Sitting of 21 April 1989

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

  Maryhill Community Care Scheme
  9.35 am
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I beg to present a petition from supporters of the Maryhill community care scheme, which has been endorsed by 1,000 signatures gathered at Maryhill and backed by members of Gairbraid church, St. Gregory's church, the Maryhill elderly forum, the Strathclyde elderly forum, the Forum on Disability, Age Concern, the Gairbraid tenants' association, Wyndford community council, Gairbraid community flat and local branches of the Transport and General Workers Union, the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union and the National Union of Mineworkers. It has also been supported by local councillors and, needless to say, by me.
  The substance of the petition is
  "That a great disservice will be done to the needs and interests of many isolated, elderly and disabled people who have relied on the Maryhill community care scheme since 1984. The scheme has now closed because it does not meet the Government's criteria for funding and no other source of finance is there.
  560
  Wherefor your petitioners pray that your Honourable House ask the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Scotland to re-examine the criteria for funding, and meanwhile allow the scheme interim funds to enable it to continue for at least a short period of three or four months. Therefore your petitioners, as in duty bound, pray that the House accepts the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Concessionary TV Licence
  9.37 am
  Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to present a petition from citizens of New Parks estate and from people in the city of Leicester, designed to change the present extraordinary anomaly whereby pensioners who live in warden-assisted accommodation obtain television licences at an annual fee of £5, while others who do not have the benefit of such assistance usually pay the full fee.
  "The humble Petition of citizens of the New Parks estate and of the city of Leicester showeth, that whereas for people who are elderly and disabled a television set is no luxury but often their main contact with outside life and shield against loneliness; whereas elderly and disabled people suffer greatly from inadequate pensions and other benefits; and whereas licence concessions are made for some pensioners and disabled people who live in council bungalows or sheltered accommodation; wherefor your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will call upon Her Majesty's Government to remove the burden of television licence fees from old age pensioners and people who are registered as disabled; or in the alternative that Her Majesty's Government will extend privileges at present linmited to specific pensioners and disabled people who are in straitened circumstances; who are at present struggling to survive financially; for whom the dignity and quality of life is inadequate; and for whom the cost of television licences is unwarranted and a great burden."
  The petition is signed by more than 500 citizens, and by me.
  To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day

  Right of Reply Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  9.40 am
  Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer you to page 1136 of the Amendment Paper. Amendment No. 29 deals with the Official Report. You have not selected that amendment for debate. I do not seek to challenge your judgment. It may be that when you read the Bill you observed, as I did, that clause 1(1) referred merely to a periodical. A periodical, as defined by "The Concise Oxford Dictionary", is something that is "published at regular intervals." It appears that the Official Report is likely to be caught, in any event, by the terms of the Bill. That raises a question of privilege. I am wondering whether the proceedings on the Bill should be deferred until the Committee of Privileges has had a chance to examine the question.
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is making that allegation, he must raise it with me in the normal way.
  Mr. Knight: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept without question that when one raises a breach of privilege the matter must be raised in writing, but I am saying that this is an anticipated breach. Should the Bill ultimately become an Act, that could constitute a breach of privilege.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must table a motion to that effect. We have known for a long time that the Bill would be debated today. If the hon. Gentleman sincerely thought that this was a question of privilege, he should have raised it with me before.
  Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you able to say whether it is the intention of the Solicitor-General or the Attorney-General to grace us with their presence this morning? There may be an announcement about Mr. Justice Hoffmann's proposals, which would allow for speedier and cheaper resolution of disputes concerning the law of defamation. Many of the right hon. and hon. Members who support the measure believe that the cost of defamation proceedings is so great that it is impossible for a private citizen to take on a newspaper. If Mr. Justice Hoffmann's proposals were to be implemented, many right hon. and hon. Members might reconsider their position on the Bill.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman used the word "if." As the hon. Gentleman said, it has not yet happened. It is a premature point of order.
  Mr. Tony Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may help us to make progress—this is the difference between my point of order and the others—if I were to intimate to you that I should be willing to accept—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. No, not at this stage. If the hon. Gentleman mentions which amendments he is prepared to accept when we reach them, I am sure that that would expedite the proceedings on his Bill.
  Mr. John Watts: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and arising also from the amendment that stands in my name, Mr. Speaker. If our reading of the Bill is correct and the term "periodical" encompasses the Official Report of both this House and the other place, does not an issue of privilege arise concerning the other place? If that is so, should not the other place have been informed that this House is considering a matter that affects its privilege? Has the other place been so informed?
  Mr. Speaker: That is another hypothetical matter. As the House would expect, I have been through the Bill and the amendments with the greatest of care and I think that I have been generous in my selection of amendments. They are all absolutely valid points and we should get on with them.
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not seek to challenge your ruling in response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington). You said that we should wait until we reached the amendments. However, it would be helpful if the House understood from the outset that my hon. Friend is the chief sponsor and promoter of the Bill and that he is prepared to accept all the amendments in groups 4, 7, 8 and 9.
  Mr. Speaker: That is a helpful suggestion. However, let us now get on.

  Right of Reply Bill
    New Clause 4

      PRESS COMMISSION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
      `(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a panel of members of the Commission to sit as the Press Commission Appeal Tribunal ("the Appeal Tribunal").
      (2) The provisions of Part II of the Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Appeal Tribunal.
      (3) A party to a decision of the Commission may, within 28 days of being notified of that decision, appeal to the Appeal Tribunal; and on any such appeal the Appeal Tribunal may—

      (a) affirm the decision of the Commission, or

      (b) make any other determination which could have been made by the Commission.

      (4) The Secretary of State may make rules—

      (a) regulating appeals to the Appeal Tribunal;

      (b) prescribing the practice and procedure to be followed on or in connection with appeals to the Appeal Tribunal, including the mode and burden of proof and admissibility of evidence to be received by the Appeal Tribunal and circumstances in which the Appeal Tribunal may hold an oral enquiry; and

      (c) providing for other matters preliminary or incidental to or arising out of appeals to and decisions made by the Appeal Tribunal.

