; part-time workers are defined as those working for not more than 30 hours a week.

  2 Not wholly within South Yorkshire.

  For the county, the September 1981 and September 1984 figures for employees in part-time employment were 100,000 and 105,800 respectively.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the average monthly fall in the number of unemployed in the west midlands during the last quarter for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the quarter ending March 1989, the average fall in unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the west midlands was 6,300 per month. Unemployment in the west midlands has fallen by 67,800 or 27·2 per cent. over the last 12 months.

  47. Mr. Alison: To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the Yorkshire and Humberside region was 2,160,000. This represents an increase of 169,000 or 8 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged 16 to 18 years were jobless in June 1983 and March 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1989 there were 2,457 people under 18 in the United Kingdom claiming unemployment-related benefits. There were an estimated 190,800 in June 1983.

  The recent extension of the guaranteed offer of a YTS place to all those aged under 18 not in full-time education or employment means there is now no need for these young people to be unemployed. Consequently, only a few now remain entitled to unemployment-related benefits following the associated changes from September 1988 in the benefit regulations for people aged under 18.
  152
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in the west midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the west midlands region was 2,471,000. This represents an increase of 298,000 or 14 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the fall in unemployment in the east midlands during the last 12 months for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In the 12 months to March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the east midlands fell by 34,500 or 22·6 per cent. on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of St ate for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1989 unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,918,100, the lowest for more than eight years on a consistent basis. Unemployment has now fallen for 32 months running, giving the longest and largest continuous fall since the war.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in the east midlands.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the east midlands region was 1,844,000. This represents an increase of 221,000 or 14 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the employment trends in the east midlands for 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the east midlands was 1,844,000. My Department does not produce forecasts or estimate trends.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of long-term unemployment in London.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants who had been unemployed for one year or more in Greater London was 98,786, a fall of 58,202 or 37·1 per cent. compared with two years ago. This comparison is affected slightly by the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to the new benefit regulations affecting those aged under 18.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the rate of the fall in unemployment in the last 12 months in the south-west; and if he will make a statement.
  153
  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the south-west was 104,600, a fall of 40,700 or 28 per cent. since March 1988 on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the north of England.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the northern region was 1,297,000. This represents an increase of 128,000 or 11 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the number of long-term unemployed in June 1987 and to date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Unemployment figures by duration are calculated on a quarterly basis. In January 1989, the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom who had been unemployed for one year or more was 821,419, compared with 1,238,288 in July 1987—a fall of 416,869 or 33·7 per cent. The comparison is slightly affected by seasonal influences as well as the change in the coverage of the count from September 1988 due to new benefit regulations affecting those young people aged under 18 years.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest total for the numbers of employed and self-employed people in East Anglia.

  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the level of employment in East Anglia.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in East Anglia was 1,023,000 of which 138,000 were self-employed. This represents an increase of 229,000 or 29 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people at present are unemployed in the west midlands, expressed as a percentage of the numbers unemployed in May 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In March 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the west midlands was 180·8 per cent. of the level in May 1979 on a consistent basis.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the increase in the number of self-employed in the west midlands since June 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, there were an estimated 248,000 self-employed in the west midlands region. This represents an increase of 39,000 or 19 per cent. since June 1987.

  This self-employment estimate incorporates the latest LFS results, and will be subject to sampling error.
  154
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the current level of employment in the north-west.

  Mr. Lee
  In December 1988, the latest date for which figures are available, the civilian work force in employment in the north-west region was 2,676,000. This represents an increase of 101,000 or 4 per cent. since December 1983. The civilian work force in employment is the sum of employees in employment, the self-employed and participants in work-related Government training programmes.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people aged 18 to 24 years were jobless in June 1983 and March 1989; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Unemployment figures by age are compiled on a quarterly basis. In January 1989 the number of unemployed claimants in the United Kingdom aged 18 to 24 years was 595,734, compared with 966,375 in July 1983—a fall of 370,632 or 38·4 per cent. The comparison is affected by seasonal influences and slightly by the change in the compilation of the count in March 1986 to remove over-recording.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many working days were lost through strike action in the first quarter of 1989; and what were the comparable figures for the previous 10 years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  For the latest three-month period for which data is available, ending February 1989, it is provisionally estimated that 135,000 working days were lost through stoppages of work due to industrial disputes. Figures for comparable periods in the previous 10 years, together with the latest figure, are shown in the table.

  Working days lost in the three months ending February

  Year

  Number

  1979

  5,933,000

  1980

  6,219,000

  1981

  778,000

  1982

  1,721,000

  1983

  1,184,000

  1984

  983,000

  1985

  6,235,000

  1986

  685,000

  1987

  1,914,000

  1988

  820,000

  1989

  135,000

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many professional and technological officers the Health and Safety Executive had in place on 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1989 the Health and Safety Executive employed 29·5 members of the Civil Service professional and technology group. Most are employed by the executive's electrical equipment and certification service.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive's budget provision for the next three years.
  155
  Mr. Nicholls
  Gross provision for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive in the three years from 1 April last is £118·3 million, £125·9 million and £133·5 million. The provision allows for real growth in the executive's activities in all three years, including an increase in the number of inspectors, and of inspections. Details will be published shortly in the commission's plan of work for 1989–90 and beyond.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many reviews and audits of the staffing and structure of the Health and Safety Executive have been carried out in the past two years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between March 1987 and April 1989 there were some 19 reviews which examined, among other things, questions of staffing and structure. These included 12 reviews of particular parts of the organisation conducted by the Executive's management review section; four other internal reviews; and three independent(externally led) reviews.

  Staffing and other resources requirements for the executive are reviewed annually by the commission in preparation for the public expenditure planning round.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many scientists have left the Health and Safety Executive in the last 12 months; and how many were retirements and how many were resignations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989, a total of 22 scientists left the Health and Safety Executive. Of these, a total of six retired, 12 resigned, three transferred to other Government Departments and one died.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many additional staff the Health and Safety Executive required as a consequence of the passing of the lead regulations; and how many staff the executive estimated it would require at the initial drafting stage.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None in both cases. The enforcement of the regulations was expected to be, and has been, integrated into normal inspection arrangements.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total staffing level of the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April 1975, 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 August 1975, the first date for which figures are available, 2,937 permanent staff were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 April 1979 and 1989, the totals were 4,170 and 3,449 respectively.

  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff years were taken by the Health and Safety Executive's work on European Economic Community directives, legislation and initiatives in 1988; and how many are planned for 1989.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff years were taken by the Health and Safety Executive's work on European Economic Community directives, legislation and initiatives in 1988; and how many are planned for 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Health and Safety Executive's plans for 1989–90 allocate some 188 staff years specifically to 156
  work of international (mainly EC) origin: on legislation and other policy projects, development of safety standards, and notifications and assessments of substances. Information is not available on a comparable basis for the previous year. The estimate excludes senior management time and a significant proportion of staff time on other HSE functions which derives directly or indirectly from EC initiatives.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff were employed by the Health and Safety Executive's directorate of information and advice services in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The numbers of staff employed in the Health and Safety Executive's directorate of information and advisory service at 1 April in each of the last three years were:

  Number

  1986

  10·6

  1987

  98·5

  1988

  10·1

  At 1 April 1989, a total of 102.5 staff were employed.

  Mr. Denis Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many doctors left the Health and Safety Executive in the last 12 months; and how many of them were retirements and how many were resignations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989, a total of nine doctors left the Health and Safety Executive. Of these, four retired, four resigned and one transferred to another Government Department.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how often in the last five years cuts in the Health and Safety Executive's travel and subsistence budget have resulted in inspectors being prevented from making inspections on a planned basis.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The allocation of expenditure between travel and subsistence and other items of running cost is a matter for the Health and Safety Commission and Executive. The commission has only once in the last five years (in 1987–88) sought additional running cost provision during the year. Ministers agreed to this in full.

  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many scientists were employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April 1975, 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many scientists were employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April 1975, 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 August 1975, the earliest date for which figures are available, 259 scientists were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 April 1979 and 1989, the total were 355·5 and 300 respectively.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the targeted number of agricultural safety inspectors on 1 April 1975, 1979 and 1989 employed by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate joined the Health and Safety Executive from the Ministry
  157
  of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food during 1976–77, with the field force in place in HSE by 1 March 1977. On that date, there were 191 inspectors in post in HSE. On 1 April 1979 and 1989, the totals were 190 and 165 respectively.

  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what work the Health and Safety Executive's medical division is currently undertaking on Legionnaires' disease.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In addition to continuing its wide-ranging programme of activities on Legionnaire's disease, the Health and Safety Commission has asked the HSE to undertake a review of policy on this subject.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the targeted number of factory inspectors on 1 April 1975, 1979 and 1989 employed by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1975, the earliest date for which figures are available, 557 factory inspectors were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 April 1979 and 1989, the totals were 742·5 and 604 respectively.

  Mr. Jim Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the post of chief employment nursing adviser with the Health and Safety Executive will be filled.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This post has been advertised within the Health and Safety Executive and an appointment will be made as soon as a suitable candidate has been identified.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many requests for advice and publications were received by the Health and Safety Executive's directorate of information and advice services in each of the last three years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The number of requests for advice and publications received in each of the last three years by the public inquiry points of the Health and Safety Executive's directorate of information and advisory services was:158

  1986–87

  1987–88

  11988–89

  Telephone inquiries

  53,461

  54,116

  67,000

  Letters received

  34,205

  27,603

  36,000

  Prestel frame accesses

  95,000

  98,510

  100,000

  Free leaflets issued

  3,898,147

  4,150,941

  5,200,000

  1Provisional.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many specialists have left the Health and Safety Executive in the last 12 months; and how many were retirements and how many were resignations.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989, a total of 17 specialist inspectors left the Health and Safety Executive; of these, five retired, nine resigned, and three transferred to other Government Departments.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many mines inspectors and quarries inspectors the Health and Safety Executive had in place on 1 April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 April 1989 the Health and Safety Executive employed 58 mines inspectors and 11 quarries inspectors.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the targeted number of specialist inspectors employed by the Health and Safety Executive on 1 April 1975, 1979 and 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On 1 July 1975, the earliest date for which figures are available, 198 specialist inspectors were employed in the Health and Safety Executive. On 1 April 1979 and 1989, the totals were 225 and 211 respectively.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The lord chancellor On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Car Prices and VAT
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they justify imposing value added tax on the cost of a car inflated by the charge of car tax.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, it is a fundamental principle of UK and EC VAT law that VAT should be calculated on the price paid for goods, which reflects the payment of other taxes and duties included in the price of those goods.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does it not strike him as rather odd that you should first put a tax on an article and then take that tax into account in assessing its value for the levy of VAT? Is that not what might in certain quarters be called a bit of a fiddle?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the relevant UK legislation is Section 10(2) of the VAT Act 1983, which reflects provisions of Article 11A(2) of the EC VAT Sixth Directive. The latter specifically requires that the taxable amount shall include taxes, duties, levies and charges excluding the value added tax itself. That is not unique. The same applies to wines and spirits, tobacco, petrol and goods imported from outside the Community.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is it not a fact that British car manufacturers are put at a distinct disadvantage by this form of taxation in comparison with their competitors? They are put in a quite unfair position as regards competition for ordering cars. Is it not time that that was looked at, because it puts them at a distinct disadvantage?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I fail to see why it should put the UK car industry at a disadvantage when it applies to any cars, whether UK built or imported.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it may be that the reply he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, listing those areas where VAT is charged indicates that the VAT regulations should be amended, particularly in relation to charities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, charities are a different question. However, it does not seem to me that it harms the motor car industry greatly when one sees a continual breaking of records in car
684
registrations. There were 2.2 million last year, which was a record. Car tax yields £1.25 billion for the Exchequer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord make representations to his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer once he has resolved the publicly aired differences of opinion between himself and the Governor of the Bank of England? Will he ask him whether in reviewing a proper policy of credit control in the United Kingdom he will also give consideration generally to reducing VAT from 15 per cent. to the level at which he inherited it from the previous Government; that is, 8 per cent? That would bring down the rate of inflation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is rather wide of the Question. The noble Lord never ceases to harp on about the fact that VAT was 8 per cent. in 1979 and is now 15 per cent. Perhaps the noble Lord might compare the rates of income tax over the same period.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does not this Question clarify the mystery as to why the tax is known as value added?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is probably right because it is added value to the price of the goods.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the tax perhaps constitute part of Her Majesty's Government's policy on roads in that instead of building decent roads and new motorways they are simply discouraging the extended ownership of cars?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, not at all. That is a quite different question, but the figure that I have given for new car registrations surely proves the opposite.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does not my noble friend's admirably lucid explanation of the position do nothing to increase one's respect for the European system of taxation? Will he urge his right honourable friend to have a go at improving the system before 1992?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, rather than urge my right honourable friend to do that I shall certainly pass on my noble friend's opinions on this subject without necessarily endorsing those opinions myself.

Community Charge: Cost Comparison
2.42 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest estimate of costs involved for local government in Scotland for the operation of the community charge and how this compares with the former system of collecting rates.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden):My Lords, from information recently submitted by local authorities the estimated cost of administering the community charge and non-domestic rating system in Scotland in 1989–90 is £43.5 million. The cost of administering the rating system in 1988–89 was £31 million.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the additional capital expenditure is now £30 million which has to be borrowed by local authorities thereby incurring interest charges? Will he also agree that the administration of this tax involves 2,000 additional personnel? Finally, will the Minister accept that there are other and more pressing needs for local authority expenditure on sewerage, infrastructure and roads rather than on the administration of this tax?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we have played a very considerable part in helping local authorities to prepare for the introduction of the community charge by providing additional capital allocations totalling £26 million in 1987–88 and 1988–89. On the question of additional personnel, perhaps I may refer the noble Lord to a Green Paper produced in 1981 where his preferred choice, which is local income tax, if administered independently by local authorities, would have cost roughly £500 million per annum involving 55 thousand people in the United Kingdom.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the establishment of the new community charge is welcomed by all ratepayers who see their burden reduced and properly shared among the community?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we had long discussions during the course of the Scottish Bill's progress through this House. I am happy to acknowledge that the cost of administration is lower than expected for the first year.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree, in giving the figure calculated in 1981 for the cost of local income tax, that technology has advanced considerably since then and that a new estimate should be made to see what local income tax would cost using modern equipment?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, it is for the noble Baroness to examine her own preferred choice and to tell the House what she arrives at. Although inflation has been running at a relatively low rate since 1981, those figures could well have been going up rather than down.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, having just completed my papers for the first monthly payment of the community charge in Scotland—due in three days' time if my memory is right—can my noble friend tell me why the form to be completed is so enormously complicated and difficult? There was I, a willing political supporter of the policy, having the utmost difficulty avoiding making a
686
mistake. It struck me that anyone not wishing to pay the charge could make—I shall not use the words I had in mind. I ask my noble friend whether the form can be simplified.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend, who I am sure is adept at filling in forms of all descriptions, will have completed his form correctly. However, it is such comments that we listen to. We are monitoring the First year of the tax most closely. I thank my noble friend for his remarks.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I received a booklet of paying slips and have found them perfectly simple to complete?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, perhaps I should ask one of my noble friends to talk to the other.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the figures he gave are not the total cost of this tax to local authorities in Scotland? There is still a large capital involvement in replacing some of the temporary accommodation that was required—Portakabins, and so on. Another hidden cost to local authorities is the considerable amount of work—confirmed by the Minister's noble friend sitting behind him—in helping people to complete their forms, particularly when social security and rebates are involved. Great distress has been caused. As for the noble Earl who said that the tax is welcomed in Scotland, when the bills begin to come through and, in some cases, sadly, the bailiffs are seen in the streets, the community charge will not be as popular as the noble Earl seems to think.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned higher running costs and capital expenditure. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is free to raise such matters in discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am sure the convention will be doing that as we commence implementing this tax. The noble Lord referred to rebates—an aspect about which we are extremely concerned. But we are pleased that the number of applications received so far is around 75 per cent. of the estimated 1 million caseload we expect, with many more still arriving. We are conscious of the fact that most local authorities are, like Lothian, advising people either to wait or make a payment of 25 per cent. of the first month's instalment, which can be subsequently adjusted.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if one uses the normal multiplier of population in England compared with Scotland and multiplies the figure of £40 million plus for Scotland we are speaking about nearly £500 million for England? Is the Minister aware that that is enormously in excess of the figures quoted during the passage of the Bill through this House? How have the Government got the figure so wrong? Cannot they do their sums?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I shall not comment on what the noble Lord said about the English Act but I remind him that the figures in 1988–89, under the old system, have come out at £31 million. Under the new system the budget estimates are £43·5 million—a £12·5 million increase. I do not consider that excessive bearing in mind the discussions we had on the legislation for Scotland.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether those entitled to some reduction in payment have completed their forms in the correct manner and in the correct number?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden:My Lords, it is too early to judge whether that is the case. As regards rebate forms, we are satisfied that about 75 per cent. of the estimated 1 million people have filled in their forms. We are also satisfied that the processing of those forms is going ahead as speedily as possible.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the Minister has suggested that this measure is welcomed in Scotland. Is he aware that recent opinion polls have indicated that 80 per cent. of the voters of Scotland support parties opposed to it? Can the Minister also check the figures he has just given with the local authorities' association, CoSLA, who state that the running costs of the new system are £25 million more than the £20 million for the present system which suggests an increase of more than double?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the figures that I gave the noble Lord are accurate. They are the February figures, the most recent to be published. The provisional outturn for 1988–89 was higher than we had expected and we are very pleased that the £43.5 million is within the £44 million provision which we and CoSLA thought the figure would be. As regards the cost of the system, the noble Lord was keen to get rid of rates but is not so keen on the poll tax as he terms it. He has been very keen on local income tax. I have explained to the noble Lord that the cost of the administration of such a scheme would be quite excessive.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord has not explained; he is merely asserting. The Minister has not explained at all how it will cost more.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that this tax has caused a great deal of distress in Scotland? There are long queues at the district and regional authority offices; there are people in great distress over how to fill in the forms; and there are people having to pay who have never paid before and who are in very seriously deprived circumstances. What is really annoying people is the whole question of the tax not being in any way related to the ability to pay.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, we covered this ground very considerably during the course of the Bill through your Lordships' House. The Government wish to ensure that those who have and take services from local authorities understand and pay
688
for them. That was the whole basis for the introduction of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree— —
Lord Denham: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend will allow me to intervene. We have spent 15 minutes on two Questions. My noble friend the Minister has, I believe, covered the points very thoroughly. Perhaps we can go on to the next question.

USSR Submarine Accident: Contamination Risk
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Strange Baroness Strange asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any chance of the British coastline being endangered by contamination from the Russian nuclear submarine which sank off the coast of Norway.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government are satisfied on the basis of our present information that no such risk exists. We are however keeping in touch with both the Norwegian and Soviet authorities.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his encouraging reply. Can he confirm that the reactor cooling systems of our British submarines are much more effective, and that the safety level of our British submarines is very high indeed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we are not entirely certain about the type of reactor involved in the accident to which my noble friend has referred. There were press reports to the effect that it was a liquid metal cooled reactor. As my noble friend will be aware, British reactors are of a different design. I am very pleased and proud to be able to say that we have had no significant accident with our nuclear submarines throughout the time they have been in service.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Question refers to contamination of the coastline. There is obvious concern as regards the effect on fish stocks. Are there proposals and tests on this matter?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are two ranges of tests going on. The Norwegians are regularly testing the waters in the immediate vicinity of the incident and also the atmosphere. Likewise, we have routine and continuing tests of fish in our own waters. I am very happy to be able to say that no evidence of radioactivity has been found so far in either of those tests.