      (5) The power to make rules under subsection (4) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such rules shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 4, page 2, line 35, at end insert:
      `subject to an appeal under section (Press Commission Appeal Tribunal).'.
      No. 91, in page 2, line 35, at end insert:

      563
      `subject to the right of either party to appeal to the High Court or to the Court of Session in Scotland within 28 days of the decision being made. The decision of the High Court or of the Court of Session shall be final.'.
      No. 100, in page 2, line 35, at end insert:
      `subject to the right of either party to appeal decisions to the High Court, or the Court of Session in Scotland.'.
      No. 33, in schedule, in page 4, line 39, at end add:
      `If the panel determines that the complainant has not established a right under section 1 of this Act, the complainant shall have the right to appeal against that decision to the full Commission'.
      No. 75, in page 4, line 39, at end add:
      PART II
      The Press Commission Appeal Tribunal
      11. A panel of at least 3 Commissioners shall sit as necessary as the Appeal Tribunal to determine appeals.
      12. No member of the Commission shall be appointed to the Appeal Tribunal until at least six months after his appointment to the Commission.
      13. A person who is no longer a member of the Commission shall cease to be a member of the Appeal Tribunal
      14. The Secretary and other officers appointed under Part I of this Schedule to assist the Commission shall assist the Appeal Tribunal in carrying out its duties.'.
      Mr. Worthington: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be helpful if I say that I am willing to accept new clause 4 and amendment No. 75.
      Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) to speak to his new clause with that in mind.
      9.45 am
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful for what the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has said. However, I am in some difficulty because I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Slough (Mr. Watts) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) are not convinced that the new clause is necessary. I must, therefore, place on record the reasons why the new clause should be added to the Bill. In doing so, I hope that I can persuade them to join the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and me in supporting the new clause.
      I should make my position clear from the outset. I oppose the Bill, but I do not rise to defend the worst excesses of Fleet street and Wapping. I am not saying that everything is perfect with the British press. I remind the House that this is not merely a debating Chamber. It is a legislative Chamber. The House must consider what would happen if the Bill became law.
      In my view, the Bill is a dangerous threat to press freedom. It would undermine editorial direction and stifle investigative journalism. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is a barrister-at-law and I have to tell him that in my view a newspaper is more than a mere passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment and advertising. The choice of the material to go into a newspaper and decisions as to the limitations on size and content of the newspaper—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is trying to make a serious speech about new clause 4 in the face of barracking, noise and laughter. Press freedom is a serious matter. Press freedom is at stake. I want to hear what my hon. Friend is saying. [Interruption.] Opposition Members are shouting out, even now.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I hope that the House will listen to the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight).
      Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is moving his new clause, although my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has already said that he accepts it, so what is the point of making a speech about it?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get on with the debate.
      Mr. Greg Knight: As usual, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) can only be half awake at this hour in the morning. When I rose to my feet I made it clear that it is all very well for the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie to say that he accepts my new clause, but I know that there are serious reservations on the Conservative Benches about—[Interruption.] I am seeking to persuade—
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Skinner: He is being paid ·60,000 to come here this morning.
      Mr. Tebbit: I cannot imagine that anybody would ever pay the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) anything to turn up anywhere. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether you can hear me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on my point of order, but I could not hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) was saying because of the barracking of a number of Opposition Members who do not respect a free press and do not, furthermore, respect free speech in this House. Could you be so kind as to ensure that the debate is conducted in a manner in which I, at least, can hear what my hon. Friend is saying?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall get off to a good start on these important debates and that the House will listen to the hon. Member for Derby, North, who has the Floor.
      Mr. Knight: Before the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch appeared to have a fit, I was saying that a newspaper was more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment and advertising. The choice of material and the decisions about the size and content of a paper and the treatment of public issues, public officials and politicians, whether fair or unfair, involve the exercise of editorial control and judgment. I have yet to be convinced that Government regulation of that crucial process can be exercised consistent with a free press.
      Mr. Barry Field: My hon. Friend mentioned that some Conservative Members had expressed reservations about new clause 4. Does he agree that the Bill is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, given that there are 1,800 provincial newspapers, many of which are held in high regard in the constituencies of hon. Members on both sides of the House for the way in which they report local affairs?
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that when he has heard my arguments, he will decide that if we have to have the Bill it will be better with the addition of new clause 4. [Interruption.] Opposition Members keep

      565
      shouting that it has been accepted, but I will repeat for the third time that although the promoter of the Bill has been persuaded that he should accept new clause 4, I am surrounded by hostile hon. Friends who do not accept the need for new clause 4 and intend to divide the House. I am seeking to persuade my hon. Friends that they should not do that and that new clause 4 should be added to the Bill.
      Mr. Spencer Batiste: I understand that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is prepared to accept only amendment No. 75 and new clause 4, both of which I have put my name to and I am pleased that he is prepared to accept them, but the only basis on which the Bill would be acceptable to me would be if the other amendments in the group, providing for an appeal to the courts, were also accepted. If there is not to be an appeal to the courts, a radically different approach to the group of amendments and the issues they raise is necessary.
      Mr. Knight: I realise that I have to add my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) to the list of my hon. Friends who are unhappy about the new clause. I hope to persuade them otherwise during my speech.
      It would be easy for opponents of the Bill to take a negative attitude and merely seek to divide the House on Third Reading, but I hope that the House will realise that we are trying to be constructive and improve the Bill. If the amendments are accepted, I hope that the Bill will be more acceptable to the House.
      Before developing my argument in support of new clause 4, I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on the good-natured and fair way in which he steered the Bill through Committee. Even his opponents recognised his good nature and courtesy in Committee. He has been more good natured than some of my hon. Friends. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) will join us this morning, but ever since we concluded our proceedings in Committee, I have kept bumping into him in corridors and hearing him moan about the worst excesses of Fleet street. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of his company later.
      Although the Government have made it clear that they are neutral, I hope that two of my hon. Friends who are Ministers will attend the debate, and although they cannot take part, will join me in the Division Lobby. I am referring to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs, who has said that he agrees with most of my amendments to the Bill. I have not discussed the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but on reading through the Official Report, I noticed that during the debate on the Parking Bill he said:
      "I look forward to attending the historic towns forum that is to take place … However I may wish to return early so that I may be negatively neutral on the Right of Reply Bill. Given my job, if I had a formal right of reply, half the newspapers would be full of items explaining that they had misunderstood me. I am one of the more misunderstood Ministers".— [Official Report, 7 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 520.]
      Mr. Ian Gow: While on the subject of those who are misunderstood, what representations has my hon. Friend received from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
      Mr. Knight: I was rather surprised not to receive any representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I have not seen him in the House for quite some time, perhaps because the House has not been considering matters that the Government consider particularly contentious. Perhaps that is the reason for my right hon. Friend's absence.
      Mr. Watts: He is advertising cheese.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend the Member for Slough informs me that one of the reasons for my right hon. Friend's absence is that he is currently advertising cheese products on television.
      New clause 4 introduces the right of appeal, which can be exercised by either party against the press commission to a press commission appeal tribunal which may affirm the original decision or make any other determination. The new clause also gives the Secretary of State powers to make rules to regulate the practices and procedures to be followed in connection with appeals. My hon. Friends may ask why we need an appeals procedure. I remind the House that the Bill as drafted gives powers of High Court enforcement. I consider that the Bill's provisions for the hearing of evidence are entirely unacceptable, and that an appeals procedure should be provided.
      The Bill does not provide a right to be heard in person by the commission. It does not even provide a right to be legally represented, and parties are not required to give evidence under oath. Therefore, it is clear that there will be no right to cross-examination or to the examination of any relevant documents.
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting case, but will he address a fundamental point that worries me? The very first line of new clause 4 refers to the Secretary of State. Many Conservative Members are worried that because of the excesses of two or three national titles, the 1,850 regional daily and weekly newspapers, which do a good job and try to act responsibly, may be clobbered. Much as we regret the excesses of one or two national titles, Conservative Members are fundamentally committed to press freedom and we are not convinced that my hon. Friend's new clause, in fiddling around with the Bill, will in any way improve it or address that problem.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The main answer to his question is that the Bill should be opposed, but, as I said a few moments ago, we are considering a Bill on Report and I felt that it was more constructive to seek to alleviate some of the problems that the Bill will cause than simply to oppose it. My hon. Friend referred to clobbering the press. If he reads new clause 4, he will realise that it seeks to alleviate the clobbering of the press by providing a right of appeal.
      Mr. Watts: I have been listening very carefully to my hon. Friend's development of his argument. Subsection (1) of new clause 4 states that the appeal body should be composed of a panel of members of the commission. Is that not the same as having the right of appeal against the refusal of planning permission to a panel of members of the planning committee which refused the application in the first place? Is it not a vicious circle into which those who fall into the clutches of the commission will be bound ever more tightly? How will the appeal be independent? Is it not a mere charade and facade?
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend has been rather harsh in his criticism. One hopes that those appointed will be responsible and independently minded people who have some knowledge of the working of the newspaper industry and who, therefore, would exercise their judgment freely when asked to review a decision of the full commission.
      10 am
      Mr. Tebbit: I am not happy about new clause 4, because it seems merely to complicate the Bill without giving any real assurance of the freedom of the press. The debate is about appointing a press commission, not a right of reply board. I disagree with my hon. Friend over whether the commissioners, or whatever we choose to call them, should sit on appeals against their own judgments. I think, as my hon. Friend does, that the commissioners would be responsible men and women and, after all, it should not be my hon. Friend who is criticising this but Opposition Members. They claim frequently that there can be no proper appeal or investigation of matters, for example concerning the police, because the police conduct the inquiries themselves. We always say that the police, like the commissioners, are honourable men and women who can be trusted to do a proper job. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain how the appeals will be conducted. Will they be conducted with barristers, lawyers, and cross-examination? How will they work?
      Mr. Knight: I shall deal with my right hon. Friend's first point now and his other point later. I do not think that he chose a good analogy when he referred to complaints initiated against the police. In that instance, a police officer from another constabulary will carry out the investigation. I am not suggesting that editors from another newspaper should sit on the appeal board. It will consist of people appointed by the Secretary of State and they would not necessarily be editors who are currently in charge of a newspaper. Therefore, that point was not particularly valid.
      Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend has missed my point. The appeals procedure he is setting up is not for appeals against the view of editors but for someone who wants to appeal against the decision of the commissioners. Yet the commissioners will be sitting on that appeals board. The Bill stinks. The concept of commissioners being appointed by the state to govern the press is anathema to most Conservative Members. However, my hon. Friend missed my point and perhaps he will deal with it in a little more detail now.
      Mr. Knight: I understand my right hon. Friend's point. I would not envisage that a commissioner who sat on the original hearing would be one of the commissioners sitting on the appeal. If my right hon. Friend is thinking, "Well, new clause 4 does not say that", I should point out that the new clause makes it clear that there are to be rules laid down by the Secretary of State to determine the manner of the hearing of the appeals and other matters ancillary thereto.
      I am hoping—no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister will make it clear when he replies—that such things would be dealt with in the rules. I accept that there may be criticism and that some of my hon. Friends may think that I should have added the rules to the new clause. I thought that the matter should be reflected upon in the light of today's debate. Therefore, when I drafted the new clause
      568
      I wanted it to allow my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider our debate and then formulate the rules. I want to give my right hon. Friend some flexibility in the light of our proceedings.
      Mr. Gow: There is an important point to which my hon. Friend has not referred. Under new clause 4 some members of the commission will be allowed to hear an appeal. My hon. Friend has told the House that the commissioners will be appointed by the Secretary of State. However, when reference is made in the Bill to "Secretary of State" does that not mean any Secretary of State, so that, for example, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales could appoint commissioners? Why does my hon. Friend have greater confidence in the ability of the Secretary of State for Wales to choose commissioners than in his judgment on monetary and economic matters?
      Mr. Knight: If the commissioners were to be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, I hope that he would appoint my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, because it would at least give him something useful to do with his time.
      Clause 4(4) forces the commission to deal properly with any complaint. Hon. Members will know that it must give a decision within 28 days of receiving a complaint unless, according to the Bill,
      "it is not reasonably practicable to do so within that time limit."
      It does not say to whom it must be "reasonably practicable". Is it to one of the parties, both the parties, or the commission? The 28-day period does not allow time for correspondence, let alone consideration of the evidence.
      Mr. Batiste: My hon. Friend is coming to what I think is one of the fundamental flaws in the concept of the Bill and I am interested to know how he will deal with it. If there is a voluntary system, it could—though it does not in the case of the Press Council—operate quickly and effectively. When one moves, as the Bill does, in the direction of statutory rights, one needs statutory protection as well. As the role of the press commission develops, we shall lose all its informality, flexibility and potential for speed because of the inevitable need to protect the rights of both parties involved.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I think that he may be coming round to the view that there should be an appeals procedure to remedy any injustice that occurs. I hope that that is his ultimate conclusion.
      Mr. Batiste: My first preference would have been that the remedy should lie in an accelerated procedure to county courts in the first instance rather than to the press commission. Having regard to the strong feelings expressed in the Bill that matters should be dealt with through a press commission, I would go along with that as long as there is the opportunity to appeal within it and then the ultimate appeal to the courts.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful for that clarification.
      I remind the House that the commission is given further power to order a right of reply where it feels that a newspaper has not responded with sufficient urgency to allow the commission to make a judgment within 28 days of the receipt of the complaint. However, nowhere in the