Executive Powers: Complaints Procedure
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will establish an administrative court (with a preliminary sifting procedure) to give a full hearing to complaints of misuse of executive powers and to grant compensation.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, the Government attach great importance to the availability of appropriate procedures and remedies in cases where abuse of executive power is alleged. The Government agree with the conclusions of the Civil Justice Review that the High Court is the appropriate forum for public law cases, including applications for judicial review.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his reply, does he not agree that if Parliament were to set up an administrative court as proposed in this Question that could take into account the European Convention on Human Rights, then an effective system of control by the judiciary of abuse or misuse of power by the Executive—which is not available under judicial review, which affords no full re-hearing—could be established in the interests of the subject? I also ask my noble and learned friend whether he does not agree that, unless and until appropriate domestic judicial procedures are established, our Government shall remain at a disadvantage when impleaded as a respondent before the Commission or the Court of Human Rights?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the remedy of judicial review developed by the judges is in my view an extremely effective remedy for the general problem of the misuse of executive power. The question of the incorporation of the Convention on Human Rights is a different matter. I do not believe that we should presently contemplate it as a part of the administrative machinery.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that this is a matter of the greatest importance; namely, the rights of the individual as against the bureaucracy, and that it is causing widespread concern? Therefore, does not he agree that, while we are reforming the law, this might be the moment for discussion of this proposal and for the extension of the judicial review? For example, the noble and learned Lord might wish to issue one of his non-controversial Green Papers on this matter so that we can see the various alternatives possible, thereby dealing with a matter that I suggest is of great importance.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that there may be a practical and appropriate limit to the number of proposals that one should consider at one time. As regards this matter, the system of judicial review has been very much developed by the judges. I believe it is a field in which judicial creativity, as
690
my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner once described it, is a very appropriate way forward.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the proposal of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway is to introduce into this country the system of Droit Administratif which Dicey said was the very essence of tyranny?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, my noble friend's question illustrates the difficulty of securing unanimity of opinion in this area.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the late Professor Sir Jack Hamson, a notable defender of the common law, nevertheless spent the last 20 years of this life stressing the importance of administrative law and the need for this country to develop a system comparable to that which we are about to encounter in the Common Market?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I said a little while ago, I believe that our judges have developed administrative law with great success over the past 20 or 30 years. I believe it is an area in which the judicial power has proved very effective.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, nevertheless are there not considerable limitations to the role and value of the judicial review in dealing with alleged misuse of executive power, and certainly as regards the possibility of the grant of compensation? Is there now not room for extending the role of judicial review, which is largely directed to examining how the decision complained of was arrived at, into an examination of administrative action which results in what might be claimed to be an actual misuse of executive power?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord knows, the scope for examination of executive decisions has been greatly widened over the years. It is appropriate to keep a distinction between the power of the courts to review in this way administrative acts and the responsibility for actually taking administrative decisions. It may not be wise to confuse those. The judges have developed their methods in a remarkable way while still preserving that distinction.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has pointed out that it is the judges who have made this great advance in protection for the individual against the Executive. Does he not agree that that is a prime example of the vital importance of keeping the judiciary entirely free and independent from the Executive?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have made it repeatedly clear, and I have no problem in saying so again, that I regard the independence of the judiciary as of fundamental importance. I will certainly not be party to any proposals that would in any way impair the independence of the judiciary. It does not of course follow that the independence of the judiciary necessarily means complete independence

691
from other branches of state power, as the office of the Lord Chancellor itself demonstrates.
Lord Campbell of Alloway:My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the scope of judicial review cannot be extended further without an Act of Parliament? Cannot the judge grant a full hearing, which is the point of the Question? Does my noble and learned friend agree?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, having regard to developments over the years, I think it would be unwise to say that the judges could not develop judicial review any further.

Business
3.2 p.m.
Lord Denham:My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Official Secrets Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the Brunei (Appeals) Bill, the Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 and the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Control of Smoke Pollution Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Toyota: UK Plant
3.3 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement on investment by the Toyota Motor Corporation.
I told the House on 26th January that Toyota was considering setting up a car plant in Europe and that the United Kingdom was the lead candidate as a location for the project. I am pleased to be able to return to the House today to report that the company has now made a final decision to proceed with the project in the United Kingdom. The president of the company, Dr. Toyoda, and I are today signing a document setting out the heads of agreement reached between us, copies of which I am placing in the Library of the House.
Toyota has chosen a 280-acre site at Burnaston near Derby. The project will be in two phases. In phase one, after a short period of pilot production starting in December 1992, commercial production will begin in August 1993 and will rise gradually thereafter to the maximum capacity of 100,000 cars per year. When economic and commercial circumstances allow, the project will move into phase two, in which capacity will be expanded to 200,000 cars per year. The plant will then employ some 3,000 people, and will involve a total investment of about £700 million.
692
The company has decided to proceed with the project without government financial assistance. And it is its firm intention to achieve a local content level of 60 per cent. from the start of commercial production in August 1993 and an 80 per cent. level within a further two years.
Toyota's decision was probably the largest mobile industrial investment still to be won and it represents a major vote of confidence in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that it will make a significant contribution to the local economy in the area around Derby, to the United Kingdom economy and indeed to the European economy as a whole. I wish the company every success here.
3.6 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for making the Statement, which we welcome. We welcome the presence of Toyota as an investment. With the noble Lord, we wish the company well provided that it meets its targets of local sourcing, which the noble Lord spelt out in his Statement as 60 per cent. after a certain period and 80 per cent. in the next period.
The fact that the Secretary of State has made his announcement and that he has signed heads of agreement between Toyota and the British Government indicates that the Government are prepared to intervene to secure beneficial inward investment. We welcome that. In our view it is the proper function of government to do so. We are glad to see that the doctrines propounded by the Secretary of State for Wales have been adopted by the Secretary of State opposite.
I wonder whether the noble Lord can comment on a statement on the one o'clock news, which I should like to quote in a genuine spirit of inquiry. It said:
"A Japanese news agency has quoted company sources as saying that a formal announcement will be made simultaneously in the two countries at two o'clock this afternoon".
I am sure that that was not an official statement. However, in the light of the words of the noble Lord the Leader of the House about statements, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would make some inquiries to see whether in fact a statement was made in Japan at two o'clock our time rather than at the time of the noble Lord's Statement.
Is it true that there will be no government help towards infrastructure investment? I understand from Derbyshire County Council that £8 million will have to be invested in infrastructure investment around the new plant. I understand from the council that this will have to be found by Derbyshire ratepayers, or Derbyshire poll tax payers, as the case may be. Is that the case? Is it not a little penny-pinching on the part of the Government to put the whole onus for investment on Derbyshire County Council? Are there no kind words from the Secretary of State for the Derbyshire workforce? After all, Toyota has placed an enormous vote of confidence in the Derbyshire workforce; otherwise, it would not be investing there.
Furthermore, are there no kind words for Derbyshire County Council, which entered the race

693
for this investment rather late, had no government financial help to make its pitch and succeeded in carrying off the prize? Is it pure coincidence that Derbyshire County Council is Labour controlled? Is this not a good example of a county council, regardless of party, doing what it is meant to do and getting good investment for its own area? In other words, are the efforts of Derbyshire County Council, which is Labour controlled, those which we would all wish to encourage? If that is so, will the Secretary of State now be good enough to congratulate the county council on its efforts?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and congratulate the Secretary of State for the part he undoubtedly played in bringing this about. It will mean 3,000 jobs in an area which badly needs them and an investment of £700 million. The noble Lord referred to local sourcing. How many additional jobs will be created as a result of the 60 per cent. and 80 per cent. local content level? It is an important point.
I should also like to refer to the longer term. We in this country have welcomed—and I hope that we shall continue to do so—enterprising concerns from abroad which want to set up here, to employ British labour and join their skills with ours. However, does the Toyota Motor Corporation intend to link us with its research and development for the future? I ask that question because what I believe is important is that we should not only look for short-term benefits from inward investment, but that we should also look for a long-term partnership, so that we can combine our skills and our innovative possibilities with those of the corporation. I should not like to feel that firms like Toyota are here just for the time being, which might be five to 10 years, and that they will then look elsewhere. Could this perhaps be a lasting relationship in which we can combine our research and development, so that we not only have the benefit of employing more people as a result of the arrangement of having an inward investment, but that we also have the opportunity of joining together with the corporation in those skills and research when we look to the long term?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for what he said. I am sure the noble Lord will understand me fully when I say that I cannot claim responsibility for anything which is broadcast on the radio news at one o'clock, neither can I do so in respect of a report from an agency in Tokyo. I said on 26th January in your Lordships' House that I would come back to the House when I had a statement to make on the matter. This is the first statement I have made on the position and I am sure that your Lordships will not expect me to do otherwise.
Of course I congratulate the Derby City authority, which happens to be Conservative, as indeed I congratulate Derby County, which happens to be Labour-controlled. However, the important point in the matter is that the Toyota Motor Corporation told us that it had chosen the United Kingdom because it was this country which actually provided the best industrial climate in Europe. Further, the corporation knew that there was no financial help
694
which the Government could give. That is not because the Government are unwilling to do so, but because very sensibly, and very properly, the European Community has entered into new guidelines (as from 1st January of this year) which impose rigorous tests to prevent unnecessary subsidies being given to car manufacturers elsewhere.
I would join, as I am sure would all Members of your Lordships' House, in congratulating the people in Derby on having the plant situated in their county. I also congratulate them on the creation of 3,000 jobs. Those jobs will be enjoyed by the people of Derby. Derby County and others would have welcomed them. It was a contest in which 40 local authorities entered. I congratulate the people of Derby on winning their "Derby".
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that in addition to the 3,000 jobs I am told that component suppliers will see a further 3,000 jobs being created as a result of the arrangement. In my view this is a significant landmark for our country. Not only is this the largest internationally mobile car plant—indeed, the third largest car company in the world after Ford and General Motors—but it happens, by coincidence, to be the 100th Japanese company to settle within our shores.
I should like here to stress a point which I made to Dr.Toyoda of the Toyota Motor Corporation. So far as we are concerned, Toyota is a British company. It happens to be a Japanese-owned British company, just as Ford happens to be an American-owned British company and, indeed, just as General Motors is an American-owned British company. However, it is British workmen, and it will be British wealth creation, that will actually benefit from this arrangement.
Dr. Toyoda also told us that the corporation has not, in its entire history, ever closed a plant. By coming into the Single European market, and into the industrial climate of this country, I hardly think that it will find any cause to change its policy in the future.
So far as concerns research and development, let us proceed step by step. Perhaps we can take a parallel from another Japanese car company which came to this country a few years back. That company has already opened its own research and development plant.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe:My Lords, from these Benches we should like to congratulate the Minister unreservedly on the Statement which he has just given to the House. There is occasion today for a double celebration, because as a result of the activities of his department I note that the French have conceded that the Nissan imports will now be permitted duty free into the EC. That is a considerable achievement by the Minister and all those concerned in that matter.
Of course we associate ourselves with the congratulations which have already been expressed by the Labour Party Front Bench. We particularly welcome the statement that there will be no govern-

695
ment financial assistance involved in this investment. Bearing in mind the fact that during the period between 1985 and 1988 30 per cent. of inward investment attracted 59 per cent. of all the regional selective assistance, I think that we have a breakthrough in this case. A company is coming to this country without the inducement and incentive of regional assistance. That should leave a good deal more of the regional selective assistance budget for indigenous companies. As I said, on behalf of Members on these Benches, this is an occasion for celebration and congratulations.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for what he said. I am sure that his congratulations to the people of Derby are shared by Members from all sides of your Lordships' House. Further, I am glad to be able to confirm that Commissioner Bangemann of the European Community has now formally confirmed to me that the French Government will now count the Sunderland-built Nissan cars as being cars of European and British origin, and that they will be allowed to circulate freely. I regard that matter as no more than one of the growing pains of the European Community. It is a matter which is now behind us. I look forward to the future. I also look forward to welcoming all those companies which may come to settle within our shores and which undertake to obey the rules which we have set, so that their products may be circulated throughout Europe as British products.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not immensely encouraging to all those of us who are interested in the British economy that this great company, with the whole of Europe to choose from, decided to set up its major plant in this country? Further, is my noble friend aware of the fact that many of us who have been informed as to what has been happening know that he himself played a major part in bringing about this particular investment? This country should therefore feel great gratitude towards him for that fact.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he said. I do not think that I should add anything to his last remark.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I congratulate all the people involved in the matter. Let us not nitpick on who has done what, and who has got what; I think that it has been a team effort on behalf of many people. Indeed, anyone who has had anything to do with the matter ought to be congratulated on having succeeded. Many local authorities are doing everything that they can to try to encourage industry, whether it is in this country or from abroad, to come into their areas. We are only too delighted when they achieve what they set out to achieve.
However, in this particular case, perhaps I may ask the Secretary of State whether he will co-operate and work with his colleague, the Secretary of State for
696
the Department of Education and Science, because additional money needs to be spent in the technical colleges and in the schools in that particular area. Much additional training and retraining must be carried out. Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to have a word with his colleague and point out to him that fact, so that additional moneys, which are so badly needed, will be made available in those particular institutions.
Lord Young of Graffham:My Lords, I fully understand what the noble Lord has said. The car plant will be coming into gradual production over the early years of the next decade. Further, it is a matter at which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will no doubt be looking. It is also a matter at which I very much hope the local education authority will be looking, because that is where the primary responsibility lies. It is a matter which a combination of effort from the private and public sector will undoubtedly solve.
We have had a stream of overseas investors coming to the United Kingdom. Indeed, over the past few days we have seen Fujitsu coming to this country, we have seen Bosch coming to this country and, now, we have the Toyota Motor Corporation. Why do they come here? They come here because this country provides the best industrial climate in Europe. That is the most powerful argument; it is not regional aid nor subsidies which create the right environment.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, it is very good news indeed that such a big investment will be made by Toyota. We all congratulate my noble friend on the matter, especially in regard to the large effect it will have on job creation. However, perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Secretary of State two questions. First, is he confident that such jobs will not in time lead to a reduction in employment in other parts of the British motor car industry?
Secondly, will my noble friend agree that Toyota has been able to make this vast, very good investment in this country only because of its huge investment elsewhere in new product development? Further, will he, to the best of his ability, encourage British industry to follow that good example?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are many reasons, but one of the additional reasons we welcome Toyota is that at a time when the demand for cars in this country far outstrips our capacity to produce them—last year 57 per cent. were imported—it is safe to say that we can see a substantial increase in the car industry in this country without affecting any jobs here. Although last year we sold about 85 per cent. of the total theoretical car capacity of Europe, there is room for further expansion. Secondly, I am sure that industry has learnt its lesson. It took some decades to learn that without investment there can be no future.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are other issues about which he might say a word? As he will be aware, the recruitment of

697
industry from Japan has played a large part in my life over the past 10 years. I may be slightly jealous that this plant has not gone to Telford. As we now have 13 Japanese companies in Telford, including some as big as Toyota, I may be able to temper my jealousy in the friendliest way.
Does not the Minister need to add two further assurances? First, it is important to assure the British people that these Japanese companies are not just proud of being British when they set up here. They want to be good citizens of Britain. They make generous contributions to charity. They take part in local life, and they do everything they can to show that they want to be part of Britain and not just a foreign import. Secondly. does not the Minister need to reassure people, as I have to do all the time when recruiting in Japan, that when such companies come they do not bring large numbers of Japanese people who put British people at disadvantage in their factories? When a Japanese company comes here, employing, say, 100 or 200 people, the total number of Japanese employees at the beginning is usually six or a dozen. That number is phased out as fast as the company can train British managers to take over the running of the factory.
Is it not important to reassure British people on those two points as well as on the point that the Minister mentioned—that such companies are British companies?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am the first to pay tribute to the sterling work that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has done in Telford in securing the settlement of a large number of Japanese companies there. I believe that the British people do not need such reassurance. Many Japanese companies, and other companies from overseas which have settled within these shores, have given positive proof of their desire to be good citizens. We have seen that time and time again. I hardly think that Toyota will be an exception. I look forward to a time when we shall wonder whether a Toyota is a Japanese company or whether it has always been a good British company.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has said that Mr. Bangemann has said he is prepared to give this new firm access to the European Community. Is that agreed by the French Government? Has he removed completely the risk that while they may not have tariff barriers they may resort to non-tariff barriers because of their past prejudices, which may interfere with the smooth development of that company?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am happy to confirm that Commissioner Bangemann told me he has been informed by the French Government that there were no further impediments. He of course had always held that view. I do not believe that we shall see any further difficulties in that regard. I regard the matter as now closed. It has been firmly established that those cars, and other cars established here within the criteria, will have access throughout Europe.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, on a slightly different point, if the 280-acre site is coming out of agriculture will the owner be allowed to claim the set-aside grant, which will come to something like £17,000 a year?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords. I had always understood that industrial land was used for industry. If there is a change of use, other considerations will apply; but I believe that it is industrial land.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before we finish with the matter, will the Minister answer my questions about the infrastructure investment? I understand from Derbyshire County Council that infrastructure investment of the order of £8 million is to be made. I understand that the Government are not giving any help. Is that the case?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, what is the function of Derbyshire County Council but to put in a certain amount of infrastructure to welcome 3,000 jobs and all the wealth-creation processes in its area? There were 40 other authorities which were happy to do so. It seems to me to be a proper function for Derbyshire. I am sure it is something that the people of Derbyshire will welcome. I see no case for doing anything other than what we are doing at present.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, is there any simple way of saying whether a car, either in part or in whole, is manufactured in this country?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, we are reaching a stage where a car is no longer made solely in one country, with the exception of some minor speciality cars. One can look at the cars produced by the Ford Motor Company. It has an engine plant in Bridgend which produces cars for a large part of Europe; and the bodies of some cars that it sells in this country are made in Germany. We are rapidly reaching the stage where we are internationalising the car manufacturing industry. It is extraordinarily difficult to say who does what.

Official Secrets Bill
3.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Security and intelligence]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of section (public interest defence) below,").
:My Lords, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 8, 12, 14 to 17 and 25. The amendments revolve around the public interest defence. That defence has reached its last ditch at the Report stage of the Bill.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the wording of Clause 1. Your Lordships will see that it is an absolute offence, without a necessity to prove

699
harm, if the prosecution can show that someone has been,
"a member of the security and intelligence services; or a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection".
I ask your Lordships to remember these words:
"without lawful authority he discloses any information, document or other article relating to security or intelligence which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of any of those services or in the course of his work while the notification is or was in force".
With moderation, in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, moved an amendment which was different from that which came before the other place. He did so in the cause of public interest, if I may use that abbreviated phrase. He sought to get rid of all the mischief that the Government had alleged existed in those amendments which came before the other place. They were supposed to be vague. They had, so the Government said, a great inherent defect. The great inherent defect was that anyone might think that something improper was going on and then divulge a secret of the intelligence service. All he would have to do if the amendments went through would be to show to the court that he reasonably and honestly believed that something had gone wrong. He might be mistaken, said the Government, but, there, the secret had been revealed. Great harm had been done.
Some of us got together with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, to try to cure those defects. At Committee stage we brought before your Lordships what we thought would cure all those evils. First we said, "We'll get rid of the uncertainty. The defence will have to prove that some mischief has been done, that some gross, serious misconduct has taken place". It had to involve fraud, crime, abuse of authority or neglect in the performance of official duty.
Secondly, there had to be a balance shown in favour of the disclosure as against any harm that might be done. With great ingenuity the Government found fault with that. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the Leader of the House, said in a memorable speech that he could not accept those points in the amendment to which he drew attention. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the House of the chief points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. They are to be found at cols. 929 and 930 of our proceedings on 3rd April:
"I ask the Committee to consider most carefully whether a proposition can really be accepted that says that such harm can be done knowingly as long as the discloser can claim that on balance—for that is the effect of the amendment—it was in the public interest".
The noble Lord made the perfectly fair point that again there was an uncertainty. What was the balance? How could one forecast what the balance was? Was it a certain matter? Was it a matter that could lead to all sorts of misunderstandings so that a disclosure is made and then there is an argument before the jury on balance. That is a perfectly proper and reasonable point.
Then later on the noble Lord said:
"We are asked to believe that they do nothing about it or nothing that the individual believes, as the amendment suggests, to be effective".
700
What the noble Lord the Leader of the House was saying there was that we recognise that under the amendment at Committee stage there would be no defence unless the member of the security service or the notified person had gone through all the established procedures, and the amendment said,
"and he found them to be of no effect".
The noble Lord said:
"The amendment refers to the procedures having been gone through 'without effect'. I assume—and I do not mean to be sarcastic here—that that means without the effect which the individual judges deem to be satisfactory".
As I said this is to be found at cols. 929 and 930 of the Official Report for the 3rd April.
Then there were other references to the point of balance and to what might be inferred from the,
"crime, fraud or other serious misconduct".
It was in deference to those arguments that once again we feel that some—even if it now be a last ditch—public interest defence should be incorporated in the Bill.
We have gone away, we have thought, we have endeavoured to answer each and every point that the noble Lord the Leader of the House made in the speech which was given in answer to the amendment moved last time by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. In those circumstances, I ask that your Lordships should kindly turn now to Amendment No. 25 and see how we have tried to deal with the various points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. First, your Lordships will note that in subsection (1)(a), the information revealed has to point to,
"the existence of serious misconduct involving crime, fraud or other gross impropriety".
There is no doubt what all that means: it must be serious misconduct involving crime, fraud or other gross impropriety. Those of us who are lawyers and have the privilege of understanding what the eiusdem generis rule means know that it must obviously be gross impropriety which is akin to crime or fraud in the definition of "serious misconduct".
Then we have completely got rid of the balance which worried the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. What the defendant would have to prove is something else, quite apart from the fact that the crime or the gross impropriety had been committed. (If it had not been and it was a gross hallucinaton or he was mistaken, he has no defence.) We get rid of the doubts about balance and so on and having to assess it beforehand, by the words in paragraph (b):
"in the circumstances the disclosure was necessary in the public interest".
The onus is on the defendant. He has to show that the serious misconduct took place and that it was necessary in the public interest for the disclosure to be made.
Then we got rid of the third and last point. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that "no effect" was an ambiguous phrase. With his usual courtesy, he said that he had no desire to be sarcastic, but he thought that those words might be interpreted as being in the mind of the person who discloses and that he had an answer which was of no effect. So in this amendment we deal with that. The discloser