      569
      Bill is there any definition of what is "sufficient urgency". The procedure contained in the Bill has nothing to do with justice but everything to do with making a quick decision.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: In order for justice to be done in such cases as would arise under the Bill, it is essential that there should be a speedy right of reply. A right of reply that happens months after the original statement is made will serve no useful purpose for the person who has been libelled by the newspaper. Therefore, I oppose the new clause because it will make the procedure even longer than the system proposed in the Bill. Speed is of the essence in any right of reply.
      Mr. Knight: We all agree with that. However, I hope that, in his pursuit of speed, my hon. Friend is not willing to sacrifice justice. That is my fear.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: That is all very well, but one has to look at what the Bill is seeking to achieve. It seeks to give somebody who has been accused in a factually incorrect manner of having done something, or of being something that he is not, a right of reply to put the opposite case. That is all the Bill is trying to achieve. My hon. Friend talks about justice. The amount of inaccurate rubbish that one reads in national newspapers these days is so appalling that surely it must be right for the House to take the view that somebody should be able to rebut it and that the editors of the newspapers should have a duty to publish that rebuttal.
      Mr. Knight: Yes, but I do not know from where people will be found to sit on the commission who are infallible. I am worried that the commissioners may make a mistake, and under the Bill as it is drafted no remedy is available, except an expensive legal process.
      Mr. Gary Waller: My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of justice, about which I entirely agree, but does he accept that it often tends to be expensive? Under the new clause, the appeal procedure being proposed will be expensive for not only appellants but defendants. Who will pay the costs of the appeal procedure? Who will pay the costs of newspapers against which complaints of little substance have been made?
      Mr. Knight: New clause 4 is far less expensive than some of the other appeal procedures, such as an appeal to the High Court.
      Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend realise that he is getting himself into an awful muddle? Supporters of the Bill, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), say that speed, simplicity and cheapness are of the essence. My hon. Friend is trying to impose a quasi-judicial appeal procedure on what should be a simple and rapid system.
      Mr. Knight: I am not in an awful muddle. I am trying to drive a course down the middle between my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who are on opposing sides. Surely we can achieve a compromise between no appeal procedure and the only available alternative of the High Court.
      Mr. Leigh: In trying to drive down the middle, is not my hon. Friend beginning to understand that the Bill is fundamentally flawed because it is impossible to drive a middle course? There must either be a legal procedure, which we have enjoyed in this country and which protects individual rights, or a statutory procedure. A quasi-judicial process cannot be imposed on a statutory procedure, which is the problem facing my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend and I are at one in our views of the Bill. Some of my hon. Friends may not have heard because of the racket emanating from the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, but at the outset I said that I opposed the Bill. New clause 4 finds a middle way and improves what I still regard as a defective Bill. My hon. Friend's excessive pleading for the existing system of justice is tinged by the fact that he is a member of the legal profession and may fear that if the new clause were passed it would deprive lawyers of their fat appeal fees. I say that, without malice, as a lawyer.
      Mr. Batiste: I am relieved that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) shares my concern about this matter. As a lawyer, I say that we do not wish to perpetuate the system, but from our long experience we know that injustice arises when one tries to take short cuts. One may be able to make summary decisions in many instances about a factual inadequacy, but in many circumstances the issues will be extremely complex, such as allegations of fraud or malpractice that fall short of criminality. I do not understand how a statutory procedure under which qualified lawyers cannot operate, which has no power to call evidence under oath and to subpoena witnesses or documents, can possibly achieve justice in such complex cases. The fabric of the Bill is based on simple cases and ignores the complex.
      Mr. Knight: I am not sure that my hon. Friend makes a good point. The new clause provides for new rules to be laid in due course. I expect them to contain requirements for the calling of witnesses and oral hearings at which witnesses can be cross-examined. We are debating not an investigation into complex fraud matters but a factual inaccuracy in a newspaper to which someone is seeking a right of reply.
      Mr. Batiste: If a newspaper implies, for example, that a second-hand car dealer has been guilty of malpractice, whether or not criminality is implied at the same time, the issues could be complex.
      Mr. Knight: I take my hon. Friend's point. When the rules are laid in due course, I expect them to make provision for the legal representation of both parties appearing before the tribunal. I hope that the Home Office will agree, but I believe that the rules should make such provision.
      10.15 am
      Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend accept that he is being a little naive in expecting that the issues that will fall to be determined by the commission will be clear cut? Surely there is hardly a newspaper in the country that would not be prepared to correct a simple and straightforward inaccuracy. Complaints will arise when facts are disputed and cannot be readily established. In such circumstances, the issues involved will be similar to those in a libel case.
      Mr. Knight: I am not sure that my hon. Friend is right. Contention will arise not just on whether a statement of fact is accurate but under clause 1(1)(1), which says that the factual inaccuracy must be such that
      "any reasonable person might deem to be damaging to the character, reputation or good standing of that person or body of persons."
      Most challenges will be to that part of clause 1(1).
      Mr. Lewis Stevens: Despite my hon. Friend's explanation, does he agree that the establishment of what is a fact is much more complex? Is it not true that in the Chamber, day after day, we dispute so-called facts? Will that not now be carried over into the press?
      Mr. Knight: According to the Oxford dictionary, a fact is something that is
      "certainly known to have occurred or be true".
      On appeal, it will be not a particular fact but the effect of a factual inaccuracy that will be in contention.
      Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend is in deep difficulty. Let us consider cases alleging misdoing in the City, such as insider trading. Initially, such accusations frequently surface in the press. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that if someone took such allegations to the press commission, required a newspaper to set the record straight and publish a correction, the commission would be able to come to a conclusion without an examination as rigorous as if someone were charged with a criminal offence and appeared at the Old Bailey? Such proceedings, especially given that my hon. Friend has said that lawyers should become involved, could go on not for days or weeks but for years, as some major fraud cases do. The press commission itself would not work, let alone the appeal committee of three unfortunate perhaps not legally qualified men or women sitting on an appeal, on a matter that already had been before the commission for two or three years.
      Mr. Knight: My right hon. Friend has raised an interesting point, especially as the Bill does not explain what the burden of proof before the commission should be. I have proceeded so far on the assumption that the person making the complaint would need to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt, but the commissioners may take a wholly different view. I accept what my right hon. Friend has said on that, but I should have thought that if the Bill became law, there would be an incentive for editors to ensure that they had the correct facts at their fingertips before they proceeded to publish an article. If they were unable to show that they had the factual details to hand, I would expect to see them lose before the commission and the right to reply to be given.
      Mr. Brian Wilson: No one expects anything better from the general run of the miserable rabble of mediocrities who are conducting this charade, but would the hon. Gentleman agree that it is sad and pathetic to find a former Secretary of State reduced to the level of Friday morning filibusterer? Could the hon. Gentleman arrange among his colleagues for a £10 a head whip round to give the former Secretary of State a sense of being of more central importance in life?
      Mr. Knight: I should not have given way to the hon. Gentleman. What is rather pathetic is that, although the Labour party has said that it supports the Bill
      572
      wholeheartedly, I observe that there are only a small number of Labour Members in the Chamber at he moment.
      Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend note the incongruity that Opposition Members argue that there should be a statutory right of reply against factual inaccuracies, vet they have advanced their case this morning only by heaping abuse on those who happen to disagree with them? Does my hon. Friend consider that there is some ambiguity in their approach which reinforces our real fear that the Bill is an Opposition attempt to gag the press?
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right. I shall now return to the argument I was developing a few moments ago. Despite the composition and powers of the commission under the Bill, no right of appeal is contained in it. The only appeal open to aggrieved parties would be by way of a judicial review in the High Court.
      Mr. Watts: I thought that my hon. Friend was going to elaborate further on his reply to our right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). My hon. Friend has left me confused about his view on the burden of proof required. He started by saying that the complainant would need to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the facts were as stated and that damage had been suffered. He then said that he would expect the newspaper to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it had a factual basis for its article. I thought that he left the matter in mid air because of the intervention by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). My hon. Friend leaves me up in the air. I am not clear what he considers should be the burden of proof when appeal is heard by the tribunal.
      Mr. Knight: The reason that I left my hon. Friend in the air was that the Bill leaves the issue in the air. The Bill is badly drafted and does not state what the burden of proof should be. I left the matter in the air because I was merely speculating about how the process might operate. My hon. Friend is right. Where does the burden of proof lie? Does it lie with the complainant or the newspaper? We do not know, because the Bill does not tell us. That is why I began my remarks by saying that I was opposed to the Bill. Its drafting is awful, because it does not resolve the issue. If it is the will of the House that, bad as it is, the Bill should proceed, we should graft onto it a right of appeal which may not be perfect but would seem to remedy some of the difficulties that would, undoubtedly, arise should the Bill become law.
      As I said before my hon. Friend the member for Slough intervened, the only way that someone could challenge a decision by the commission would be by applying for a judicial review. That is a wholly inappropriate method of appealing against decisions by the press commission. It would mean that a party would have to show that the commission had acted ultra vires, had misinterpreted the law, or acted wholly unreasonably in the circumstances. That cannot be to the benefit of either the complainant or the newspaper or periodical.
      I was delighted to see that point picked up by Mr.Bernard Levin in an excellent article in The Times on 18 April in which he said, referring to the press commission:
      "And the "judgements" of this kangaroo court are final: there is no form of appeal (for either side), and anyone who is dissatisfied by a ruling has no recourse other than to go to

      573
      the courts for judicial review, which inevitably means that only millionaires can afford to seek justice from this appalling contraption."
      Hear, hear. Mr. Bernard Levin has got it right. It is an appalling contraption and to allow an appeal only by way of a judicial review will not remedy the defects that the Bill's promoter, the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, talked about in Committee. He said that the Bill was intended to be a way of achieving cheap justice so that the common man could have the facts put right. If the Bill allows an appeal only by way of judicial review, only someone like Tiny Rowlands will be able to seek to have decisions overturned. The man on the Clapham omnibus will be left facing an injustice if the comission decides unfairly against him.
      Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend know of any appeal procedure in our jurisdiction where the members of the appeal tribunal are drawn from the court of first instance? Is that not the worrying and serious point that Conservative Members are trying to address? This is not a charade; it is a serious matter of press freedom and upsetting traditional judicial procedures. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is in the newspaper business himself—the working man's Murdoch, although he did not declare an interest. We are obliged to submit the Bill to the closest possible scrutiny. How can my hon. Friend meet the point that the members of the appeal tribunal made the decision in the first place? Does that conform with the principles of natural justice in this country? Of course not.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is rather overstating the case. I would not expect to see the panel for the appeal composed of those commissioners who took part in the original decision. Let me give an analogy. If a police officer is charged with a disciplinary offence, he has an ultimate right of appeal to the Home Secretary. It could be argued that the Home Secretary has an interest in the matter because he is responsible for the police in the first instance. My hon. Friend's fears are not as weighty as he would have the House believe. A system of appeals to review certain decisions is a familiar part of society today.
      Mr. Timothy Wood: I want to pursue the matter further. The analogy with the police is not satisfactory. It is suggested that of the 21 commissioners, three should be taken out. To speak about them as though they would be a wholly separate group, as one police force is separate from another, is wrong. The commission will be a small and coherent group of individuals. To say that three of them will question the decisions of the other 18 is an absurd proposition.
      Mr. Knight: It is not absurd. We are discussing intelligent and independently minded people who will have the interests of the press at heart and a desire to see justice done. The situation will not be as bad as my hon. Friend suggests.
      Mr. Leigh: We can only deal with the new clause as it appears on the amendment paper. It does not make it crystal clear that someone who has heard a case in the court of first instance will not also hear it on appeal. That is the fundamental problem. Could we not use the more
      574
      traditional way of going about things and provide for appeals to the High Court? Surely that would be preferable to people sitting in judgment on their colleagues.
      10.30 am
      Mr. Knight: As the debate proceeds, I realise that it was perhaps an error not to include in the new clause the rules that I envisaged that the Secretary of State would ultimately lay. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—
      Mr. Watts: That is not good enough.
      Mr. Knight: I would expect proper rules to be laid in due course to provide for a fair system of appeals. If that does not happen, there is no point in providing for rules to be laid in the first place.
      Mr. Watts: May I suggest to my hon. Friend a way out of this difficulty? Could he not table a manuscript amendment to make it clear that no commissioner who had taken part in the original proceedings should be allowed to be part of the panel that would consider an appeal against that decision? Might not that be a way forward if Mr. Deputy Speaker were prepared to accept a manuscript amendment at this stage?
      Mr. Knight: I am not prepared to table a manuscript amendment at this stage. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my theme and explain the reasons behind the new clause. Then, if I have not convinced him by the end of the debate, and if he wishes to table a manuscript amendment, I shall not seek to divide the House. I expect these matters to be properly dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in due course. On reflection, I do not think that it would be right and proper for me to set down the rules in the new clause, because the rules should be laid after careful consideration.
      Mr. Batiste: As my hon. Friend knows, I support new clause 4, although I have some reservations about the way in which it might work. If we decide against the initial court proposal, we should use the model of industrial tribunals and the employment appeal tribunals as a structure that would be generally acceptable in dealing with the matter. The difficulty that we face is that the membership of industrial tribunals is much more circumscribed than is provided for in the Bill and the membership of the employment appeal tribunals is drawn from an entirely different group of people, who do not sit at a court of first instance. Therefore, while I share my hon. Friend's belief that the Minister will come up with a procedure that works very well, it seems to me that the Bill would prohibit the Minister from putting in place a structure that has proved satisfactory elsewhere.
      Mr. Knight: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments about the structure of the Bill; it is a badly drafted Bill. I know that my hon. Friends are still not happy about this point, but the Home Office has experience in such matters. We have a system of immigration appeals with rules laid down by the Home Office, and I have every confidence in the ability of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to deal with the matter properly and fairly. I know that he will try to ensure that justice is done on appeal.
      The Bill provides for the press commission to issue guidance on the question of editorial standards.
      Mr. Tebbit: What?
      Mr. Knight: It is there in the Bill. I do not like it, any more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) likes it. The press commission's advice on such matters would be better received by the press if it arose from case histories that had been subject to scrutiny by the press commission appeal tribunal that the new clause seeks to establish.
      Mr. Batiste: I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to justify the new clause with reference to the later guideline provisions. An amendment in my name, which has been selected for debate, seeks to strike out that part of the Bill, which seems to me to lay down a framework for censorship.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right. I, too, would like that provision to be deleted from the Bill. I am proceeding on the assumption that that will not happen and that we are lumbered with it and I have tabled the new clause to make it more palatable.
      As I have said to my hon. Friends, there are precedents in the immigration procedure and the police disciplinary appeals procedure. I believe that there is also a system of appeal under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975.
      I take a fairly flexible view of the rules that I should expect my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to lay. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister—
      Mr. Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has made an important point. You will be aware that amendment No. 50 deals with a vital matter—the guidelines on editorial freedom. In view of the importance of that amendment, might it not be convenient if our proceedings on the new clause were suspended so that we could debate amendment No. 50? We could return to the new clause thereafter. Interesting though I find the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet is important. It goes to the core of the Bill and the points about which we are worried. We have limited time and we want to discuss these matters. Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider suspending our proceedings on the new clause and returning to it later?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we had better get on with the debate. If we proceed along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), we shall soon get into a great muddle.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have been extremely generous in giving way to my hon. Friends, and perhaps I should try to make some progress. I am delighted to see that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has entered the Chamber. I hope that he is here to give me his support on this important matter.
      Mr. Gow: Having welcomed my hon. Friend the member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), will my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Knight) now give way to him?
      Mr. Knight: If my hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to give way, even though he is wearing a rather garish jacket.
      Mr. Gow: I cannot allow that to pass without comment. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley is impeccably dressed, as always. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw his remarks.
      Mr. Knight: My remarks were not intended as a slur but merely a comment on the fact that my hon. Friend's taste is different from mine. I shall not get sidetracked into discussing my hon. Friend's dress. Perhaps I should not have made the remark in the first place.
      Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend has referred several times to the rules being laid by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He also referred by analogy to immigration appeals tribunals. But the control of the rules for those tribunals is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, and for a very good reason. Any proceedings before any appeal tribunal are, in essence, judicial proceedings and should come under the senior Law Officer in the Government—the head of the judiciary—and not a departmental Minister whose other responsibilities may well conflict with his duty to ensure that a free and fair judicial procedure is available as envisaged in the new clause.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not in Committee but on Report, and interventions must be brief.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is technically right when he says that the Lord Chancellor has responsibility. However, in drafting the new clause I took the view that, as the Bill deals with the press, and as responsibility for the press is clearly a matter for the Home Office, the Secretary of State for the Home Department would be the appropriate Minister to lay the rules.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I have been following my hon. Friend's argument closely. The process is as follows. The adjudication officers and the adjudication appeal tribunals are, indeed, appointed by the Lord Chancellor. That system was set up two years ago to show their distinct identity from the Home Office. The Home Office sets and puts the immigration rules before the House, and it is the job of the adjudicators, appointed by the Lord Chancellor's Department, to interpret those immigration rules.
      Mr. Knight: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He has shown that the drafting of the new clause is in order and is not as unusual as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough appeared to think.
      I now ask my hon. Friend the Minister several questions. I hope that, when he replies, he can confirm certain matters. Will it be feasible for the rules, when they are laid in due course, to contain provision for costs? I notice that in other matters in which there is a right of appeal the Secretary of State may direct that an appellant pay the whole or any part of his own costs. That is important to deter a frivolous appeal from the decision of the press commission. I hope that the rules will contain a provision to allow costs to be awarded—not necessarily in every case, but when it is right and proper to do so. When an appellant is found to have pursued a frivolous and worthless appeal, he should be condemned in costs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that it is possible to mention that point in the rules.
      Does my hon. Friend consider it appropriate—I certainly do—that the press commission should be