701
must take all reasonable steps, as your Lordships will see from subsection (2) of the amendment,
"to comply with any established procedures for drawing such serious misconduct to the attention of the appropriate authorities which had unreasonably declined to deal with it".
Despite all the other matters the onus is upon him. He must show that the authorities were unreasonable and they must decline to deal with it. They must not say, "All right, we'll think about it and we shall perhaps be writing a letter. They must decline to deal with the matter unreasonably. At the beginning of the remarks which I ventured to address to your Lordships on the amendment I asked noble Lords to remember the words,
"guilty of an offence…without lawful authority".
Another point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, with his usual perfect fairness, made, was to cry in aid the report of the noble Lord, Lord Franks. I was glad he did so because on other occasions when my colleagues and friends and I have cried in aid the report of the noble Lord, Lord Franks, we were told that there had been further thought since that report was issued, minds had changed and so on. At least it was nice to hear somebody from the Government Benches saying something favourable to Lord Franks. What the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, did not quote from the report which I wish strongly to quote is what Lord Franks and his committee thought the offence ought to be. I am reading from paragraph 217, which is in heavy black type so there is no mistake about what the noble Lord and his Committee wanted:
"We propose that it should be an offence for a Crown servant to communicate information to which the Official Information Act applies, contrary to his official duty".
That is not,
"without lawful authority",
but,
"contrary to his official duty".
Later on in that paragraph he says:
"This test will make clear that it is for the prosecution to establish that the communication was contrary to the Crown servant's duty. If an act cannot even be shown to have been contrary to his duty, it would be unreasonable that it should nevertheless be caught by the criminal law".
The Bill before your Lordships does not use those words,
"contary to his official duty"
It says,
"without lawful authority".
I conclude my argument with this example. I do not think it unfair but your Lordships in your wisdom may think of much better ones. Let us imagine an assistant to the head of the security service who finds out that the head of the security service—I am sure your Lordships will never take any remark of mine as attaching to any head of the security service, past, present or future—has wrongly claimed heavy expenses for a journey to Marbella. However, he never went there. He has forged receipts in regard to expenses said to have been incurred for the journey and other matters, and he has withdrawn the money in regard to those expenses. He has endeavoured to ensure that the documents go
702
forward for what is never a detailed audit of the security service through the Minister who declares that the amounts are correct. I believe a broad certification then goes to the Auditor General in such cases.
That personal assistant cannot complain to anyone lower down as he is the personal assistant to the head of the security service. Your Lordships may well remember that in the previous debate on this Bill I quoted from a letter to The Times sent by three former heads of the Civil Service. I shall not read the letter out again, but those former heads of the Civil Service had written to The Times—without talking in terms favourable to a public interest defence, let me say—stating that it was perfectly possible in certain circumstances (which may be unlikely ones) that complaints made within the Civil Service would not take their proper course if certain events were involved. They admitted that.
So this poor assistant cannot go to the very chief to whom he is an assistant to say that the chief's behaviour is dreadful and he has committed a fraud. Therefore, he goes to the counsellor, mentioned previously from the Government Benches. The counsellor says very frankly that he is awfully sorry but he is there to deal with complaints in regard to what happens in disciplinary and other matters and he cannot touch this particular issue. He says that he cannot touch it and does not intend to touch it.
I wish to ask the Minister certain questions in regard to the amendment. I would have liked to give longer notice but I have given him some notice with an apology that it was not longer. I must confess that I thought of the example only as I was travelling to your Lordships' House this afternoon. Let us suppose that the assistant goes to a solicitor and asks to be advised regarding the law. The assistant presents the facts to the solicitor and asks what his duty is. Is that assistant committing an offence when he goes to a lawyer? We no longer have the words that Franks recommended; namely, that such a person was acting "in the course of his official duty". It could be argued that the act of going to a solicitor was the assistant's duty as he had no one else to ask for advice. The words in the Bill are, "without lawful authority". That assistant has no authority from anyone to go to the solicitor to ask for advice. So has he committed an offence? I hope your Lordships will not think me impertinent—I am sure the noble Earl will not think me impertinent—if I say that I do not want an answer stating that the Attorney-General would never prosecute. I am asking whether a criminal offence that we are creating has been committed.
If the assistant goes to a solicitor and says that he has no authority to go to the solicitor but that he wants to tell the facts, has he committed an offence? Further, if the assistant goes not to a solicitor but to his Member of Parliament saying that he does not know what to do and asking his Member of Parliament whether he can be given ad vice regarding who to go to and whether the matter can be raised as a dreadful thing has occurred, public money having been fraudulently spent by the head of the security department, has he committed a criminal offence as he had no lawful authority to go to the Member of Parliament?

703
Let me present a further example of where the assistant does neither of those two things. Let us suppose he walks into a police station and says that a fraud has been committed and that he cannot get any satisfaction as the counsellor has told him that he will not touch the matter. Has he committed an offence if he tells the police inspector what has happened? Unless this amendment is accepted, I can only tell your Lordships—I do so very humbly as a lawyer—that if I am given the answer that the assistant has committed no offence, many lawyers in this land, if the Bill remains as it is, will disagree with that view. If I am told that he has committed an offence, what will your Lordships do except pass this amendment?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has, with his usual clarity, explained very carefully the variations in this new amendment, as compared with the one we discussed in Committee. I had already examined it in detail and I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do. I recognise the effort that has been made to meet arguments that were put in our previous debate. However, I must say that I do not believe that the changes meet the main arguments and objections which were raised in Committee.
There has not been a public interest defence in the past. This provision would introduce one for the first time. So we must ask the fundamental question: is it necessary to have one? I do not believe it is necessary because of the harm tests in the Bill. The amendments that have been proposed on this matter could lead to serious breaches of security.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know the noble Lord will not think me discourteous if I intervene. I do not want him to advance his argument on a false premise. There is no harm provision in the clause which I am seeking to amend. Harm does not have to be shown by the prosecution.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, there is a harm test as regards the subject of the security and intelligence.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I shall proceed to our discussion in the previous debate. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, argued that a form of public interest defence had existed in the notorious and unloved Section 2 of the 1911 Act. He suggested, in his speech on that occasion, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was trying to ride two horses. He has given himself, I believe, two much more difficult and dissimilar horses to ride at the same time in doing away with Section 2, which is abominated by everyone—I do not believe there is anyone in your Lordships' House who would wish to retain it—but also in claiming that part of Section 2(1)(a) has,
"constituted a basis for a number of successful public interest defences".—[Official Report, 3/4/89; col. 908.]
704
My understanding is that the courts have never accepted that Section 2 provided a public interest defence. My interpretation is that any success in the past by a defendant has arisen from the particular circumstances of the case and the conclusions reached by juries. There has not, in law, been a public interest defence. The Government, to my mind, are not eroding civil liberty in this respect in the Bill. The Government have vastly reduced the amount of official information to be protected in future. They have reduced it to six areas, five of which are to be related to tests of harm. That is a new feature. The sixth, the sensitive area of warrants and interception of communications, already has a special system of investigation and therefore does not have a harm test. The harm tests in this Bill justify the Government in regarding it as a liberalising measure.
The noble Lord has referred to the fact that under this clause members of the intelligence and security services are not themselves able to raise the harm test. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was more concerned about someone who was not a Crown servant. I think that we are quite right to concentrate on that aspect because as has been explained, there are channels through which Crown servants can take up cases of supposed misconduct or impropriety. Those channels include the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services, a post at present held by Sir Philip Woodfield.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, asked on 3rd April, if a journalist or a private individual is considering making a disclosure or has made a disclosure of the kind which would be covered by these amendments, where does he stand? Without the amendments and the new clause he would have to think very hard before making a disclosure. I believe that with them he might believe that he had a fifty-fifty chance of being absolved. In the event, he would probably be wrong, but serious damage would have been done. Under the terms of the Bill as it stands I understand that where there is a test of harm such a person, having made a disclosure, would have the advantage that the prosecutor would have to prove that he, the defendant, knew or had good reason to know that harm would be done by the disclosure.
I believe that as the Bill stands at the moment that category of journalists or private individuals will not have to rely on the kind of public interest defence which is proposed in the amendments. I do not think that it is necessary to introduce them.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned an example which occurred to him on his way to the House—but not, presumably, coming from Spain—of the personal assistant to the head of the security service who suspects that a gross fraud has been committed in circumstances which the noble Lord described. That seems to me to be a case that the staff counsellor, Sir Philip Woodfield, would deal with. I shall be very interested to hear what my noble friend says on the subject because I believe that that is the kind of issue which the counsellor should deal with and which he is there to take up. If it does not lie within the scope of his office, I shall be sorry.

705
I should like to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that there could be occasions when a senior member of the security or intelligence service may have to keep an appointment very secret. He might have to leave signs to suggest that he was to be in one place when he was to be in another. The example that has been given is not altogether impossible, but instead of amounting to fraud it would simply be a matter of laying a trail in the wrong direction. That could happen, but it is most unlikely that the personal assistant would not have been in on the plan. If I may say so before the noble Lord intervenes, in that respect I believe that he has produced a rather good example of what might happen.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord is very courteous. I made it absolutely clear that unless the defendant can prove that a crime or gross misconduct has occurred he has no defence. The fact that he genuinely suspected it or the fact that the chief of security was hiding the facts as to where he had been, for a very good reason would provide no defence. It has to be proved that the crime has been committed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I do not believe that there is very much between us. I am simply pointing out the situations which could occur in the security world, where deception has to be part of one's daily work, that could not occur in any other world. I hope very much that that is the kind of case which the staff counsellor will deal with. However, I am not an expert on that subject and I shall wait to hear the answer.
I hope that noble Lords will realise from what I have said that I do not think it necessary to introduce a public interest defence, which did not exist in the 1911 Act and which would be introduced for the first time.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should like to deal first with a point which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned in relation to the public interest and the 1911 Act. He will appreciate that there was a public interest defence in the previous Act. The relevant words of Section 2(1)(a) are that the information has to be communicated to a person other than,
"a person to whom it is in the interests of the State his duty to communicate it".
Those words were used in the Sunday Telegraph case by the defence and they were used by the defence in the Ponting case. In each of those cases the jury acquitted the accused. Those words have never been upheld by the Court of Appeal as including a public interest defence. On the other hand, they have never been interpreted as not including a public interest defence. Nevertheless, on two occasions, and probably more, they have been interpreted in that way by the jury.
I should like to refer to the proceedings in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has
706
done. In Committee a number of noble Lords expressed sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Jenkins sought to do. I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred specifically to the desirability in the last resort of preventing what he described as some great damage to the nation by the concealment of a misdeed by a public servant. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, expressed himself as being very nearly won over by the submissions of the noble Lord.
Your Lordships will remember that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, agreed that if all established procedures had been exhausted by the civil servant in question, the public servant must act according to his conscience. However, he added that he doubted whether a successful prosecution would ever be launched in such circumstances.
I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. The history of legislation in regard to the criminal law is littered with parliamentary observations to the effect that no one would prosecute in such circumstances. Unfortunately, someone always does prosecute.
Some other noble Lords found the wording in the original amendment too broad. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, found the words too imprecise. So too did the noble Lord, Lord Trafford. They believed that a jury would find it too difficult to cope with those words when used by a judge in summing up. I suggest that those words are eminently suitable for a jury trial. Misconduct involving crime or fraud is a perfectly straightforward and simple matter for the jury. The phrase "gross impropriety" is used. "Gross" is a word often used in the criminal law. In summing up to juries in manslaughter cases, judges may ask whether there was "gross negligence". "Negligence" alone is not good enough. The juries must decide whether there was "gross negligence". We use the phrase "gross indecency"; "indecency" alone is not enough. The juries must decide whether there was "gross indecency". It is a perfectly simple question for them to decide here.
On the public interest part of the amendment, as noble Lords well know, judges are well versed in the principles of public interest. Throughout the Spycatcher case, that matter was referred to in the various courts and was laid down authoritatively by the judges. There is no problem in directing a jury on the considerations that they should take into account in relation to public interest.
With regard to all those points, I suggest that the language of the amendment is extremely carefully drawn. It is language that a jury could understand and which the learned judge would be perfectly able to sum up to the jury. On that basis, I sincerely hope that noble Lords who had reservations about the scope and drafting of the Jenkins amendment will feel that this amendment properly provides for the last resort situation for which the law should cater if it is to be respected, as I am sure noble Lords will want it to be.
4 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the public interest defence has been exhaustively and, one might say, exhaustingly discussed at a number of stages of the Bill, both in this House and in another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rather despairingly put it in his speech, this is its last ditch.
Noble Lords have so far rejected the general principle of the public interest defence, as did another place, because there has been a feeling—I shall enlarge on this point in a moment—that, however appropriate the defence of the public interest might be in most areas of the law, it is inappropriate in this respect because of the special nature of the work of the security service.
The trouble about applying a public interest test in that area is that, in the course of such a test, one may force the revelation of matters whose revelation is damaging to the interests of this country. One may force out—perhaps inadvertently or as a side issue—matters which, from the point of view of this country's security, the Government—indeed, all governments of all parties—would regard as essential to keep secret. I believe that the reason the public interest defence has been rejected again and again is the natural sense of caution which is felt both here and in another place in dealing with those special types of matters where revelation may be immensely damaging to our nation's security. I hope that noble Lords will consider the amendment in the light of that background.
Perhaps I may put the issue to noble Lords in this way. Although the amendment is undoubtedly more restricted, it reflects the high level of drafting capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose signature I see written all over it. However, it still seems to me to involve a risk in certain circumstances. Perhaps I may give an example of a matter that has been discussed—I raised it myself, as others have done—at previous stages. Let us suppose that, while the British nuclear bomb was being constructed in the 1940s, some of the people concerned had indulged in appalling fraud. Let us suppose that some of the people involved had misappropriated moneys. It could be said that that situation complied entirely with the first part of the amendment in paragraph (a). It could then be argued whether it was necessary, in the public interest, for the matter to be raised. The vital national secret that we were in fact manufacturing a nuclear bomb without the knowledge of other countries, and indeed without the knowledge of Parliament, might therefore be incidentally disclosed.
If the matter were raised and it were pointed out that someone was acting fraudulently in the supply of some of the materials that one needs for the processes of nuclear fission, the information would inevitably come out that we were engaged upon that enterprise. It seems to me difficult to judge whether someone who, up to that point, had known nothing whatever about that being done could form a sensible judgment as to whether it was "necessary"—that is the word in the amendment—to disclose it. One must remember—I say that with due respect to the judiciary—that it is, like the rest of us, completely
708
unaware of many of the activities of the security service. Those activities are known only to members of the service, a few responsible Ministers and particularly the Prime Minister. How are they to judge whether it is necessary in the public interest for that information to be disclosed when they are completely unaware of the background of the matter?
I put that specific problem to noble Lords. Let us suppose that there had been frightful fraud in the making of the British nuclear bomb and that a man who had been involved was genuinely outraged, as most noble Lords would be, by that fraud. Does one say that, because of that occurrence, it might be necessary to give away the whole secret of what the British Government were doing? That is an illustration of the difficulty of legislating in that area.
It may be that I and some of my noble friends are over-cautious in this matter. I venture to suggest that noble Lords on the other side who press constantly for the public interest defence in one form or another are perhaps a little over-courageous. I suggest that this is an issue in which it must be right to err on the side of caution, and that the amendment transgresses that sensible view.
Lord Renton:My Lords, there is a general assumption that special defences are always in favour of the accused; but I doubt that assumption, especially with regard to the proposed special defence which I agree is an improvement on the one that we had in Committee.
The assumption in favour of special defences is that, whereas the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, special defences need only be proved on the balance of probability. At first sight, that looks to be a tremendous advantage, but I must say that, if I were defending someone on a charge on either of the offences mentioned in subsections (1) or (3), I would not welcome the presence of the special defence in the clause.
Perhaps I should put the cart before the horse and first deal with the contents of the special defence itself. Noble Lords opposite will put a very heavy burden of liability upon the accused person, even on the balance of probability. He has to prove
"serious misconduct involving crime, fraud or other gross impropriety".
The burden will be on him to the limited extent that the disclosure was necessary in the public interest. In the case not only of Crown servants and government contractors but also the people mentioned in Clause 1(1):
"(a) a member of the security and intelligence services; or (b) a person notified that he is subject to the provisions of this subsection."
He also has to prove that:
"he had taken all reasonable steps to comply with any established procedures [and that] the appropriate authorities … had unreasonably declined to deal with it".
In other words, he will have to prove that three people, to each of whom he had the right of application, have been unreasonable. That will be a very difficult burden to establish. He must prove that the head of department has been unreasonable, that the head of the Civil Service has been unreason-

709
able and that the staff counsellor, who is a person especially appointed to help civil servants in such cases, has been unreasonable too.
If I were defending, I should throw up my hands in despair at ever being able to prove to a jury that those people, all of whom would probably have been called as witnesses for the defence or prosecution, had all been unreasonable. The danger of these special defences—and I concede that there is one in Clause 1(5)—is that they divert attention from the very heavy burden of proof which lies upon the prosecution. In this case the prosecution will have stringently to prove some matters—they have already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, so there is no need for me to repeat them—which will not be easy to prove. In such a case, if I were defending, I should say to myself: All right, the prosecution will establish anyway their prima facie case and it will have to hold up well enough for the judge to leave the matter to the jury. Then it is for the defence either to call no evidence and rely upon defence counsel's speech, which is sometimes a very effective course, I avow, or to call some evidence simply to deal with the prosecution's case and try to rebut it, or to rely upon the special defence.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as well as other noble Lords who have practised in the criminal courts, will agree with me that once the jury's attention is diverted from the onus upon the prosecution to the special defence which the accused is trying to raise, the jurors, because they are human beings, will find that their attention tends to be focused upon the special defence. Therefore, I believe that the special defence that is proposed here could very well be a boomerang. If I were a member of the Government I am not certain that I would find it unwelcome, but from the point of view of future accused people I doubt whether it will be an advantage.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, part of the purpose of this Bill is to protect official secrets. Indeed, much of our discussion has been about what happens after someone has leaked them. However, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would have a much stronger point in putting forward this amendment if this Bill covered as many pieces of information—many of them minor—and such a wide range of people as does the existing Act. It does not.
In fact, under Clause 1 it covers a very small number of people, all of whom have voluntarily joined this particular branch of government and taken on this activity, knowing the score, one might say. It is not a very large number but it consists of people who are specifically involved directly and indirectly (as has been mentioned I think in the comments of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter) with a considerable amount of potentially damaging information. Such information could come out not as a result of the primary leak but as a result of any
710
subsequent case. It could come out either inadvertently or as a result of some secondary revelation of facts necessary to statements made in court. The major point surely is that now that we have narrowed down the number of people involved and eliminated vast areas of unnecessary government activity from protection under this Bill, it is far less necessary to put forward such points. The essential feature is that the cat would be out of the bag before one ever came to decide whether or not a special defence was necessary or applicable.
In those cases mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, I believe that he is underrating the power of the advocacy concerned rather than relying on the actual intent of the judiciary, who I accept did not give decisions on the matter. It was the power of the advocate and not the nature of the defence that led the jury to come to its conclusions because juries decide the facts of these matters and not the law. So I do not believe that the fact that those particular cases were decided as they were necessarily supports the suggestion that in fact, if not in law, there is such a thing as a specific public interest defence.
Finally, when Lord Hunt of Tanworth referred to this matter in the Second Reading speech that has already been cited, he was not of course referring to members of the intelligence service but to the general civil servants who had something which might be caught by other clauses in this Bill. He was then listing a very large number of things that they can do and courses of action that they can take before they come up, so to speak, against the point taken by my noble friend the Leader of the House; namely, that at the end of the day there is the question of their conscience.
In this clause we are considering the small group of people which has been specifically narrowed by this Bill. It is quite different from that which comes under the existing Act. It seems to me that if we accepted this amendment we should be saying that, whatever damage may be done at the whim of some member of this branch of government, the cat is out of the bag and it would not matter. That does not seem to me to be a cautious or reason able way for this Chamber to proceed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he would care to correct one statement. He said that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, was referring only to civil servants. I am not quite certain whether that is so, but in any event the amendment refers to those in the security and intelligence services as well.
Lord Trafford: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. I was trying to make the point that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth, had already been quoted in aid of the amendment. I was pointing out that he was covering a much wider field in his Second Reading speech. He went all through the question of going to the senior civil servant, to the head of the Civil Service and to the Minister, and so on—a much wider field than is covered by this amendment.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has made the main point that I had in mind to raise. However, he did not mention what I believe to be the ultimate point, and it is for that reason that I wish to add to his remarks. I believe that the danger in Amendment No. 25 resides in the last six words:
"unreasonably declined to deal with it".
Part of the conditions that the amendment lays down is that the defence has to show that he tried to comply with the established procedures before drawing attention to serious misconduct. That is fair enough. But the amendment provides that the appropriate authorities had unreasonably declined to do their duty. I believe that the existence of those final six words weakens the confidence that one has in the established procedures. If we want this measure to work, we have to feel that the protection—the established procedures—mean something. However, if in the same Act that virtually sets up the procedures one recognises the possibility, indeed the likelihood, that the appropriate authorities—which covers several people and several departments—could be unreasonable in carrying out their duty, it would be bad legislation.
If we have to accept the amendment, I would rather that the word "unreasonable" was removed. If the defence wish to say that the appropriate authorities had declined to deal with it, I cannot see that that would be casting aspersions on the power and impartiality of the established procedures. The amendment provides that it is possible for that to happen. If one did not think it was possible for it to happen it would not be in the statute. If we wish our legislation to be accepted in all seriousness, the insertion of the words in the amendment, "unreasonably declined to deal with it", raises a danger that we must bear in mind. I make that final point in addition to the detailed explanation on those words that my noble friend gave when he made his contribution.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, we can well understand why no government have attempted to amend the Official Secrets Act all these years. Two Acts were passed in the year 1911 that every government since have said should be changed, and no government have done very much about them. One affects your Lordships' House, and the other is the Official Secrets Act.
The difficulty is that when one has a large net that is supposed to catch everything but which catches very little, and one wishes to provide something more specific in terms of legislation and effectiveness, one comes down to the nitty-gritty of drafting the alternative. That is what the Government have done.
The noble Lord, Lord Trafford, mentioned the Home Civil Service. Listening to this debate, most of the hypothetical circumstances in the minds of my noble friends related to the security services. My primary interest is the Home Civil Service. I am quite sure that enough outlets for complaints about what may be going on in the Civil Service exist already and that there is no need to provide more
712
special defences for it. After all, what are we doing? What is all this about?
I was once described by the Law Society as an intelligent layman. I have been trying to live up to that reputation ever since. What are we trying to do? We are trying to keep civil servants from breach of confidence and breach of secrecy, pleading that they have every reason for such breach when we do not believe that they have. If one prosecutes, the decision has to rest with the court. But if we are defining the duty of civil servants we should try to do so by following as closely as possible their experience, to establish what they will recognise as guidelines in personal conduct.
When the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was speaking about his hypothetical case of fraudulent expense claims, and so forth, I was uncertain whether the writ of the Comptroller and Auditor General would extend to that murky field of security services. Normally a civil servant who observes fraud going on around him has an easy remedy. He reports it to the Comptroller and Auditor General, whose duty it is to investigate it. He then has his own superior officers. Throughout the debate nobody has referred to the important role of the trade unions in the Civil Service. The trade unions can be used by civil servants who are in difficulties or doubt. I was involved in that for 38 years. Plenty of people came to me with troubles and difficulties about the conduct of people around them. They were seeking means of bringing about a remedy, mostly without having to disclose their identity. That is always difficult. However, if we are dealing with the security services then unfortunately we are entering a very wicked world: a world of sneaks, deceit, cover-up, double dealing, lying, and fraud. Every conceivable sin in the calendar seems to be available to members of the security services, except that of murder. I am not sure that they have not even gone in for that.
I do not think one can apply a civilised code of behaviour in a service which is engaged in such underhand work. I regard the secret services as an affront to human conduct and dignity and to our civilised society. I think it is a great pity that we take part in them. We might do far better to get out and retain our self respect. However, again, we are in a vicious circle and have apparently to stay in.
I do not believe that we need to erect more special defences. Unless I am wrong, the fact we specify special defences does not mean that we deprive an accused person of any other defences. He must create his own defence in circumstances in which he believes he has an overwhelming case for doing what he did. If he is before a jury, can he not rely on 12 good men and women and true to see the common sense and justice of the matter? Are we suggesting that there is no justice in the courts unless the defence comes within the special defences prescribed in this Bill? Surely not. In the Ponting case, the jury made its own law and defied the judge in doing so. It made its own justice also. I do not say that I necessarily agree with it, but it happened and I believe that it can happen in other cases.
I cannot see why we are straining so much on this issue. I cannot believe that all the first-class lawyers

713
are on this side of the House and that those on the other side are second-raters. There is a genuine difference of legal opinion. However, perhaps I may say a few words of common sense. Let us leave it at what the Government are providing. It is sufficient to see the real mischief of the Official Secrets Act removed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he is quite right to talk about the Home Civil Service. I should like to clear this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. With Amendment No. 1 we are discussing eight other amendments, including the new clause, Amendment No. 25, which is the operative one. The other amendments would apply that new clause to the other clauses. Therefore it would cover all civil servants. Clause 1 applies in particular, but not totally, to security and intelligence services. In our discussion, I was speaking to the amendments to the other clauses also.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, the general case for this amendment has been most powerfully and persuasively made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and by my noble friend Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I intervene briefly to make a single adjacent point. This amendment is even more tightly drafted than the equivalent amendment that I moved in Committee. I was struck when I moved that amendment by the solidity with which the Benches opposite upheld the importance of secrecy in certain affairs of government.
I have been away for some time and I was even more amazed last Saturday evening when, sitting in a foreign airport, I picked up for the first time for two or three days a copy of the Independent. I read an account of what had happened at Thursday's Cabinet meeting when the Secretary of State for Wales Mr. Peter Walker, having indulged in a rather controversial statement recently, had tried to intervene but had deliberately not been called by the Prime Minister. This struck me as very odd indeed. However, one knows that there can be leaks wholly unauthorised by any official source. In what was a well equipped airport lounge, I also picked up The Times, the Daily Telegraph and the Guardian. I read exactly the same story. This can only happen when there has been what is politely called "briefing" but what might brutally be called leaking from a central official source; in other words, the spokesman for the Government.
It was a most extraordinary affair. I have known leaks from the Cabinet. We all have. Those leaks—even from Cabinets we have sat in—have indicated different views. But to have an officially presented commentary, almost as if it were a sporting event, of who tried to do such at what time, was not called, and why, is something that I have never known in the history of Cabinet government.
I hope that the Leader of the House the Lord Privy Seal, when he replies, will comment on this rather extraordinary state of affairs and that he will reassure
714
us. The thought arises in my mind that there is a certain hypocrisy about a government being very concerned to impose great discipline upon relatively minor officials and yet using leaking on a scale which is unprecedented in our political history when it happens to suit the powers-that-be
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hutchinson. were right to claim that these amendments are more specific than the original amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. I have, in one way or another, a good many years of experience of the special and peculiar area of secrecy, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Every instinct tells me that if the public interest has to be argued in public, the kind of secrets visualised by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—secrets of vital interest to the nation—will be bound inadvertently to come out. That is too great a danger to run. Therefore I am afraid, even now, that I shall vote against the public interest being a defence.
Lord Monson: My Lords, it is a great pity that Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have been grouped for discussion with the other public interest paving amendments. Clause 1 is surely a special case, as the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Trafford, have suggested. We live in dangerous times; times moreover in which the main threats to the United Kingdom emanate by no means exclusively or even mainly nowadays from behind what we still term the Iron Curtain. This being so, rules sometimes have to be bent, not to protect the commercial interests of the United Kingdom, which is what some of the later clauses are concerned with, but to protect the actual lives of the people of this country. The important thing is that such bending of the rules as there may be is strictly proportionate to the danger faced; in other words, that it should not be excessive.
I have no hesitation in supporting unreservedly the public interest amendments in respect of Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8. In these clauses the definition of what constitutes damage to this country is so tightly drawn that even the most trivial damage could be caught. It is no good the Government—or for that matter the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby —saying that in circumstances such as these prosecutions will probably not be brought, or if brought that juries will probably not convict. For people who face prison for exposing serious wrongdoing the probability of acquittal is not good enough. One looks for certainty in such circumstances, which is why, although I hesitate about Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I strongly support the other public interest amendments.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, I follow my noble friend in what he says. I hope that we shall consider these amendments separately. We are talking here, as I see it, about whether a small number of people should be denied the opportunity to argue in front of a jury that what they have done is on balance right in the public interest. Those of us who support these amendments say that they should not be so denied. It has been said that disclosures which might

715
already have been made would be immensely damaging. I believe we are trying to deal with a situation in which non-disclosure might be even more damaging. That is why we have defined this so narrowly, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. We do not want it to be a licence for people to give away the nation's secrets. We see it as the ultimate defence at the end of the process referred to many times and described so vividly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Tanworth. Nevertheless, we were left believing that we would be inviting a jury to act, as another noble Lord said, perversely. I am not a lawyer and I bow to other eminent lawyers who are concerned about this matter. But, surely, it is wrong to enact legislation which relies upon a jury behaving perversely to secure justice.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Hemingford, and others whose names are on this amendment have, as my noble friend Lord Trafford reminded us, rather lost sight of the purpose of the Bill. This is the Official Secrets Bill. It is an effort by Parliament to establish what should, and what cannot, be said by public servants. Everyone in your Lordships' House has agreed all the way through our proceedings that this is a very much better effort than has ever been made before and the area a great deal narrower than before. But, as everyone will agree, there comes a moment when a line must be drawn. The Bill seeks to draw it. It draws it, as it stands, with a definite and precise instruction: "Beyond this line, you shall not".
I believe that the law ought to be as precise as possible. At the Committee stage my noble friend Lord Home said exactly that. The more precise the law is, the more clear it is to the layman. As your Lordships know, I am a layman. I am no lawyer. I do not know about juries and courts and so forth. But let us face it. Most of Her Majesty's civil servants are not lawyers either. They are not capable of deciding definitely for themselves what, for example, gross impropriety means. I do not know what it means. I should hazard a guess that if I were to take any six of your Lordships into a room, I would get six different answers. This is very much the same as for the Obscene Publications Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, drew attention a few days ago—the tendency to deprave and corrupt. Nobody knows what it means. Only a court can decide what it means. Equally, the amendment provides that the disclosure is "necessary" to the public interest. What I think is necessary may be different from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble friend the Leader of the House, or anybody else, may think is necessary. However, if I am worked up about something which I think has gone wrong, it is very easy for me to convince myself that it is necessary that it should be disclosed and that I should disclose it. I may be proved wrong in a court, but I should have done the damage.
Surely here we are seeking to limit the damage that can be done. If we say, as the Bill says, "Here are these very limited number of areas, much more limited than anything that has ever gone before, which you may not talk about", that is quite clear.
716
I believe that it will deter people from talking about them, which is what we want to do. We have been spending a lot of time this afternoon arguing about what juries will do and how matters will be presented to the courts. We want to avoid anything ever coming before a court, and therefore I believe that the clause should remain as it is.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I feel some anxiety about these proposed amendments. The possibility of a public interest defence—or iniquity defence, as it is sometimes called—fell to be examined by your Lordships' House in the Spycatcher appeal, arising out of the alleged iniquities that Mr. Peter Wright thought he had discovered and ought to disclose.
My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths sought to define the defence in these terms, with which I agree:
"theoretically, if a member of the services discovered that some iniquitous course of action was being pursued that was clearly detrimental to our national interest, and he was unable to persuade any senior members of his service or any member of the establishment, or the police, to do anything about it, then he should be relieved of his duty of confidence so that he could alert his fellow citizens to the impending danger."
I believe that if there is to be a public interest defence the emphasis should be on an impending danger. If there is no impending danger then, on balance (at any rate in the context of the security services) it would be preferable not to permit any alleged iniquity to be unearthed and aired in public, except to avert an impending danger. As I see it, the defence that the amendments propose would permit discussion of any alleged iniquity which is past, dead and buried so long as it can credibly be argued that disclosure is necessary in the public interest.
If the requirement were not public interest but impending danger I would not feel such anxiety, but the public interest is a vague concept, and in my respectful submission to allow a defence on those grounds would endanger the purposes of the Bill.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Dacre of Glanton: My Lords, I am in favour of this amendment, to which I have put my name. I did so as a layman for what I think are purely a layman's reasons. This amendment will have a good effect in that in one sense it will prevent publication. When I listened to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter I kept thinking to myself, "What about Irangate?" My noble friend kept referring to the necessity of covering up admitted possible malpractices within the secret services on the grounds that it was better to cover them up in the public interest than to reveal them in the public interest.
Then what happens of course is that there is an explosion. They are revealed by a foreign power, by the Ayatollah, or whoever it may be. In the end the stink is rather worse than it would have been had this amendment been in force, in which case it would probably never have come out at all because the person who felt that it was in the public interest to reveal these facts would have used the proper procedures laid down in the amendment. The effect would have been either that the authorities within

717
the service would have said, "Well, this is too dangerous. This man is going to go to the courts and the whole thing is going to explode. We will change our policy. We will not do it"; or of course it would have come out in a different form, in a rather more respectable form. Therefore I regard this as a kind of safety valve, and particularly valuable because it would very seldom have to be used.
I do not particularly like the phrase "public interest", which is regularly used. "Public interest" has a double meaning. It can be, in the minds of the editors of certain newspapers, gratification of public curiosity. It is a vague phrase. We know what it means. It means the security of the country. I would prefer therefore to look at the amendment as it stands. There it is clearly defined that what has to be proved is not a subjective concept such as, "My conscience forces me to say that I think this is a wrong policy"; it is crime. One goes to one's superiors in order to take counsel, and in the last resort one may go public under this amendment if one is satisfied that crime has been committed.
Well, hang it all, what argument did we use at Nuremberg? We argued that criminality is not excused by superior orders. Therefore someone in a subordinate position who considers that real crime has been committed has a duty not to comply with it, not to obey those orders. Here in this amendment we are offering a mechanism whereby that predicament can be resolved.
There is the argument that those who go into the secret services go in with their eyes open; they go in under special rules, etc. I do not want to make invidious comparisons, but simply looking at it as an abstract theory that is precisely the argument used by the SS. They said that they had a completely different set of rules. They went in with their eyes open. They did not obey the laws of the land. They were under different laws.
I see this amendment as a means of reducing the tensions thus created. I see it as being helpful. I am in favour of secrecy. I am against people over-valuing their own consciences and going public for subjective reasons. I want to protect the secret services. I want them to be secret, but I want their secrecy to be rational and rationally defensible, and I believe that this amendment goes some way towards doing that.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the question whether there should be a public interest defence alongside these provisions has been debated and pursued at all stages of the consideration of this Bill. Indeed I think that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter said that it had been exhaustingly and exhaustively considered. It is a matter about which your Lordships understandably feel great concern, and your Lordships considered it in Committee. It was put to the opinion of the Committee. Your Lordships rejected it, and in my view quite rightly so too, and I would ask your Lordships to reject this amendment today.
My noble friend Lord Campbell said that it is a public interest defence and it is one that has not existed before, and he did not want to see it exist in
718
the future. I agree with my noble friend. He ran into a certain amount of stick from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said that it referred only to those cases for which there was a no harm test. It is not often that one finds oneself thinking—I put it no higher than that—that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is wrong, but excitingly I find the occasions are becoming more frequent.
I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell is right. It is true that we are talking about Amendment No. 1, which specifically refers to the security and intelligence services; but the noble Lord will be aware that many amendments are grouped together and the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 25, refers not only to those for which there is no harm test but also those for which there is a harm test. I see that the noble Lord is anxious to get to his feet and I shall not deny him the privilege.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Earl finds it exciting that the number of my mistakes is increasing, I hope that it will be a competition which both of us find exciting over the years and that it will be mutual.
Having said that, I imagine that the noble Earl does not know that there has been an agreement that any vote on this amendment shall be limited to Amendment No. 1 linking Amendment No. 25 to it, and that the others will be taken separately. I asked leave of the House to speak to all the amendments in regard to the principle of Amendment No. 25 but, as the House will remember, all my arguments were addressed to Clause 1 and Amendment No. 1. However, I repeat that the increasing number of times that the noble Earl finds me wrong will, I am afraid, continue and I merely hope that there will occasionally be a return match.
Earl Ferrers:My Lords, I should not wish for a competition as to how many times the noble Lord or I will be wrong because I have a horrible feeling that I may not come out the winner. The parliamentary nicety to which the noble Lord referred had escaped me. I thought that we were considering Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 8 and so on together, but the noble Lord wags his head. I bow to that although that is what I had understood to be the position. However, those amendments all refer to a public interest defence, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he said that we do not need any more special defences and that common sense says that we should leave the thing alone. Common sense like that appeals to me and I support him wholeheartedly.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, referred to a newspaper which he had read at an out of the way airport. He asked me whether I would like to comment on that. Perhaps I may say that I do not think that that is particularly relevant and I do not wish to comment on what the noble Lord read. Here we are considering whether or not there should be a public interest defence in any future business with regard to official secrets.
I was grateful when my noble friend Lord Home also came out against this amendment, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. My noble