      577
      required to give written reasons for its appeal decisions? That is imperative. The rules under the police disciplinary procedure make it clear that an appellant may attend proceedings, conduct his appeal, or be represented. I hope that that matter will be covered in the rules. It is certainly my intention that anyone who wishes to pursue an appeal should be able to be represented by whomever he chooses —a friend, lawyer or, perhaps, someone else who has knowledge of the newpaper industry.
      Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is in order for the rules to require that the appellant or his representative may make oral or written representations in support of the appeal? I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the rules should state that the appellant may adduce evidence only if it is evidence which, for valid reasons, was not adduced at the original hearing. The appeal procedure should not be a complete re-hearing with new evidence without justification for its being admitted. Such a matter could be contained in the rules made by my hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Batiste: If an original hearing can be conducted on the basis of written representations only, one of the grounds of appeal would be that insufficient weight was given to certain aspects of evidence, or that a conflict between the written evidence given by both sides was inadequately determined and did not follow the weight of the facts. Would it be incumbent on the appeal tribunal to read evidence—perhaps first-hand evidence—on the subject? I hope that my hon. Friend will not suggest that that would be excluded.
      Mr. Knight: When I was considering the matter, I noticed that paragraph 26(6) of the 1985 police disciplinary regulations stated:
      "The appellant or his representative may make oral or written representations in support of the appeal but may only adduce evidence which could not have been adduced or which was not adduced for reasons which satisfy the person considering the appeal at the hearing at which the charge was found proved."
      We need a rule along those lines to prevent a sloppy complaint being made, an appeal being pursued, and evidence being produced on appeal which was readily available at the hearing of the initial complaint before the press commission but which, for no valid reason, was not produced.
      Mr. Batiste: I have great difficulty with that proposition. It is inherent in the conflict between having a voluntary procedure and moving to a statutory procedure. My hon. Friend said that he was trying to steer a middle course between the two. If we are trying to have something informal in which people do not need legal representation and have easy access to the press commission, as in many other tribunals, a complainant's initial stab will probably be inept and incomplete, and he may not put in the necessary evidence to do justice to his case.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend has taken us back to something with which the majority of Conservative Members agree. The Bill is sloppily drafted. It is a requirement that the chairman of an industrial tribunal is a legally qualified person. That being so, the chairman of the tribunal of first instance will guide an unrepresented complainant through his case and try to elicit information
      578
      which that person would not otherwise have put before the tribunal. The danger with the Bill is that there is no requirement for the chairman of the press commission to be a legally qualified person.
      10.45 am
      In that case, there may be the problem that the chairman of the press commission will not guide an unrepresented applicant through his case. There is a good argument for the Bill being amended—perhaps in another place—to make it a requirement that the chairman of the press commission is a lawyer. That being so, the problems which my hon. Friend envisages would not arise.
      Mr. Batiste: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Knight: I have given way a lot. I will give way again, but I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to develop my argument.
      Mr. Batiste: As drafted, the Bill specifies some aspects of the composition of the press commission, but it does not specify a legally qualified chairman. Consequently, when my right hon. Friend lays down the rules, he would not be able, in secondary legislation, to specify that the chairman of the commission, panel, or appeal must be a lawyer.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is right to a point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would not be able to interfere with the chairmanship of the press commission, but, in laying the rules for the hearing of an appeal, he probably could insist that the chairman of the appeal tribunal should, if possible, have legal qualifications. That could be written in the rules. I agree that it would have been far better if the Bill had that requirement in it.
      Mr. Leigh: What worries me about what my hon. Friend is saying is that, on a Friday morning, in a throwaway line, he starts laying down rules of evidence. He said that what has not been heard at first instance should not be heard on appeal. As a lawyer, is my hon. Friend aware that the rules of evidence in ordinary judicial courts have taken seven centuries to develop? We will have a voluntary system, a statutory system, or a system of common law. I return to my original point, which I made nearly an hour ago. My hon. Friend is in a muddle.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is a lawyer. I do not know whether he has a blue bag or a red bag. If he has a red bag, it should be taken from him, and he should be given back the blue bag. He has not been listening to what I have been saying. I am not trying to lay down rules of evidence. I ask my hon. Friend to read new clause 4. I have made provision for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be able to lay rules in due course. I am seeking to elicit from my hon. Friend the Minister what sort of rules he envisages being laid. I am giving him some suggestions.
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Knight: I shall give way in a moment, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not make a frivolous intervention. I have given way many times today. No one can accuse me of being ungenerous. However, I want to make progress because there are many other amendments to consider.
      I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that I am seeking today not to

      579
      lay down rules of evidence but to make the point that the Secretary of State should be given the power to determine in due course what rules should be made for the appeals commission.
      The police disciplinary regulations 1985 state:
      "The person considering the appeal may in his discretion admit written evidence which would not be admissible but for this paragraph but which would have been admissible if given orally."
      I hope that such a rule will be included in the proposed legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet says, we must be flexible and take account of the unrepresented appellant who may, for example, produce documents but forget to ensure the attendance of the author of those documents as a witness.
      Mr. Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are throughout the country many people who are deeply aggrieved by the way in which the British popular press operates? Radio 4 carried an excellent item this morning about the way in which the people or Liverpool have been maligned by The Sun journalists in particular and others from the Murdoch empire. Many of those who have been maligned are looking to Parliament today to provide them with an avenue of redress. I refer to ordinary people—not wealthy people or public figures—who look to Parliament to provide them with redress against the gross misuse of power by many sections of the media, including the Murdoch empire.
      Many of those people who will be reading of this debate in tomorrow's newspapers will realise that the hon. Gentleman has made a crude attempt to filibuster on behalf of the Murdoch moguls and the Murdoch empire to prevent ordinary people from having redress against gross injustices by the press. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that ordinary people who are maligned, misrepresented and lied about by journalists should have the right of redress against the media's abuse of power? Why does not the hon. Gentleman bring his contribution to an early close so that other right hon. and hon. Members may contribute to the debate and so that the House will have an opportunity to vote on this important matter?
      Mr. Knight: The only crude part of my contribution was my reference to the jacket being worn by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, which I withdrew.
      I did not notice the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) in his place when I started moving new clause 4, so I assume that he missed my opening remarks. I am sorry that he is delaying the proceedings even further, because he compels me en passant to repeat my opening comments. I am not here to defend the worst excesses of Fleet street or of Wapping. However, this is not merely a debating Chamber—we are considering legislation. Even if we accept that the press makes mistakes and that reports appear in the press that are not right, the House has a duty to ask today, "Is this the kind of legislation we want to see on the statute book?" My answer is a resounding no. Having said that, right hon. and hon. Members opposed to the Bill have a duty to be positive and not negative. That is why I seek to graft on to the Bill a right of appeal.
      As to the many thousands of people throughout the country that the hon. Gentleman says want something to be done about press abuse, I will gladly let the hon. Gentleman know the address and telephone number of Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, the new chairman of the Press Council, because the public can pursue such matters
      580
      through the avenue of a complaint to the council. I have every confidence in Mr. Blom-Cooper, who has made it clear that he wants to revamp the council and make it more effective. He should be given a chance to do just that.
      Mr. Batiste: We all share resentment of abuses by some sectors of the press. I can see how the Press Council could provide a remedy against biased or overstated reporting in the tabloid press, but I cannot see how the Bill as drafted could provide any remedy for the people of Liverpool.
      Mr. Roger King rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.
      Mr. Knight: To save time, I gladly give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King).
      Mr. King: In Committee, we argued at great length in an attempt to sharpen the Bill. However, the intervention of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) highlights one point to which we have never been given a satisfactory answer. Perhaps my hon. Friend's proposed appeals procedure will deal with this point. I refer to the criticism that the people of Liverpool are unable to seek redress. Would they be able to do so as a body of persons?
      Mr. Knight: If I address new clauses 1 and 2, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would rebuke me. The Bill refers to
      "A person or a body of persons"
      —meaning an unincorporated association, or a company. One of the other fears shared by many of my hon. and right hon. Friends is that a political party would be able to seek a right of reply. As I understand it, an organisation such as the IRA would be allowed to seek a right of reply to what it regarded as an insulting article. At the end of the day, I should like to see the Bill defeated.
      Mr. Martin Flannery: All kinds of people have said all manner of things about the Hillsborough tragedy, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick). I have tried to have my comments reported in the press, but I have not managed to do that. The hon. Member for Hallam made a disgraceful statement that was reproduced in The Sun on a major scale. The Sun maintains that its report is true. How can we enjoy any redress if moguls such as Murdoch do not allow it? The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) is making remarks on behalf of people like Murdoch.
      Mr. Knight: I know that Opposition Members enjoy criticising Rupert Murdoch but it is stretching things a bit far to criticise The Sun for accurately reporting the comments of a Member of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) must answer for his own remarks. If the hon. Gentleman is upset by my hon. Friend's remarks, I hope that he will seek to clarify them. However, we cannot criticise the press for accurately reporting hon. Members' remarks.
      Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) make extremely important points. There is undoubtedly a great deal of hurt and indignation felt on all sides about reports that have appeared in may sections of the press about the Hillsborough tragedy. An inquiry into