719
friend Lord Colnbrook said that the law must be precise and that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. As he so clearly said, there must be a line drawn beyond which everyone knows that they cannot go. In inviting your Lordships not to accept this amendment or the other amendments, may I suggest that your Lordships will wish to consider the many distinguished speakers who have spoken on previous occasions as well as today who have, from their experience, come down against introducing a defence of this nature. I recognise that that view is not unanimous and that many other noble Lords with equally great experience take a contrary view equally conscientiously.
We had a long debate in Committee and I do not propose to rehearse all those arguments again. However, it is fair to say that this is only a matter of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was, as usual, persuasive and tried to meet all the objections of my noble friend Lord Belstead on the drafting. However, this is not a matter of drafting. It is not a matter of landing on some happy conjunction of language which somehow will placate everyone. It is a matter of principle.
As we see it, the principle is this. We do not believe that someone should be able to do untold damage to the interests which are quite properly and prudently protected by the Bill in the hope that he can persuade a jury that he did so in order to serve some other interest; namely, the public interest.
I believe that that principle is sound for two reasons. First, unless the criminal law is clear on this point the result will inevitably be that disclosures will be made which will indeed cause great harm. Once a disclosure is made, it cannot be unmade. The damage will have been done. Whatever the jury later decides, nothing can undo that damage. Human nature being what it is, people will always push against the ropes to see how much give there is and how far the law will permit them to go. As a result, I believe that more damaging disclosures will be made if this amendment is in the Bill than if it is not.
Amendment No. 25 says that,
"in the circumstances the disclosure was necessary in the public interest".
That would be a matter for the jury to decide. Whatever the jury decided, the disclosure would have been made and that is not right. As my noble friend Lord Colnbrook said, the whole purpose must be to limit the damage. If this amendment were accepted, that could result in damage to the work of the intelligence and security services. They would be less able to protect us from terrorist atrocities and other threats. Our defence capability will be weakened and the lives of our citizens put at risk. We shall be less capable of pursuing our interests on the world stage, interests on which the safety and prosperity of everyone depends. Although I believe that the amendment does not intend this, it will permit such damage to be made and it will be left to a jury to sort out whether the disclosure was justified and, if not, whether the defendant has been guilty of a criminal offence and should be punished.
720
It will then be too late and, as my noble friend Lord Trafford said, the cat will be out of the bag.
The second reason for resisting this proposal is practical. A jury in a criminal trial cannot be expected to determine such mattes as what is in the public interest. The Franks Committee—and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will be delighted to know that I pray that in aid, as he sometimes does—recognised that fact, which is why it proposed a ministerial certificate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, said that the amendment has been very carefully drafted and that all the words could be understood by a jury. Under this amendment the jury not only has to grapple with the curious words and the concept, as the amendment has it, of gross impropriety. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I do not believe that those words are easy for a jury to understand. The jury will have to understand the meaning of, "gross impropriety", and whether that gross impropriety amounted to serious misconduct. The jury also has to decide what was or was not necessary in the public interest. If anything, this part of the amendment is less specific in its application and more far-reaching in its effect than the amendment rejected in Committee. The public interest to which the amendment refers is, not surprisingly, not defined.
Public interest is a very broad concept in marked contrast to the specific provisions in the Bill. If the amendment is accepted, Parliament will be giving its task of definition to the jury. What is and what is not in the public interest? We should leave juries to try to interpret what Parliament has failed adequately to define and we should be inviting people to take a chance. Any trial on that basis would be a trial with the public service in the dock, and a jury assembled ostensibly to determine the facts will find itself in a similar position to a wide-ranging public inquiry. That is not a reasonable basis on which to proceed.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, accelerated our imaginations somewhat, as he often does, by asking what would happen in the case of the head of the security and intelligence services misappropriating all the money and going off to Marbella. I do not know whether it is helpful to draw analogies for the imagination but the noble Lord asked what, in that event, would be the position of a member of the security services. The proper procedure for any member of the services who believes that he has uncovered some sort of crime is to report the matter, without delay, to his superiors. That is the normal and established procedure in any organisation. Anyone who did not do so would clearly be in breach of his official duty, so it is up to him to do so.
If the member of the services has anxieties about the response from his organisation, or on any other matter relating to his work, he can then take his anxieties to the staff counsellor. That person is wholly independent and is there to hear any concerns which the service members may have. He has direct access to the Prime Minister. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was right in saying that that is the right course for the person to take. In the circum-

721
stances described by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, it is inconceivable that the staff counsellor would not take the necessary action. There is no need, as Ministers have always made clear, to have provision for members of the services to report details of their work to Members of Parliament.
The noble Lord leaves those avenues of attention to one side and asks who else a member of the services can tell. I believe that we are in the realms of fantasy, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that in electing to consult a solicitor the normal rules of legal professional privilege apply. If someone needs to seek advice about his person legal position the Bill does not prevent him from consulting a solicitor. If a person were to report an alleged offence to the police in good faith he would not commit an offence under the Bill. That is because in those circumstances such an action would clearly not be inconsistent with his official duty. I hope that clarifies the position to which the noble Lord referred.
I come back to the simple proposition which presents itself to the House. It cannot be right to provide for or to encourage disclosures which a person knows are against the law and only afterwards allow him to try to justify that conclusion. Whether he fails or succeeds, the damage will have been done. Your Lordships have already affirmed this proposition in Committee and I hope that your Lordships will do so again.
Lord Mishon: My Lords, I know that the House will not think that I am indulging in exaggerated language when I say with every courtesy that the speech that the noble Earl has just delivered, while having its usual charm, has stood reason on its head. However, because it was uttered with his usual charm I do not think reason will unnecessarily complain—but I do. I complain for the following reasons.
The whole purpose of the speech of the noble Earl was to say—and other Members of your Lordships' House have said it—that once a disclosure is out the harm has been done; that it would be quite wrong to leave a jury to deal with such difficult matters as to whether or not a crime had been committed (and the defendant would have to prove that) and whether or not it was necessary in the public interest for the disclosure to be made.
The reason I say that the noble Earl's logic escaped me completely is that the whole praise that the Government have taken for this measure—and I joined in the praise—was that they departed from their previous Bill which dealt with a Minister's certification of what was security, what was harmful, and so on, in regard to the nation's security and were leaving it to a jury. I invite your Lordships to look at the provisions of this Bill which follow the very provision which I have been arguing about and which state that:
"if without lawful authority he makes a damaging disclosure of any information"
he is guilty of an offence. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in the course of his remarks. Then, in subsection (5):
722
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to believe, that the information, document or article in question related to security or intelligence"—
that is quite easy, but it then continues—
"or, in the case of an offence under subsection (3), that the disclosure would be damaging within the meaning of that subsection".
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that we must stop matters going before the courts; for example, where there is an investigation of the crime but the investigation would reveal that we were manufacturing an atom bomb—that we dare not deal with that. However, the whole of that would be gone into if this were not a question of a Crown servant, a member of the security or intelligence service, or someone notified under subsection (1). If he were a civil servant in the Ministry of Defence who had dealt exactly with this disclosure that we referred to earlier, the whole question of whether it was damaging would have to come out in evidence. The defence would have the opportunity of cross-examination and saying, "How could anyone know that this was, in fact, harmful?". The whole of it would come out and the disclosure already made. Therefore, what we are doing arguing about this matter, I know not.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that because, in the circumstances he described of a civil servant at the Ministry of Defence, it might not be possible to prevent serious matters being disclosed there is therefore no point in protecting information where it is most vulnerable of all—that is, in the secret service?
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, my argument is that it is not a reasonable point to put forward that in this Bill we have protected juries from having to discuss and decide upon and counsel having an opportunity to deal in open court with matters concerning the nation's security. I am saying that this Bill does it, and if it does so in principle, a fortiori it should do so when the defence has to show that an actual crime or gross impropriety has been committed. The noble Lord may disagree with me, but that is my argument. In my view it completely annihilates any argument that we protect all these matters from being dealt with before a jury, and that I and my colleagues would be upsetting that with this amendment.
My second observation is this. In my humble opinion it is idle to speak in the terms in which, for example, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, spoke; namely, that it does not matter what crime has been committed, you must not allow that to come out by a disclosure (which I would permit under this amendment with a proper defence) because it conceivably may be that in one case out of goodness knows how many, behind it all is a security secret.
We are dealing with a department, the secret service, for which I have nothing but praise. Unlike my noble friend who has much more experience over the years than I have, I do not propose to belittle its work or to describe it in offensive language. I take

723
it for granted that its work is dangerous and that the members of that service carry out their work in personal danger for themselves in the nation's interest. From this Front Bench I am not going to say anything else. We have known of the most dreadful things occurring within that service and it is not as though I am dreaming about it. There have been instances that boggle the imagination. Treason has been in that secret service. To say under the Bill as it now stands "It does not matter; you may go through the normal procedures and people may say that they are not taking any action. You cannot and you must not deal with this matter by way of any disclosure, even if you can prove crime committed or that it is necessary in the public interest to disclose; even if you can prove no action taken and you have had to go through the whole of the procedure".
In my view we are encountering a greater danger if we oppose this amendment than ever we could pose to the security of our country because the message that goes out is a bad one. It is: "Whatever happens within that service, you are safe. There will be no disclosure because, whatever the circumstances, that disclosure will be that a crime has been committed". Finally, I turn to what the noble Earl said in answer to my questions. He said: "It is all right because if you went to the police you could show that it was part of your official duty". That is why I specially quoted the words that had been used in the Franks Report, which talks of a defence if disclosure had been in the course of official duty. The language of this Bill does not follow what the noble Earl said in answer to my question about informing the police, going to a solicitor or a Member of Parliament. The words are "without lawful authority". That means that if he did not get authority to make the disclosure and that was a lawful authority, he has committed an offence.
I do not believe that I can add anything more in replying to what has been said in this debate. Especially after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, to which I believe we all listened with respect whether what he said was agreed to on the other side or not, I hope that it is not a question of party loyalty that leads one into the Division Lobby on this occasion. I hope that it is a question of national ethics for which all of us are responsible.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 168.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Blease, L.

Airedale, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Amherst, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ardwick, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Aylestone, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Birk, B.

Blackstone, B.

Carter, L.

724

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

David, B.

Mar, C.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Mishcon, L.

Ennals, L.

Mulley, L.

Ezra, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falkland, V.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Galpern, L.

Peston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Grey, E.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grimond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hanworth, V.

Rochester, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rugby, L.

Hayter, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hemingford, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Hooson, L.

Seear, B.

Hughes, L.

Serota, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Shackleton, L.

Hylton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay, L.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stockton, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kearton, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Whaddon, L.

White, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winstanley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Zuckerman, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Colnbrook, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Allerton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Alport, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Annaly, L.

Cox, B.

Arran, E.

Craigavon, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Craigton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Croft, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Beloff, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Denham, L, [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Derwent, L.

Blatch, B.

Dormer, L.

Bolton, L.

Dundee, E.

Borthwick, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Elibank, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Braye, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Brightman, L.

Faithfull, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Ferrers, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Fortescue, E.

Burton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Butterfield, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Butterworth, L.

Gainford, L.

Caithness, E.

Gisborough, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Goold, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Grantchester, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Carnock, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Carrington, L.

Halsbury, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hanson, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Cockfield, L.

Harvington, L.

725

Havers, L.

Orkney, E.

Headfort, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Hemphill, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Hertford, M.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Hesketh, L.

Pym, L.

Hives, L.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Reay, L.

Hood, V.

Renton, L.

Hooper, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Rodney, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Davids, V.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Joseph, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Selborne, E.

Killearn, L.

Sempill, L.

Kimball, L.

Shannon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharpies, B.

Layton, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Slim, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Luke, L.

Strange, B.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Strathclyde, L.

McFadzean, L.

Srathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sudeley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Suffield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Manton, L.

Swinfen, L.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Teviot, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trafford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trumpington, B.

Middleton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Milverton, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Monk-Bretton, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Munster, E.

Windlesham, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Wise, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wolfson, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wynford, L.

Onslow, E.

Young, B.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
"(5) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that—

(a) before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had become widely disseminated to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and

(b) there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment provides a limited form of prior publication defence for the offences in Clause 1. The offences in Clause 1 are absolute. When the matter was considered in another place the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said:
"There is no question of there being no prior publication defence. It is a question of whether that defence should be absolute".
726
The defence in Amendment No. 4 is not absolute. The amendment says:
"It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that—

(a) before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had become widely disseminated to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; and

(b) there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services".

The person seeking to raise the defence has not only to prove the matters in subsection (5)(a) but must also establish that:
"there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence services".
It is not an absolute defence and therefore meets that objection of the Home Secretary.
The issue of disclosure of previous matters has been considered in the courts. The great and dramatic attempt by the Government to defy previous publication and the common knowledge of the matters being dealt with in the Spycatcher case has become one of the most remarkable phases of litigation in which any government have indulged for a long time. In the Spycatcher case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said that, where there had been previous publication and circulation of information, it was meaningless co talk about a continuing duty of confidence in relation to matters disclosed worldwide. That was the position in the Spycatcher case. The noble and learned Lord also said:
"The Crown is only entitled to restrain the publication of intelligence information if such publication would be against the public interest, as it normally will be if theretofore undisclosed, but if the matter sought to be published is no longer secret there is unlikely to be any damage to the public interest by reprinting what all the world"—
that was the position in regard to Spycatcher—
"has already had the opportunity to read. There is no possible damage to the public interest if Tom, Dick or Harry, or the Sunday Times, reprints in whole or part what is already printed and available within the covers of Spycatcher".
When an attempt was being made still to restrain the information in the book, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, said:
"If such was the law, then the law would indeed be an ass".
When we tabled an amendment in Committee there were criticisms that it went far too wide and that it needed to be specific. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, which was criticised in Committee, made it a defence to prove that before the time of the alleged offence the information in question had become available to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that on that language unscrupulous people might be tempted to arrange for information to be published by an obscure foreign newspaper. Once it had been published it would be sought to be said that the information could thereafter be produced in court. He also referred to minor reports in small weekly newspapers. Whether the papers concerned were pleased with this description I do not know. He described them as the Strathspey and Badenoch Herald and the Forres Gazette, famous national newspapers.
The matter was also considered by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who said how hard it would be in the interests of the nation if some indiscretion somewhere in the world out of reach of the Bill and our courts left the way open to appear to encourage the disclosure of this kind of information. That is why we have changed the language of the clause. We have required the proof to constitute evidence that the information in question,
"had become widely disseminated to the public".
That is a far more specific and effective statement of what prior publication should amount to, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. In my submission, the new language, as contained in the amendment, meets the criticisms which the amendment had to meet during the early stages of the Bill's proceedings. In those circumstances, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, one sees what the noble and learned Lord is seeking to achieve by means of the amendment. Indeed, it is perfectly open to him, or to any of your Lordships, to argue that once secret information has been widely disclosed, there may not be much point in proceeding against further disclosures. But, as against that argument, it suggests that if someone commits a breach of security and gets away with it to a modest degree, that person is entitled to publish as much as he likes everywhere and no one can do anything about it. In other words, if you commit a modest offence you should have free licence to commit as much more of the same offence as you wish. I am not sure that that is an attractive aspect of the legislation.
Apart from that fact, the actual drafting of the amendment is rather odd. First, it deals with information being,
"widely disseminated to the public, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
It could be widely disseminated to the public in Patagonia; but that does not necessarily mean that no harm would be caused by its dissemination in the United Kingdom. Therefore it seems to me to provide a considerable loophole for someone who wants—probably for money—to publish secret information and get away with it in some small foreign country. That person would then be able to say, "Under the Bill"—as it would be if amended in this way— "you can't stop me doing it in the Observer"; or perhaps it may be one of the other distinguished newspapers in the country.
The other interesting limitation is contained in subsection (b), which reads:
"there was no reasonable likelihood that its further disclosure would damage the work of, or of any part of, the security and intelligence".
In other words, it is limited—at least, as I understand it—to providing that the disclosure should not do damage to those services. But what about general damage to this country? What about damage to the British economy by disclosure of damaging facts? What about the general defence arrangements of this country? The wording is extraordinarily limited. Therefore I suggest to your Lordships that even if
728
one likes the noble and learned Lord's approach to the matter, this amendment is a singularly bad vehicle for putting the provision into the legislation.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I found the Bill very difficult to understand. Indeed, it has been made all the more difficult by both opponents and supporters of the legislation giving rather misleading impressions. I hope that I have not got the matter wrong. When we brought forward our slightly different amendment about prior publication in Committee, the Government successfully resisted it with a sinuous and highly imaginative argument. They contended that because a secret had been published in an obscure journal its dangerous content had not necessarily become known to all our potential enemies. Therefore, to repeat it in a publication of wider circulation might provide useful information for someone capable of making bad use of it.
There was a further and more ingenious argument from the Government. They said that a discloser might publish a couple of lines in some small and innocent paper in the Scottish Highlands in order to justify subsequent publication at length and at full strength in a national newspaper; and so the defence of prior publication was in itself unacceptable. The difference between the arguments that were put forward on that occasion and those put forward today is that we have moved from Strathspey to Patagonia. However, the argument is no more convincing.
There is something in those arguments. One understands the Government's wish to frustrate such knavish tricks. However, the Government had other arguments. They pretended that a defence of prior publication was unnecessary, especially for Crown servants and contractors. They said it was unnecessary because an impressive way for the defence to show that no further harm had been done was simply to bring forward evidence of prior publication. They even argued, rather unconvincingly, that this amendment put a burden on the defence. They argued that it put the test of harm on the defence, whereas under the provisions of the Bill the burden was put on the prosecution.
Under the amendment as it was—and as it still is—all the defence has to show on that point is that the defendant could have had no reasonable belief that further disclosure would damage the work of the services. Of course it could not prove a negative; it would still be up to the Government to prove that there were dangers which the defendant ought to have foreseen.
The amendment aims to find an answer to all the fiddly (though not unjustifiable) arguments about disclosures made in small print in obscure newspapers and then magnified in well-known and subsequent publications. The new amendment provides that only if the disclosure has been widely disseminated may it escape penalty; in other words, a limited defence. The original discloser would still not escape, nor would his original publisher.
However, if the amendment is accepted, as an editor I would know what my opportunities and my limitations would be. In that connection I must answer two questions: first, "Has this item been

729
widely disseminated?" Then, if someone tells me it has been disseminated in Patagonia, I would not think that that would be a defence, nor indeed would anyone. Secondly, if the information has been widely disseminated, I must ask myself, "Is it likely that its repetition in my paper would further damage the work of the security or intelligence services?" I must answer both questions affirmatively if I am to go ahead without peril. Moreover, although I have a defence, if the Government should dislike what I have done it is still not an absolute defence.
However, the Government have a further problem. Let us suppose that the widely publicised disclosure is repeated by a member of the security or intelligence services, or even by a journalist who is caught up in an absolute offence trap. In that case, there is no defence. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, argued that any unauthorised disclosure by such a person is harmful and so is forbidden. But is it really harmful? Surely you cannot disclose what has already been revealed to the wide world. There it stands, widely disseminated and in full public view. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, said, and as my noble and learned friend mentioned, it is meaningless to talk about a continuing duty of confidence in relation to a matter disclosed worldwide. Moreover, then to lay down the restriction that officers can never speak an unthorised word so long as they are on this side of the pearly gates strikes me as neither reasonable nor practical.
This is a reasonable amendment. It is the kind of restricted defence which a wise and fair government might have provided if certain traumatic experiences had happened less recently or had not happened at all. I beseech the Government to remember that in these latter stages of the Bill's proceedings they are not legislating to deal with a rare and recent event retrospectively; they are legislating for the long-term future.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord who introduced the amendment, which he did most helpfully. He explained that it is another approach to the question of prior publication and that it differs greatly from the one we discussed in Committee. I believe that a word has been missed out. I hope that I can have the attention of the Front Benches because I hate the thought that the noble and learned Lord missed my compliments. The problem that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out will be corrected if the word "services" is inserted at the end of the last line of the amendment. I believe that it has been omitted as a drafting or printing error. If that is not done, the word "the" in the previous line is out of place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am obliged.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I shall address myself to the amendment on the basis that the word "services" has been omitted. I agree that the amendment deals with two of the points that I raised in Committee. It deals with the case of an unscrupulous person arranging for something to be published in an
730
obscure place abroad which, under the amendment moved in Committee, would have been the excuse for giving it a front-page story in a national newspaper in this country. It also meets the other point I raised about something appearing in a small weekly newspaper in this country which probably would not be observed by the IRA, Colonel Gaddafi or other international terrorists, even if sophisticated foreign intelligence services picked it up.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, misunderstood what I said in Committee. I thought that he had when he spoke after me in Committee; he certainly has today. In the case of a local newspaper in this country I was not suggesting that the article was something that had been put in deliberately by an unscrupulous person. I was merely suggesting that defence arrangements can sometimes be strayed upon in this country. Something may be reported by chance and innocently connected with an installation or system which those concerned do not then want to be noticed as something connected with intelligence or security as it may then be magnified into a national newspaper story.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I must apologise if I misunderstood the noble Lord. But someone in that debate suggested that it was possible to carry out a dirty trick by inserting a couple of lines in a small innocent country newspaper.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I made that suggestion in respect of publication abroad, but not in this country where something can be stumbled upon. As I said, I have come across such an example in the past. That is why I cannot give any indication of the type of thing that can be stumbled upon. Many years ago when I was involved in such matters I saw one or two cases where something had been stumbled upon by chance; but because it was unnoticed in some minor newspaper, no damage was done.
The amendment makes great progress from last time. However, I still believe that the drafting is difficult because,
"widely disseminated … in the United Kingdom or elsewhere"
raises problems with the "or elsewhere". As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, wide dissemination in one small country might be "elsewhere". If it were some small country in Africa, for example, it might not be in English. It might be in a difficult language. Again, it might not be noticed unless it were taken up and given wide publicity in national newspapers in this country. I do not believe that the drafting is good enough yet because "or elsewhere" could mean something that had done little or no damage in its appearance abroad but would be capable of creating a great deal of damage in this country if it appeared in the newspapers and was read by millions of people.
Although I applaud the attempts that have been made—the points that I raised in Committee have been met—I do not believe that the proposed amendment is good enough. We should not accept such an arrangement regarding prior publication.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the Minister speaks to the amendment, I wonder whether it is the view of the House and the Minister that some wide publication would be acceptable but because Patagonia, or some such territory could be covered by the clause, it is not acceptable. If that were the view of the House, unless my noble and learned friend thinks otherwise, there would be no point in taking a vote upon this amendment. One could come before the House on Third Reading with an amendment which was then acceptable. I gather from what the noble Lord said that he felt that we could cover that position but that it should be in different language. If that were so, and that were the view of the Minister, it is a matter which would merit our consideration.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and as I have already spoken and would not want to offend against the rules on Report, I should make it clear that I was, in the usual way one does in the House, accepting that two of the points that I raised in Committee were met by the amendment. However, I would not go so far as to say that all the ingenuity of the Front Bench opposite would be able to produce something that I could accept.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Campbell managed to clarify his position on that point. It might have dulled the enthusiasm of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, again to try drafting on this subject. I am bound to say that this is a matter of principle. The House debated an almost identical amendment in Committee and although the amendment has been slightly redrafted since then, it does nothing to answer the principal problem which my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal identified on that occasion.
The amendment puts any Crown servant or government contractor who is not a member of the security and intelligence services, or a notified person, in a worse position than he would be under the Bill in its present form. That is because, for the first time in this country, we propose a test of harm for such disclosures. The test is that the disclosure damaged, or was likely to damage, or was of a class or description likely to damage, the work of the services. It is a test which the prosecution must prove. It is not, like the amendment, a defence for the defendant to prove. The test contained in the Bill allows someone to argue that no damage was caused because the information he disclosed was already widely available to the public. He does not have to prove it. The prosecution has to prove otherwise. That is the position under the Bill. It fully meets the amendment's objectives in the case of the ordinary Crown servant or government contractor.
The real targets of the amendment are members, or former members, of the security services and notified people. Under the Bill, in the case of any unauthorised disclosure which they may make, the prosecution is not required to prove the harm that resulted. There are good reasons for that. We discussed them in Committee and your Lordships
732
firmly rejected in a Division amendments which would have introduced a test of harm for such disclosures. The amendment would, in effect, introduce a test of harm if the information had—to quote the slightly mystical drafting of the amendment— "become widely disseminated".
I am afraid that, try as others might, there is no getting away from the basic principle upon which the offence properly relies. The principle is that members of the security and intelligence services, and notified people, work, and can only work, on the basis of trust. The trust on which they must work is that they do not, without authority, talk publicly about what they do or what they used to do. It is a fairly simple principle, one which everyone understands and one which I think most people—but I know not all—accept. That trust is not divisible. It cannot be set aside by a member of the services deciding to jump on someone else's publicity bandwagon. It is no justification to breach the trust because some story is doing the rounds. There cannot, either in practice or in principle, be a level of circulation or dissemination above which it is acceptable for a member of the services to breach his trust and say what he knows, but below which it is unacceptable. Any unauthorised disclosure by a member of the security and intelligence services must be unacceptable.
This is a principle which is not dependent on whether the matter is being discussed by 100 people or by 100 million. Indeed, some of your Lordships might well think that the more some story or allegation relating to security or intelligence is disseminated abroad, the more important it becomes for members of the services to give no currency or credence whatever to those reports. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, was concerned that there was no defence of harm in disclosures by a person who is not a member of the services. I think the noble Lord is mistaken in saying that a person who discloses information which is passed to him by a member of the services is without a defence of harm. He has more than that. Under Clause 5(3) of the Bill—that is the provision which relates to those kinds of disclosures—the prosecution would have to prove damage to the work of the services.
There is an important issue which the amendment would set aside. It is a matter which goes to the heart of the security of the nation as a whole and to the expectations which this country must have of those who work in the security and intelligence services and which these people have a right to expect of each other, both present and former colleagues. It is that the trust on which they depend must not be broken. That principle has already been accepted by the Committee, and the amendment would provide the conditions in which that trust could be broken. For those reasons, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider it appropriate not to press his amendment but to withdraw it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what the noble Earl has said. However, there is a serious point here. When one thinks of Spycatcher, the defence of prior publication was successfully maintained in the face of disclosures of

733
a highly sensitive character in the book, covering the whole range of security and official secrets. Their Lordships, sitting judicially, were ready to accept and they asserted the folly of ignoring the publication of information contained in Spycatcher.
I am interested in the reference to Patagonia as a place where any disclosure might possibly not become known. However, it was a bad choice. Patagonia has a powerful Welsh colony. At the last national eisteddfod there was a most attractive representative who came from Patagonia. Therefore that argument does not at all weaken my case as to wide circulation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? He has very kindly reinforced my argument. If, as he says, Patagonia produces a charming Welsh personality then the risk of the news being disseminated from there is much greater.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, that is what I am saying. It is why in that case there would be wide dissemination in regard to prior publication. I must confess to paternity of the phrase "wide dissemination" which was so cruelly rejected by the noble Earl. It is a pretty good alternative to "giving wide publicity". However, I shall not press that argument too much. Lest the blame should fall upon the ample shoulders of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, I rush to confession but not avoidance on this occasion. We shall certainly give further thought to the subject.
There is one further matter which I should mention before I conclude. The language used in the amendment was in part the kind of language used by the Government themselves in their 1979 Bill to reform Section 2 of the Act. It contained a prior publication defence for disclosures about law enforcement and information supplied in confidence by others. In Clause 7(1) of the Protection of Official Information Bill there was a provision:
"It shall be an offence for a person charged with an offence"—
under the specified sections—
"to prove that before the time of the alleged offence the information had been made available or had become available on request to the public or a section of the public".
Looking again at the matter—perhaps I should have mentioned it earlier—gives me cause to think that a further examination of the language of the amendment might prove profitable and in the public interest. In those circumstances but giving an undertaking—I shall not use the word "threat"; it is an ugly word—that I shall come back to it at the next stage of the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bethell moved Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the interests of the United Kingdom would have been jeopardised if he had not made the disclosure which caused him to be charged.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is a version of a public interest defence but is worded in far narrower terms than those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others earlier
734
this afternoon. Noble Lords will see from consulting the Marshalled List that the text which I propose does not refer to any specific crime which might be committed by members of the secret services. It does not refer to fraud or misconduct or gross impropriety. It refers exclusively to the national interest. It places a particularly heavy burden of proof on the defence in such a case. It allows a defence only in the event that the interests of the United Kingdom would have been jeopardised if the defendant had not made the disclosure which caused him to be charged.
That is something which I should not expect to arise in the normal circumstances of today. However, I believe that provision should be made for the future. Laws are designed to meet hard cases. This amendment would deal with a matter where silence, instead of being golden, would be tarnished with the rust of guilt by association with acts, damaging to the national interest.
Whether this could happen is a question which may occur to some noble Lords. However, I think I have studied the history of other countries enough to make up my own mind. There is very little that the secret services cannot do if they are given sufficient power and are sufficiently provoked. Another question that arises is: what are the safeguards? Again, one has to consider whether the safeguards in the matter are adequate. The circumstances which one has to imagine where such a defence might be put forward under my amendment are, to be sure, outlandish. They envisage a situation where a secret service officer would be bent on wrongdoing and might be supported by the government of the day.
This would not happen under the circumstances which prevail now; but it could and it has happened in many other European and overseas countries. It depends on the dilemma that surrounds the very nature of secret services. On the one hand they have to be secret in order to do their work effectively. That point was made, quite rightly, on many occasions by my noble friends on the Front Bench. On the other hand, there is a particular need for tight control over the way they operate. If they are not kept on a very short leash, they can commit horrible offences which have a very serious effect on the citizens of the country. That must be borne in mind when looking to the future and making laws which we hope will last for many decades.
Secret services have been used to keep unpopular governments in power. They have also been used to keep control of oppositions, and to curb the inquiring nature of the press. The best way of keeping these services under control I believe is the self-policing of the secret services themselves. This amendment is designed to allow for that.
What safeguards do we have under the Bill, in the event of a service becoming unmanageable and dangerous to the national interest? We have to bear in mind of course the fact that the heads of both secret services are appointed by the Government. Although much reference has been made to the functions of the staff counsellor I understand he is also appointed by the Government and can be dismissed by the Government. He has no statutory position. Perhaps my noble friend could clear up a

735
point on which I am doubtful. Has the staff counsellor authority to deal with queries raised by members of the intelligence service, as well as by members of the security service?
It goes without saying that the Secretaries of State in charge of these services have of course a particular loyalty to the government of the day, while on the other hand the secret services are particularly forbidden from contact with non-government Members of Parliament and with the press. So what are we left with as a safeguard to prevent these bodies becoming hostages to ill fortune? I believe we are left with two possible recourses, if one envisages the possibility of a government who are not prepared to deal with the matter. One is the self-policing recourse, and the other is the courts. I believe that self-policing and the courts can provide the last ditch defence against a catastrophe which was referred to earlier this afternoon.
In this country the courts have always been kept separate from the Executive, and they can, I believe, provide the safeguard we are looking for. There are some who think that nothing involving the secret world should ever come to court. Indeed, to hear the remarks made by some this afternoon, one would think that a trial in such cases would almost be superfluous. But of course there have been trials involving the secret world, and there would be trials if anyone who contravened Section 1 of the legislation was brought to court and it was thought appropriate for punishment to be imposed by imprisonment.
It does not necessarily follow, with the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, that a public interest defence involves discussing the matter at issue in public. There have been a number of very well known cases involving security. I think of the George Blake case and the Klaus Fuchs case which took place in camera. I am not aware of anything that leaked out from those trials or of anything that emerged that damaged the national interest as a result of the fact that those trials took place, and that the closest possible attention was paid to the evidence, and that the accused had a proper power to defend himself. That is particularly important.
Such trials are of course inconvenient to the Government. There may be cases, as in the case of Anthony Blunt, Where it is just not possible to bring a case against a discloser because of the damage that would occur. However, for all that, it is possible to have court cases brought under a certain amount of secrecy. The recent Gibraltar inquest was a case in point. I am sure it was a matter of concern to the Government that this very delicate matter was discussed in a public inquest. However, an element of secrecy was introduced into that inquest. I believe it would have been far worse if the matter had not come court at all
Let us try to consider a little the other very large group of people who need to be protected under this Bill. I believe the emphasis has been a little too heavily weighted in favour of the need to protect the secret services. However, as I said on Second Reading, there is a need to guard the guards themselves. I cannot believe there is any more
736
effective way of guarding them than through the courts; but in order that the courts should have a proper way of managing this, there must be the open door for an officer who is convinced that by remaining silent he would cause harm to the national interest. He must feel able to break his silence and to make the disclosure referred to in my amendment. That would only be the case if of course every other recourse had been exhausted. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this is the same public interest defence, stated in plainer terms, and indeed in wider terms, and leaving the matter much more open for the jury to decide, than that rather elaborately defined public interest defence which was the subject of our first discussion.
Having listened to my noble friend with some admiration because of the moderation with which he expressed his case, I feel that the basic objections that were raised to the public interest defence in our first discussion apply with equal force to this one. Indeed, perhaps in a way the objections apply with greater force now. The decision would have to be left to the jury in very broad terms. Evidence would be given by the prosecution and by the defence on the question of whether the public interest had been affected, how badly it had been affected and other matters. I would be very surprised if my noble friend on the Front Bench found it possible to recommend to your Lordships that this amendment should be accepted.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton has the uncanny aptitude of being right. I would find it difficult to advise your Lordships to accept this amendment. We have already had a full debate on the principle of the public interest defence. Indeed we have divided on it. I understand the concern of my noble friend in this matter. However, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, the same issues which we discussed on the earlier amendment apply to this amendment too. It is not a question of drafting; it is a matter of principle.
Like any other form of the public interest defence, this defence would mean that a person could make a disclosure which he knew would damage the work of the security and intelligence services. That is the point of the amendment. Once the damage has been done, the court would then decide whether or not he was justified in making the disclosure. If the court decided that he was not justified in making the disclosure, nevertheless the damage would have been done. Nothing would prevent that damage from being done, whatever the court decided later. Indeed everything in this defence would allow that damage to be ignored.
If the defence is established, it does not matter what harm has been done. So long as the defendant could satisfy a jury on the balance of probabilities—not beyond reasonable doubt—that, without his disclosure some interest of the United Kingdom would have been jeopardised, he would have to be acquitted. The security of the country could be in ruins; but that would be irrelevant.
Like any other form of public interest defence it sets the jury an impossible task. This particular

737
formulation would require the jury to decide whether the defendant had correctly identified some national interest which they think would probably have been jeopardised if he had not done as he did. The jury would have to try to imagine all the other possible hypothetical circumstances where action could have been taken and which might have avoided the jeopardy identified by the defendant. They would then have to try to decide whether any of these other options would have avoided the jeopardy. I do not see how the jury could know that. Indeed, I do not know how the defendant could know that. None of us could.
This defence would make any case unmanageable in court. Anyone contemplating some disclosure of security secrets would know that that would be so. In this central and vital area of the Bill, I do not believe that we should introduce a provision which is a recipe for uncertainty, for extraneous argument and for undoubted harm.
My noble friend referred to the staff counsellor—and I understand his concern—and pointed out that he is appointed by the Government. That is perfectly true but there is nothing sinister in that. It would be odd if he was appointed by the Opposition, by the Women's Institute or by anyone else. The fact that he is appointed by the Government does not make him a zombie who is bound to follow all Government diktats. He is independent, and that is why he is appointed, and he has access to the Prime Minster. Any member of the security and intelligence services can have access to him.
I hope that in the light of what I have said both now and in the earlier debate, and of the fact that your Lordships made a decision on the earlier amendment, that my noble friend will think it appropriate not to press this amendment.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, clearly I failed to persuade my noble friend of the merits of the amendment. He outlined very fairly the dispute between us. He indicated that in his view it was not appropriate for a jury to take into account the wider national interest when considering whether or not a person should be convicted of a disclosure relating to security and intelligence matters. I believe that that is the gravamen of the matter. I feel that the wider national interest can and should be relevant to this matter. I do not see any reason for putting the security services so high on a pedestal that they are able to do almost anything under the sun without any disclosure about their activities being authorised in such a way as would cause their status to be called into question. However, it seems that I have not been able to persuade the Government that that is correct.
I am glad to hear that the staff counsellor deals with queries from all members of the secret services. My noble friend pointed out that he is appointed by the Government. I take it that he can also be dismissed by the Government and that another staff counsellor can be appointed in his place, which could come about in the outlandish circumstances which my amendment is designed to cover.
Bearing in mind that we have had a very full and interesting debate earlier this afternoon on a matter
738
not very far removed from the point of my amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Subject to subsection (7) below, a notification for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall be in force for the period of five years beginning with the day on which it is served but may be renewed by further notices under subsection (6) above for periods of five years at a time.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 7. The amendments are moved in fulfilment of a commitment which I gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in Committee.
Your Lordships will remember that the noble and learned Lord tabled an amendment which would have provided for notification to lapse after four years unless revoked or renewed. I detected a not inconsiderable swell of opinion among your Lordships in support of that proposal. After careful consideration of the administrative and practical implications, I am glad to say that, in the light of the Committee's debate, I propose an amendment on those lines.
The only difference of any substance between this amendment and the one in Committee is that we propose that notification should lapse after five years rather than four. This would be more straightforward administratively since it fits better with posting periods and with the general cycle for the review of security clearances. Since I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, suggested that a period of six years would be acceptable, I have reason to hope your Lordships will be satisfied with five. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Earl for having met our objection to the indefiniteness of the earlier provisions with these precise terms. We accept what is proposed with pleasure, particularly as Amendment No. 7 makes provision for the notification to be terminated at any time if those who are responsible for these matters think fit. Therefore I gratefully accept the amendment which the noble Earl proposes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("shall be in force until") and insert ("may at any time be").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Defence]:
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 41, leave out ("jeopardizes") and insert ("endangers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 9, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 13. The amendments fulfil an undertaking which I gave in Committee in response to a suggestion by my noble friend Lord Renton.
My noble friend, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, suggested that a jury would be more

739
readily able to understand and apply a test that the disclosure "endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad" than the present test that the disclosure "jeopardizes" those interests. That test is in the defence harm test in Clause 2 and in the international relations harm test in Clause 3.
I undertook to consider my noble friend's suggestion, and these amendments are the result of that consideration. I am happy to accede to your Lordships' view. I am grateful to my noble friend for his helpful suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful not only to my noble friend but also to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. We were in agreement on this matter. It is good to find that the Government are also in agreement with us.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to those felicitous words.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No.10:
Page 2, line 41, after ("Kingdom") insert ("at home or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. I. The two stand together. The purpose is to add the words "at home or" before the word "abroad" where it occurs in line 41 and line 45.
I dare to hope that we may again find that there is agreement across the House on this point and that it may even find a sympathetic place in the mind of the Government.
The clause deals with defence secrets. I have always understood that the main purpose of defence is the defence of the United Kingdom. It could be said that the most important duty of government is to defend the United Kingdom. But it is strange to find that, under this clause, no offence is committed unless a disclosure relating to defence, which is broadly defined in subsection (4), is damaging. It is not damaging unless it endangers the interests of the United Kingdom abroad or of British citizens abroad. I abbreviate for the sake of clarity.
Surely it is wrong that a civil servant or anyone else covered by the clause should not be thought to commit an offence if he divulges secrets about home defence. Any of those matters in subsection (4) relating to defence could and should include home defence; for example, ammunition depots and their location, the location of reserves of equipment and plans and measures for moving reserve forces in the event of an emergency.
I find it strange that civil servants are absolutely free, subject only to their own discipline, which I agree is important, to divulge secrets about matters concerning the defence of the United Kingdom itself. They are liable to commit an offence only if those matters relate to the interests of the United Kingdom abroad or the safety of British citizens abroad. It seems to me to be such a clear, short point that I do not think it is necessary to argue it any further and I hope for some sympathetic consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend has to say because my noble friend Lord Renton appears to have made a point of some significance and drawn attention to what appears to be a deficiency in the Bill. His amendment could instead have simply proposed to delete the word "abroad" in lines 41 and 44, which would have had the same effect.
However, I am interested in the substance of the matter. It is perfectly easy—only too easy—to damage the defence interests of this country in this country, or to damage the interests of our citizens in this country. The noble Earl may give us some good reason for that exclusion; but, on the face of it, it calls for some explanation. I am only surprised that the Bill has come this far without someone else having noticed the point.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is right in saying that the main purpose of defence is, first and foremost, to defend the United Kingdom at home rather than abroad; but I still hesitate about the amendments.
My reason for hesitating is the lack of any satisfactory explanation until now of the ominous incident which occurred near Salisbury in the first fortnight of January 1987 and which I explained in some detail in Committee. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords of what happened. The incident concerned innocent civilians being illegally detained by members of the armed forces following a traffic accident involving an army convoy which they happened to witness while going about their lawful business. Clearly, there appears to have been some sort of cover-up. It is also clear that a crime—albeit a minor crime—has been committed because it is illegal for anyone, unless he is a police constable, to arrest a member of the public on a public highway.
If the public interest amendment had been agreed in respect of Clause 2, we would be in a position to know about the incident. But, as it has not been agreed and does not look likely to be agreed, we may never hear the truth of what happened if the Government are not prepared to offer any explanation.
Lord Hemingford: My Lords, perhaps I may add that it is extremely difficult if, for example, one is a diplomatic or defence correspondent. I know that there is a defence which states that, if one is not aware that one is endangering the security of a British citizen, that is a defence. But the House should be aware of the extraordinary difficulty of dealing with that kind of language when one is trying to report those matters. If one takes the case of British citizens held in the Middle East, for example, it is almost impossible to know what may endanger them. If one took the widest possible construction of the clause, it would make almost any form of writing on the subject impossible.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton was so carried away with the unanimity that occurred in respect of the previous amendment that I believe he hoped that it would continue with this amendment. I find it a trifle disconcerting that both my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord

741
Boyd-Carpenter take a view which, as I am bound to try to explain to noble Lords, I cannot take.
My noble friend Lord Renton probed as acutely as he always does the drafting of the tests of harm in Clause 2(2)(b). I understand the concern that he has expressed; but I hope to persuade noble Lords, including my noble friend, that there are good reasons why we should not widen the test in the way that he has suggested. My noble friend said that this was just a clear, short point. I hope to be able to tell him that it may be a clear point, but it is not quite so short as he envisages.
We believe that the scope of the harm test in Clause 2(2) is right because we believe, in relation to the disclosure of a matter relating to defence, that the harm which ought to require the protection of the criminal law is principally the damage to the capability, lives and equipment of our armed forces. That is set out in Clause 2(2)(a) of the Bill. That provision covers home defence matters whose disclosure would damage the capability of our armed forces.
I think that the noble Lord's concerns are covered by the present provision, but his amendment would go very much wider than that. There are circumstances in which a particular disclosure relating to a defence matter affects this country's interests abroad. That is because defence matters have a clear international dimension. In relation to this particular test, which is set out in Clause 2(2)(b), we think that it is right to require the prosecution to focus on the dangers that a disclosure may cause to this country's interests abroad.
These amendments would change the focus completely. They would allow the prosecution to argue that the disclosure endangered some domestic policy or interest which went far beyond the capability of our armed forces. They would mean that if the prosecution could show that a disclosure relating to defence jeopardised or endangered any domestic interest of our country, or was likely to do so, or could be said to put in danger any of our citizens in this country, then an offence would have been committed.
This goes to the heart of the basic structure and approach that we have adopted in this legislation. We sought to provide protection for only six areas of information and in five of those areas we have provided tests of harm relevant and specific to each type of information. That has been the case for the tests of harm in the defence clause as in the other clauses. Your Lordships have discussed the detail but have, I think, welcomed this central principle.
My noble friend's amendments would in fact go back on that by providing a very wide test of harm, far wider than the matters that this clause protects; namely, defence. There is no particular, overwhelming reason why it would be right to single out defence as the one area where disclosure might have some ill effects on our affairs in this country or our citizens here. If we had thought it right or necessary to provide that sort of general protection under the criminal law, then in principle it should apply to a much wider range of information than defence; perhaps any official information which could be
742
shown to have this effect. We should then be heading back in the direction of Section 2 and I do not think many of your Lordships would welcome that. I believe that many noble Lords would be concerned if the Government were to accept an amendment which had the effect of extending the criminal law in that way. Some noble Lords at least would suspect that this was a device to protect From disclosure information relating to the domestic policies of the government of the day. I can all too easily imagine the speeches that would ensue.
I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but I hope that it will reassure your Lordships to know that we do not think that it would be right to widen the harm test relating to disclosure about defence in the way in which these amendments propose. I hope that on reflection my noble friend will consider this amendment goes rather wider than he thought and possibly wider than is desirable.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall not attempt to divide the House on this amendment or even seek to have it negatived. I shall ask my noble friend in the light of the argument that he has put forward to reconsider the matter between now and Third Reading. He relies upon the wording of subsection (2)(a) and claims that that is wide enough to make it unnecessary for subsection (2)(b) to refer to the endangering of the interests of the United Kingdom at home or the interests of British citizens at home.
I cannot accept that argument. Quite frankly the wording of subsection (2)(a) is very much narrower than the definition of "defence" in subsection (4). For example, that subsection refers to,
"plans and measures for the maintenance of essential supplies and services that are or would be needed in time of war".
Are we to assume that it is only those supplies and services which relate to matters happening abroad and not matters happening at home that the Government have in mind as being important and therefore creating an offence? The trouble lies in the drafting. So often one comes back to drafting. Difficulties can be caused by drafting being over-zealous when a much more simple draft would fulfil the requirement without giving rise to over-subtle distinctions.
I shall withdraw the amendment, but before doing so I shall ask my noble friend, in the light of the short discussion that we have had, to be so good as to consider this matter again between now and the next stage.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House to speak again, certainly I shall consider what my noble friend has said. I shall write informing him of my conclusions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment, No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 3 [International relations]:
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 30, leave out ("jeopardizes") and insert ("endangers").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Crime and special investigation powers]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Information resulting from unauthorised disclosures or entrusted in confidence]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Information entrusted in confidence to other States or international organisations]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Safeguarding of information]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 47, after ("servant") insert ("or government contractor").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment to clarify the effect of Clause 8(1) as it applies to a government contractor who has been notified under Clause 1(6). The effect of the amendment is to make clear that where a notified person is a government contractor, his obligations under Clause 8(1) in respect of the handling of documents in his possession are exactly the same as those of any other government contractor. This brings the provision exactly into line with the arrangement for lawful disclosures set out in Clause 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, I should say that if Amendment No. 19 is agreed to it would pre-empt Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 and I should not therefore be able to call them.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 8, line 18, leave out subsection (6)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have an idea that this amendment will not be agreed to and therefore as we have just been told any consequent destruction of the following amendments will not occur. At the previous stage of the Bill I brought before the Committee an amendment in which I tried to make clear that I asked for the omission of this subsection because it was capable not only of very many meanings but also no meaning at all. I was joined by other noble Lords in that belief and the noble Earl very courteously said that in the light of what he had heard and seen when looking again at the clause he would consider a rewording. I am delighted to observe that in fact a rewording is now on the Marshalled List and it seems to me to be quite acceptable. Therefore when we reach that point it will certainly have my consent and approval. I am grateful to the noble Earl.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a question of procedure. When the noble Lord moved the very first amendment today he did not say that other amendments would be grouped with
744
it. I spoke immediately after him and said that I assumed that they were so grouped. That caused a slight misunderstanding between us later on. According to the grouping of amendments that has been circulated it is suggested that government amendments, Amendments Nos. 20 to 23, should be discussed with this amendment. I wonder whether that is so.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I shall put the matter in order by formally moving this amendment. In my remarks I have already encompassed the other amendments. I beg to move.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has made the matter clear. I thought that he did not intend to move his amendment. He has now moved it and will later withdraw it, so I understand. I am grateful to him for that.
When we debated the noble Lord's amendment in Committee I recall that he took me to task for saying that I found him a difficult person to satisfy. He demurred and said that he did not know that he was difficult to satisfy. What is more he threatened, in terms of the utmost reasonableness, of course, to come back if we did not alter the wording of this subsection. I found that such a frightening prospect that I thought I must try to do something about it.
I suggest that the amendments in my name alter the wording of this subsection and meet the noble Lord's concern. In fact we propose to go rather further than he suggested. We propose to deal directly and precisely with the one point that the noble Lord made in three separate interventions during the Committee's consideration of the amendment. I now have the evidence to establish what I said in Committee. I had thought that the noble Lord was a difficult person to satisfy. Now I realise that he is not difficult to satisfy because he has removed his amendment.
The offence in Clause 8(6), as I explained in Committee, is an essential part of the protection which the Bill provides against unauthorised disclosures of official information which harm the interests of this country. It deals with the situation where a person does not himself disclose information which is protected by the Bill but instead tells another how to get unauthorised access to it. The simple proposition on this offence is this. It is wrong to disclose official information which you well know would allow people access to protected information which they have no right to have.
Without this offence we leave an indefensible gap in the protection which the Bill provides for this country's interests. It would mean that anyone could, with impunity, disclose official information about our security procedures and arrangements for safegurding protected information. It allows a person to say: "I will not tell you that information, but I will tell you how you might be able to get it for yourself."
We considered carefully, as I promised we would, the comments and criticisms of my noble friend, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, on the details of this provision. The noble Lord, Lord

745
Mishcon, pressed me hard—as he usually does—to introduce a requirement on the prosecution to prove that what was disclosed was indeed official information. My noble friend Lord Renton suggested that the draftsman's skills might be deployed to bring out more clearly the essential nature of the offence. The amendments which stand in my name respond directly to both these requests.
Amendment No. 22 introduces a requirement of proof that the person making the disclosure either had the information in his possession as a Crown servant or government contractor or knew or had reasonable cause to believe that what he disclosed was official information.
The other amendments standing in my name have the effect of putting the essence of the offence in what is now Clause 8(6), while details about proving that the information is official are now in a separate subsection. I hope that this is helpful in bringing out as clearly as we can the essential nature of the offence. I shall later beg to move the other amendments that are in my name.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of the gracious remarks made by the noble Earl, which I believe I followed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that, with your Lordships' permission, we take Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 together.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 23:
Page 8, line 18, after ("any") insert ("official").
Page 8, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("can") in line 22. Page 8, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of subsection (6) above a person discloses information or a document or article which is official if—

(a) he has or has had it in his possession by virtue of his position as a Crown servant or government contractor; or

(b) he knows or has reasonable cause to believe that a Crown servant or government contractor has or has had it in his possession by virtue of his position as such.").

Page 8, line 29, leave out ("(b)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure of information.
.—

.—(1) A person who is or has been a member of the security and intelligence services or who has been notified that he is subject to the provisions of section 1(1) above may, only if he has obtained the consent of the Secretary of State, publish, or disclose for the purpose of a publication information which is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as a member of those services or in the course of his work while the notification is or was in force.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not withhold his consent under subsection (1) above if he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the publication can take place without—

(a) endangering national security; or

(b) causing harm to the work of the security and intelligence services or any part of them; or

(c) otherwise being contrary to the national interest.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24. The amendment has come to be known as the historians' amendment since it was moved in my absence abroad two weeks ago with such skill and erudition by my noble friends Lord Thomas of Swynnerton and Lord Dacre. Those two learned noble Lords—although not "learned", strictly speaking, in the sense used in your Lordships' House—argued most persuasively for a relaxation of, or an amendment to, the Bill that would, in certain circumstances, and with the authorisation of the Secretary of State, allow disclosures to be made for historical works. It laid down that the Secretary of State should withhold permission for such disclosure if, and only if, the national security, the national interest, or such similar interest, was in danger of being damaged.
This amendment in no way tries to bring forward the publication of material which could in any circumstances cause damage either to the services or to the national interest. On the contrary, the first part of the amendment makes it clear that only the Secretary of State may give authorisation. It is true that in many other countries that would not be the case. For instance, in the United States it would be possible for a judge to give authorisation for the release of material of this nature. However, for better or worse, we have gone down another path, and this matter will reside in the hands of the Secretary of State if noble Lords decide to accept this amendment, or indeed if not. However, if noble Lords accept this amendment it will make it clear that the Secretary of State should give permission, unless he is satisfied that damage will occur.
In moving this amendment I take comfort from the letter written to me on 29th July by the Home Secretary, Mr. Hurd. In that letter, he stated that security is the essential criterion for decisions taken over disclosures either for historians or by former officers who wish to become latterday historians. He went on to say that with the passage of time it will increasingly be possible for them—that is former secret service officers—to obtain such authorisation.
I should be grateful if my noble friend could indicate to me whether or not the observations by the Home Secretary still stand. They are that security is the essential criterion; and that it is hoped that with the passage of time authorisation can more often be given. Indeed, it is quite right that security should be the essential criterion. However, are there any other criteria that the Government will bear in mind? Perhaps my noble friend will tell us something about that.
I have been assured that embarrassment to a government, or to the Government, would not be a criterion. Indeed, embarrassment to Ministers has never been, and should never be, a reason for withholding information, in particular in the light of history. However, will political expediency be a reason for withholding permission? It is a case that could be argued. It would be good if we can hear from a Minister on what basis permission will be given to former officers to make disclosures to historians. If we knew where we stood, it would be easier to proceed along the path that the Government have suggested.
The problem has been that writers and historians live in such an uncertain world that we do not know what is or is not permitted. Unless one has had former connection with these services—as has my noble friend Lord Dacre, but which I have not—one does not know to whom to go in order to see whether a book or article should or should not be written on the basis of a disclosure. I hope that my noble friend will be able to indicate how historians or writers who have no connection with these services should go about trying to obtain permission for a disclosure. Should they write to the Home Secretary or to the Foreign Secretary asking for permission to approach an individual, a former officer; or should they go to the officer in the first instance, and would it eventually be left to him or her to seek the permission that is necessary in order that the disclosure may be made?
In either event, it will be a very cumbersome procedure and will be a considerable departure from the custom that has prevailed for the past 20 or 30 years. The Government have stated in recent weeks that permission for a disclosure will be given only in rare and exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, there will be a very drastic reduction in books and publications relating to the secret world. Since the Second World War there have been many hundreds—perhaps even thousands—of books relating to this world. One thinks of all the books on the Enigma machine; such books as The Man Who Knew Too Much, about secret operations during the Second World War.
I imagine that under the Bill disclosure, even on Second World War matters, will have to be authorised in each case, even if it is merely to check a date with someone who was in military intelligence or with a special operation in Cairo or Italy in 1944 or 1945. Permission for disclosure will have to be given. The system will be cumbersome, but clearly historians will have to do it if they do not want to break the law themselves by conspiring with a former intelligence officer, or by encouraging that officer to break the law by making the disclosure himself or herself.
This matter has continued after the Second World War. It becomes much more delicate when dealing with questions surrounding the Cold War, the 1940s and the 1950s. It is here that most books involving the secret world have been written. However, I have never heard it suggested that such books have damaged the secret services or the national interest. On the contrary, such books often teach us, the British people, lessons which we would do well to remember. I hope that the lesson of history will not be forever annulled as a result of the Bill.
If your Lordships approve my amendment the lessons of history can still be taught and absorbed, and sounder and better government will, with any luck, be the result of having learned those lessons.
I wonder whether my noble friend has considered the following argument. It is not possible nowadays to assume that any book which touches on the secret world is authorised by the Government, or contains any authorisation. Some books contain material which has been revealed by former officers simply
748
on their own authority or because of their conscience. The Government are therefore in the happy position of being able to say that they do not approve of the book or publication, that they had nothing to do with it and that they would rather the book had not been published. They are able to issue a dementi. After the Bill is enacted it will not be possible for the Government to have that let-out because the assumption will be that any reference to the secret world has had the Government's approval and any book which contains such information has the Government's imprimatur. The Government may not always find that a convenient state of affairs.
However the decision has been taken. My amendment does not try to challenge the basic rule that the Secretary of State should be the arbiter and that the Government should decide, no doubt on the advice offered by former service members. It makes sense for us to lay down exactly who is responsible for authorising disclosures, and under my amendment that would be the Secretary of State. I believe it is right to lay down what the Government should bear in mind in deciding whether or not a disclosure should be made. There are certain matters which should not be taken into account when such a decision is made, such as embarrassment to a Minister or former Minister. There are other factors which definitely should be taken into account, such as those relating to security and the others in the second paragraph of my amendment. If the amendment is passed I believe that it will considerably clarify the situation. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, when we discussed an almost identical amendment at Committee stage in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend, my noble friend Lord Dacre was concerned lest facilities which had previously been available to ex-members of the secret services would be adversely affected by the Bill. In that context I hope I am right in thinking—and my noble friend will be able to tell me whether I am right or wrong—that there has been no change and that the Bill does not alter the circumstances for those people. The machinery inside the services for such a member to consult is there, including— —
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is quite correct that those former members of the services should not be adversely affected by the Bill, provided that the criteria remain the same. Those who will be affected are historians who have had no connection with the services but who seek information on past events from former members of the services.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I thought that earlier my noble friend was concerned with the ex-members of the services. I should like to hear my noble friend Lord Ferrers confirm whether I am right or wrong. Consultations will be open to such people. They are the people with whom I am concerned. I hope that such consultation will, if necessary, be with the Secretary of State.

749
I must confess that I do not much like subsection (2) of my noble friend's amendment. If the Secretaries of State are to be available for consultation it is much better to leave it to their discretion and judgment without any strings attached. Therefore I am afraid that I could not support my noble friend's amendment as it stands.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Home said that this amendment was almost identical. I believe it is exactly identical to the previous Amendment No. 40 which was discussed in Committee. I understand why it is being put forward again because this is a matter of great concern to historians and writers. In my view, however, I do not think that it is necessary to write it into the Bill. It is past and present practice for proposed books, memoirs, broadcasts and articles to be cleared beforehand. If this is now put into the Bill in this form it could cause some confusion by inserting something which is already practised.
Vetting is carried out and requests are made to the authors who have submitted them to omit items from manuscripts. I was involved in this procedure when I was an official many years ago. I have said on previous occasions, and I repeat, that the important matter is that the book should not be delayed. Those who are carrying out the necessary screening should not cause the authors and publishers to have to wait months before they receive a reply.
This procedure operates in government departments such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Ministry of Defence. My noble friend Lord Bethell said in introducing his amendment that authors who were not familiar with the system did not know whom they could approach. My advice to anybody who asked me—no doubt my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to give his views—was that anyone in either House of Parliament could go straight to a Minister; otherwise authors would have to make inquiries and get in touch with the Permanent Under-Secretary either at the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That person and his staff would consider any request and, if it was appropriate, they would put the author in touch with the right person to advise him.
In our last debate on this matter the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, referred to American practice and to the CIA. American practice is broadly similar to our own—the principle of submitting text for clearance beforehand. I have discussed this with former members of the CIA, including the admiral whom he mentioned in his speech in our debate in Committee. The CIA has an open, non-secret part and a covert, secret part. That is a way of helping to conceal the secret part. In contrast, in the United Kingdom our intelligence service is secret. It has no front door with its name on it or other open or visible public face.
The security service does have a public identity, and that is now being improved in the Security Service Bill before your Lordships' House. The security service is becoming a statutory body for the first time, but there is no question of anything like that for our intelligence service. The work of both
750
services is secret, and much of it must remain secret for a long time. A 30 or 50-year rule has no relevance in that.
I believe that it is not necessary to add this new clause to the Bill. If, nonetheless, it were positively inserted and appeared to be a statutory addition, this might well encourage publishers and the media to press for memoirs and other accounts on subjects that should not be mentioned or described in public.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I also was concerned at the Committee stage on this Bill that we might be faced with a new restriction that ought to be resisted, and I had supposed that this amendment was designed to resist a change. I am persuaded however that the provisions of the Bill alter nothing in respect of what my noble friend addresses in his amendment: the particular concern that I had over what might become of a Crown servant when he ceased to be a Crown servant, for which I could see no provision in the Bill. The Bill provides for him in Clause 7:
"For the purposes of this Act a disclosure by any other person is made with lawful authority if … it is made … in accordance with an official authorisation."
The route is there, and what my noble friend's amendment addresses is how it should be traversed.
This is one area in which one must, with regret, accept the need for secrecy, and a secret control of secrecy. Whereas subsection (1) of my noble friend's amendment may add nothing or take nothing away, subsection (2) sets out criteria that could only be discussed and tested in the open. They are of no use if they are not discussed and tested in. the open, and I have sufficient experience of confidentiality of other sorts to know that it is precisely by that sort of testing of apparently innocent material (or, should I say, innocuous material) that dangerous material is revealed. Therefore, I would not ask my noble friend to be encouraged by my earlier contribution. Like my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Campbell of Croy, I would have to go against him on a decision.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl in replying to this amendment would tell the House the present guidelines? The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that there is a procedure and that it operates perfectly well. You have only to go to the Permanent Secretary, take your book, and everything works like clockwork. The trouble is that it does not work like clockwork. In fact Mr. Wright's book was offered to the appropriate persons in the Government and they refused to look at it. They would not in fact take any steps about it at all when it was offered to them.
The whole waters have been muddied by the Home Secretary saying, so far as I understand it, that authority will only be given in rare and exceptional circumstances. If I may say so with great respect, that seems to make it almost impossible for people to publish articles, or write books, in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Dacre, explained at the Committee stage.

751
If the Government resist the amendment, could they not come out into the open and lay down perfectly straightforward guidelines to persons who wish to publish memoirs or publish articles? I quite see that if the Home Secretary himself is going to read all of these articles and books, he is going to have an even fuller time than he has already looking after all the other things he has to look at. It is not a very practical suggestion.
However, it is a kind of litmus paper of the Government's attitude. This is supposed to be, "Now we have cleared away all this secrecy. Now we are limiting it only to these specific areas. We now are much more open than we ever have been before". Surely this is a litmus paper, because it really does not matter if people write articles and books in the sense that the noble Lords, Lord Dacre and Lord Thomas, explained. It does not matter in a whole area of the work of these people that they should write articles and books and inform the public not about secrets but about all sorts of matters that govern what they do, without showing in any sense the specific secrets with which they are involved.
There is a great deal of interesting information, and why is it that in the CIA library there are hundreds of volumes, whereas over here there are practically none except leaks, leaks, leaks? If you have only rare and exceptional circumstances then I would suggest to the noble Earl that we are going to get these journalists, and this investigative journalism, continuing and continuing, and we are going to have leaks, and ideas about what goes on and what does not go on. If you could only open it up and have some proper guidelines, you would get rid of all that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I was going to say something along the lines of what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, has just said; and I was going to ask the Government whether it would be prudent not just to answer this amendment purely in the negative but to see to it that everybody knew when a consent would be given, because broad guidelines on procedure and in regard to policy could be issued.
I saw the danger, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in subsection (2) of his amendment, because I realised that that would open the door to a judicial review. I should have thought it would be objectionable—and I freely admit it—if the Secretary of State were challenged in the courts that he had not complied reasonably with the provisions of the Act in the procedure that he had adopted. There could be difficulties.
Having said that, I would hope that there could be some give by the Government on this. What they are doing is closing the mouths of people for life in regard to matters which are part of our history and which could be harmless from the point of view of national security.
However, I do not like a provision which enables somebody to go to the court challenging the Secretary of State's ruling, as they could if subsection (2) stood.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we had a debate on exactly the same amendment at Committee; but unfortu-
752
nately my noble friend Lord Bethell was unable to be present, and I understand his reason for putting down the same amendment today. He will understand if the remarks that I make are essentially the same as I made then.
I am glad to have the opportunity to explain again the Government's position on the authorisation of memoirs and other books by members, and former members, of the security and intelligence services. Let us remember that is what we are talking about: namely, the writing of books and the disclosure of information by members and former members of the security and intelligence services. I realise that my noble friend has a perfectly legitimate interest in that.
I understand the position from which my noble friend Lord Bethell and others of your Lordships come to this matter. I recognise their concerns. I should not wish to take issue with them were it not for very good reasons. I know that your Lordships are fair-minded people and so I ask the House to consider very carefully whether this is really a matter which should be dealt with in primary legislation in the way proposed in this amendment.
I want first to give your Lordships a clear assurance about the drafting of the Bill because I know there has been some misunderstanding and misapprehension about that. The Bill does nothing to change either the steps which must be taken in order to obtain authority for disclosures or the policy for considering the memoirs of serving or former members of the security and intelligence services, or indeed of any other Crown servant. That was the point which my noble friend Lord Home was concerned to have reiterated, and I give your Lordships that assurance.
The Bill allows for disclosures to be made by serving Crown servants and by notified people, provided that such a disclosure is made in accordance with a person's official duty. It also allows for former Crown servants, including former members of the security and intelligence services, to make disclosures with lawful authority if they have an official authorisation for their disclosures.
The arrangements for former Crown servants to seek such authorisation are of long standing. They involve the former Crown servant obtaining the necessary authority from his former department or agency. The new law does not require any change to these arrangements or in their operation. The same principle stands. I think most of your Lordships will agree that it is right that there should continue to be a requirement to obtain authority for the disclosure of such matters. The Bill provides for such authority to be given.
There is, I venture to hope, nothing between my noble friend Lord Bethell and the Government on that central point. Authority can be given for publications. This amendment is not necessary to achieve that. The rule for such publications will also remain what it has always been: no member or former member of one of these services should plan publications without seeking and obtaining authority from his current or former employer to do so. It is right, however, that I should make clear to your

753
Lordships that the presumption will continue to be—just as it has been in the past—against giving authority for detailed accounts to be published of the work of the security and intelligence services. It will continue to be the exception and not the rule for authorisation to be given in these circumstances.
In making this clear in previous debates I am afraid that some noble Lords may have believed that we were breaking new ground. This is not the case. There has never been a convention that members and former members of the services should commonly publish accounts of their work. Permission has in the past only been given in rare and exceptional circumstances. That will continue to be the case in the future.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will give way. I accept that in the case of former members of the services permission has been given only rarely. However, does he not agree that since there have been hundreds and maybe even thousands of books and publications based on disclosures made to non-former members by former members, forming part of their work, clearly permission for such disclosures must have been given not rarely in the past but extremely frequently to make up the body of work available on the secret world in the libraries? Can my noble friend assure us that that practice will not be changed and that permission for disclosures will be given reasonably frequently?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only give the undertaking which I have given; namely, that people will have to ask permission if they are members or former members of the security services. The situation will be considered on a case by case basis, but permission has been given and will be given only in rare and exceptional circumstances.
My noble friend Lord Bethell asked where historians go for guidance. There is no change in the present procedures resulting from this Bill. A historian who is not an ex-member of the security and intelligence services could approach the secretary of the D-Notice Committee, or, as my noble friend Lord Campbell said, the head of the relevant government department. I do not believe there is any great mystery or difficulty about that and the Bill does not seek to change the position.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend breaks new ground and it would do so in ways which are, I suggest, undesirable. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who asked whether or not it would be helpful if people were able to write more about these matters and that, therefore, disclosures should be more frequent to enable that to happen. The whole purpose of the security and intelligence services and the whole purpose of this Bill is that those facts should not be written about save in rare and exceptional circumstances. I agree that for a writer that is very convenient, but I believe that that is proper in the interests of the nation.
My noble friend's amendment breaks new ground in these ways. First, it would introduce a formal
754
statutory procedure for authorising publication. That procedure would apply only to members and former members of the security services and to notified people. It cannot be right to create such elaborate statutory procedures ensuring and encouraging full-blown publications. Secondly, the amendment would create a presumption in favour of publication. I have already explained to your Lordships that in our view the presumption must be against publication.
Thirdly, the creation of such a statutory presumption would inevitably act as an encouragement to those who may be tempted to breach their obligations. One noble Lord—I cannot remember who—said that there would be an encouragement to those outside the intelligence and security services to persuade members and former members of those services to say more than they should. That is bound to be an effect of my noble friend's amendment.
Fourthly, I want to confirm that the criterion for authorisation is, as it has always been, a judgment about whether publication would harm national security directly or indirectly and not a consideration of possible embarrassment. I hope your Lordships will find that reassuring. However, I do not believe that it can be right to institute a statutory procedure which requires that formal statutory criteria must in all cases always be applied to every jot and tittle of what someone would like to publish. What scope for argument that would introduce! What pressure it would put on the Secretary of State always to have to tell the author in detail exactly why national security would be damaged when perhaps, having been so long away from the service, he really ought not to know. It would be unnecessary and, I suggest, undesirable to delve into the nitty-gritty when the publication is manifestly not the sort of thing which could ever be published in any form. We must avoid these difficulties, and we can do so on the basis of the present Bill. I repeat therefore the assurance which I gave earlier. While authority to publish will be given only in rare and exceptional circumstances, all relevant plans and proposals, if properly raised at the right time, will be carefully considered and decisions made on a case by case basis.
My noble friend's amendment would go much further than that. It suggests that the relationship between a member of the service and his employer, or former employer, in this matter should be regulated by statute. That would not be right. As my noble friend Lord Home said, it should not be a matter for legislation. After the most careful consideration, following the debate in Committee, that remains our view. A statutory provision is not the way in which we have handled such matters in the past and I suggest that it is not the right or sensible way to go about it in the future.
There is no reason to conclude that authority to publish will be withheld in future in every conceivable case. I hope that I have given a clear and reasonable explanation and assurances. Of course, the interests of history and of historians need to be recognised—I accept that—but so too do the interests of the continuing safety and security of the nation as a whole. There is nothing particularly new about that and nothing in the Bill which requires or

755
suggests any change in our approach. Therefore, with that explanation I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that very full explanation of why he feels unable to support the amendment. I am grateful to him also for clarifying a number of points raised in my opening remarks and in the course of this debate. I am particularly grateful to him for pointing out that historians and writers who are not former members of the services may go to the D-Notice Committee. That will be of interest to many of my colleagues when writing history.
I was also a little encouraged by what my noble friend had to say about the rare and exceptional occasions when it will be possible for a disclosure to be authorised. It is clearly difficult for my noble friend to say what is rare and what is exceptional. However, since he said that in the context of an indication that previous practice would be maintained, I am encouraged at least to hope that from time to time books will continue to be written by former members of the service which include material made available to them with permission; indeed, that the historian will not be brushed aside by this legislation. I fully accept, as my noble friend said, that when it comes to a conflict between history and sound government the former must take second place. Sound government must prevail.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Elton discussing what would happen if there were to be a dispute about whether or not a book should be authorised or a disclosure made. He suggested—and I believe this argument was made several times in the course of this afternoon's proceedings—that the arguments on whether or not a disclosure should be made would have to take place in the open. I believe those were his words. With respect to my noble friend, that is not what happens in countries like the United States, Australia or Sweden where different rules prevail.
I can speak with some experience. On one occasion I tried to extract some information from the CIA through the American courts. The matter was decided against me by an American judge, who saw the papers I was seeking to obtain. There was no question of my seeing them, the press or anyone else seeing them, or of the matter being discussed in the open. The decision was reached entirely behind closed doors.
I suppose that if there is to be any advance on the present situation we shall have to wait not for an official secrets Bill but for a freedom of information Bill; but that is not what is before us today. I am in favour of such a Bill and always have been but in the context of this Official Secrets Bill I accept that it is difficult to lay down a statutory provision under which the Secretary of State must make his decisions.
I was particularly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the possibility of judicial review being demanded in the case of a Secretary of State whose decision was not to the liking of a writer, historian or former member of the services. Therefore, in thanking my noble friend for
756
his somewhat reassuring remarks and in thanking others who have taken part in the debate, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Consequential Amendments]:
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 12, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) Section 30(2)(b) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour for being, if I may say so, a remarkable ferret. He spotted the need for this amendment. Schedule 1 already makes a conseqential amendment to a provision of the Local Government Act 1974 which refers to the existing Official Secrets Acts and which the amendment in Schedule 1 would keep up to date by a reference to the present Bill. The amendment before your Lordships ensures that Schedule I makes a similar amendment to the equivalent Scottish provision in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Brunei (Appeals) Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable effect to be given to new arrangements which are currently being made with the Government of Brunei about appeals from the Supreme Court of Brunei to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is envisaged that the new arrangements will be recorded in an exchange of notes which, when concluded, would then be given effect in the United Kingdom by an Order in Council to be made under the Bill.
In common with several other Commonwealth countries, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the highest court of Brunei. The present arrangements for appeals from Brunei derive from the period when Brunei was a British protected state. The new arrangements we are making will, at the request of the Government of Brunei, differ in three aspects from the existing procedure.
First, both appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and the ensuing advice of the committee, which are at present addressed to Her Majesty the Queen in Council, will in future be addressed to His Majesty the Sultan of Brunei.
Brunei ceased to be a British protected state in 1971 and achieved full independence on 31st December 1983. It is considered anomalous for the Judicial Committee to continue to tender advice to Her Majesty the Queen when the Sultan, and not the Queen, is the Head of State of Brunei. In August 1987 the Brunei Government formally requested this change in the procedure, following the precedent

757
of the procedure established with respect to appeals from Malaysia. As with the case of Malaysia, the Government concluded that this request should be met, but that primary legislation would be required in order to enable the necessary jurisdiction to be conferred on the Judicial Committee.
The second difference is that the minimum value of civil disputes which may be the subject of appeals to the Privy Council will be substantially increased. The existing figure of £500 was set in 1951 and clearly is now obsolete. We envisage that a new figure of 200,000 Brunei dollars—about £60,000—will be included in the subsequent Order in Council.
Thirdly, at the request of Brunei, appeals concerning constitutional matters will be excluded from the Judicial Committee's jurisdiction. Both governments are in full agreement about these new arrangements.
There are strong historical links between the United Kingdom and Brunei, dating back over several centuries. The two countries first entered into special treaty relations in 1846. These continued until Brunei resumed full independence on 31st December 1983 and was admitted to the Commonwealth on 1st January 1984. Our relations have continued to be close and friendly since then. We are keen to build on the excellent foundations already laid.
Perhaps I may now briefly explain the provisions of the Bill. The preamble records that arrangements are being made between the governments of the United Kingdom and of Brunei, and indicates the intention to record these in an exchange of notes. A draft exchange of notes was passed to the Government of Brunei in January, and they have confirmed their broad agreement with the wording. We intend to conclude the exchange of notes as soon as the final details have been settled.
Clause 1 enables jurisdiction to be conferred by Order in Council on the Judicial Committee in respect of appeals from the Supreme Court of Brunei in order to give effect to arrangements between the two governments. This clause is modelled on Section 3 of the Federation of Malaya Independence Act 1957.
Clause 1(2) is the main enabling provision of the Bill. It allows the making of an Order in Council to confer on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council such jurisdiction over appeals from the Supreme Court of Brunei as is appropriate to give effect to the new arrangements.
Such an order will be necessary to enable the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee to be exercisable in relation to the Sultan of Brunei. Without such a provision, the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee is exercisable only in relation to an appeal to Her Majesty the Queen in Council.
Clause 2 gives the Short Title and provides for commencement. It also provides that the existing orders which confer jurisdiction on the Judicial Committee with respect to appeals from Brunei to Her Majesty shall be revoked as from the date on which the first order made under Clause 1 comes into force.
758
I hope and feel sure that all Members of your Lordship's House will wish to join with Her Majesty's Government in welcoming this Bill. The new arrangements which it allows concerning appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council are in keeping with Brunei's independent status and the close and friendly relations between our two countries. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining this Bill to the House. We welcome the Bill and will help its passage for a number of good reasons. As the noble Baroness has said, we have enjoyed friendly relations with Brunei over a long period and both Governments are anxious that these should continue. I recall that over 20 years ago I had the privilege of conducting negotiations on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with the late Sultan. It was an interesting experience. The talks were facilitated by the fact that His Royal Highness had a Welsh attorney general.
The noble Baroness referred to the anomaly whereby the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council tendered its advice to Her Majesty the Queen although Brunei has been fully independent since 1983. We agree that the precedent applied in the case of Malaysia should be followed, as the Minister has explained, and that the Judicial Committee should proffer its advice direct to the Sultan as head of state. The noble Baroness also referred to the current minimum value of civil disputes. It is obvious that the 1951 figure is entirely out of date. The new figure of £60,000 that is proposed for the minimum value of civil disputes is a sensible move.
Finally, the Minister made the point that constitutional matters will not come within the Privy Council's jurisdiction. We note that the new arrangements are also to be recorded in an exchange of notes. I understand that these will have been concluded before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament. Like everyone else in the House, I am glad that Brunei, like other countries, is to maintain its connection with our Supreme Court in this country and thus with our legal tradition. We wish them well.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I support very much what the noble Lord said. I very warmly welcome this Bill. I believe that it is an important step forward. I congratulate the Government—perhaps not my noble friend in person—for the considerable skill they have shown in bringing this matter about. It is a flexible arrangement of the kind which I am sure that the Sultan of Brunei will like. I was in Brunei when the revolution broke out in December 1962 so I know a little about what was happening there at that time.
It strikes me as being a very flexible arrangement. I cannot say that I understand exactly what will go to the Privy Council and what will not. Doubtless that information will appear in due course. This is a very important step and I wish to explain why. If

759
any country does business with Brunei it probably does not know very much about the judicial system there. It is possible that such a country might even question the basis on which Brunei proceeds. It will be an added strength to it to know that matters can go to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The country may not know much about the Judicial Committee but it will know that it is there. It may well be an extremely valuable step on the industrial side and in the economic development of Brunei. For that reason I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on having achieved it.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for their welcome of this Bill. I am also very happy to hear that both noble Lords have historical connections with Brunei and especially to hear of the Welsh connection. I can certainly supply my noble friend with a little more detail as regards which appeals are envisaged under the new arrangement, if that is helpful to him.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989
7.39 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the legal aid financial eligibility limits are normally uprated annually when the Department of Social Security raises the levels of social security benefits. This eases administration because applicants on certain income-related benefits automatically qualify for legal aid.
Turning to the regulations themselves, your Lordships will know that similar regulations increasing the corresponding eligibility limit in England and Wales came into force as part of the sizeable package of legal aid regulations approved by both Houses at the end of March. The regulations adjust the legal aid financial limits to take account of inflation, and reflect the overall levels of changes in social security benefits. Before us today, there are two sets of draft regulations raising the eligibility limits for civil legal aid and advice and assistance. Two other sets of regulations, subject to negative resolution procedure, which came into force on 10th April, have amended the amounts by which an assisted person's resources may change before they are reassessed for the purposes of the Civil Legal Aid and the allowances made in respect of dependants in advice and assistance.
The Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989raise the lower disposable income limit for civil legal aid—that is the level below which no contribution from income is payable—from £2,400 to £2,515 a year. The
760
increase in the upper income limit—that is, the level above which legal aid is not normally available—is from £5,765 to £6,035 per year. The upper capital limit above which legal aid is not normally available is increased from £5,000 to £6,000. There is no change in the lower limit.
The Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989 raise the upper income limit from £122 to £128 per week. The capital limit above which advice and assistance is not available increases from £850 to £890. The scale of contributions for applicants with disposable income between the upper and lower income limits for advice and assistance is also changed by the regulations. Generally, the changes represent an increase of around 4.7 per cent. which matches the uprating level of the income related social security benefits. The common uprating level is retail prices index, excluding housing. This formula is the right one to have for the uprating of legal aid eligibility limits as it is for income-related social security benefits. It is applied on a United Kingdom basis and the provisions for England and Wales are currently in force.
It is further proposed to increase the upper capital limit for civil legal aid to £6,000 thereby aligning the capital limits of legal aid and income support. This is intended to mitigate the effect of the anomaly which has arisen whereby those on income support, who may have capital up to £6,000, are eligible for free legal aid while others with capital over £5,235 under the uprated limits are currently not eligible for legal aid at all.
Recipients of income support and other income related benefits are permitted to have £3,000 in disposable capital before any income is assumed to be generated which would affect the level of benefit paid. It seems sensible to continue to use this limit as the threshold for capital contributions for legal aid, which is why the lower capital limit is unchanged.
I should perhaps briefly outline the provisions within the other two sets of negative resolution regulations to which I referred a moment ago. The Civil Legal Aid (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 amended the amounts by which an assisted person's resources may change before he is required to have them reassessed for legal aid purposes. These thresholds had not been changed since 1983. These will reduce the number of civil legal aid accounts that will require to be reassessed in the future, thereby producing an administrative saving for the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The Advice and Assistance (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1989 have amended the allowances in respect of dependants which are taken into account when calculating disposable capital in the assessment of eligibility for advice and assistance, from £200 to £335 for the first dependant, from £120 to £200 for the second and from £60 to £100 for subsequent dependants. I commend the regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full and helpful explanation of the background to the regulations. When such regulations come before the House, we are always amazed at just how low levels of income must be before legal aid is available. The table in the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations shows that if one has a weekly income exceeding £69 but not exceeding £75, one pays £12. If one has an income of £123 to £128 a week, one pays £70 for advice. If one earns more than that one pays the full amount. Whatever one's views of the various points in the Lord Chancellor's Green Papers—I listened to some of the debate a week ago—there is no doubt that the noble and learned Lord was on to something when he suggested that the legal processes should be made more available to people.
An income of £128 a week is not very much. Yet if one earns that and one goes to a lawyer for advice it will cost £70. This is not a party political point. I realise that the cost of the legal aid system is very high. However, not to be able to receive free legal
762
aid or much help with legal processes if one earns £128 a week is horrific and makes the law almost inaccessible to large numbers of people.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations. My grumbles are not with him. When we were in power we did not do a great deal either. It is a point which we should consider seriously when we return to power.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1989
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 23rd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  MANSION HOUSE STATION
  MANSION HOUSE STATION
  NATO: 40 YEARS OF PEACE—PUBLICITY
  NATO: 40 YEARS OF PEACE—PUBLICITY
  BROADCASTING: UNLICENSED STATIONS
  BROADCASTING: UNLICENSED STATIONS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: INDEPENDENT INSPECTIONS
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: SEARCH PROCEDURES
  METROPOLITAN POLICE: SEARCH PROCEDURES
  PRISONS: CNA INCREASES
  PRISONS: CNA INCREASES
  PRISON STAFF AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
  PRISON STAFF AND OCCUPATIONAL STRESS
  PRISON ESTABLISHMENTS: CLOSURES
  PRISON ESTABLISHMENTS: CLOSURES
  HONG KONG: BRITISH NATIONALITY APPLICATIONS
  HONG KONG: BRITISH NATIONALITY APPLICATIONS