      581
      that disaster has been commissioned, and it will eventually produce a report and set out what it believes to be the facts. The Bill will require the press commission, within 28 days of receiving a complaint of the type that the hon. Member for Hillsborough might strongly feel justified in making, to reach a conclusion as to the facts of the matter. It would have the power to force a newspaper to publish "facts" that subsequently might be found to be not the true facts. This is a perfect example of the dilemma that I put to my hon. Friend earlier.
      Mr. Knight: There is not one hon. Member who regards Hillsborough as anything but a disaster. We are all upset about those who lost their lives, and feel sorrow for their families. There is a good case for maintaining a dignified silence about that tragedy until the inquiry has reported. If it reveals that the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam—who is not in his place—were incorrect, I am sure that he will be the first to clarify the position.
      Mr. Watts: Can my hon. Friend tell me from his reading of the Bill whether a disputed opinion reported in a newspaper, such as the comments attributed to our hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick), could be considered a factual inaccuracy affecting a person or body of persons, which could include the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)? My understanding is that it could not. If the newspaper had reported accurately what our hon. Friend said, it cannot be guilty of a factual inaccuracy. Other hon. Gentlemen may have a different opinion, but I cannot see that the Bill would give any redress to the sort of grievance raised by the hon. Member for Hillsborough. Perhaps a sponsor of the Bill would like to seek your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene and clarify the point. It is of considerable interest as two hon. Gentlemen have intervened on the misunderstanding that the Bill would provide redress in those circumstances.
      11 am
      Mr. Knight: I accept the concern of hon. Gentlemen about the Hillsborough tragedy and it is shared by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is right. The Bill would not help in those circumstances. As I said in my first reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), if The Sun accurately reported what an hon Member said, there would be no remedy under the Bill. It is for hon. Members to argue in the House about the opinions expressed.
      I am being waylaid into irrelevancies. The Bill is not relevant to that tragedy. I hope to convince the House that if we must have the Bill, we should have an appeals procedure included in it. I know that I have convinced the promoter but that some of my hon. Friends are uneasy about having the Bill at all. I ask them to agree that, if the Bill is to become law, we shall improve it by adding an appeals procedure to it.
      Mr. Roger King: I shall welcome some clarification. My hon. Friend's new clause suggests that the claimant would have to go through the right of reply adviser and the press commission, and that if he was not satisfied with the result, he could take his case to appeal. If the applicant had gone to the adviser who had said that he did not have a case, but, as in the recent football tragedy, that person or body
      582
      of persons felt that they had a case and went to the press commission, which would not accept the case, could they go through the appeals procedure? If those two bodies ruled against his case, could a claimant make an appeal?
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is under some sort of misapprehension about the role of the right of reply adviser. I do not see him as an adjudicator. Clause 5 makes it clear that he is there in the capacity of a sort of Official Solicitor to give advice on how to present a complaint and to assist with it. I do not envisage his having a role in telling someone whether he may pursue his complaint for a right of reply. I think that the intervention was somewhat misplaced.
      The right of reply will exist and it will be for the person who makes the complaint to prove that a factual inaccuracy has occurred that has damaged his good standing. If the commission rejects his complaint, although he has had the advice of the right of reply adviser, he would still be at liberty to pursue an appeal. The right of appeal should not be fettered in any way. Perhaps my hon. Friend is thinking of the need for leave to take a case to the House of Lords. This appeals procedure would not work in that way. A complainant, whether a member of the public or a newspaper, will have an absolute right to appeal to the appeals tribunal. Nothing should fetter that right and nothing does fetter that right as the new clause is drafted.
      I would expect the rules to provide that, where a frivolous appeal was pursued, there would be power to order costs.
      Mr. Stevens: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Knight: I want to draw my remarks to a close, but I give way for the last time.
      Mr. Stevens: My hon. Friend is talking about factual inaccuracies. The Bill seems to be limited to factual inaccuracies, but part of the problem may be an omission. Selective reporting of facts or a speech causes the same difficulties, but my hon. Friend does not seem to cover that.
      Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has pinpointed a defect in the Bill. An omission could not be called a factual inaccuracy, so there would be no right of complaint.
      This is a bad Bill and I should like to see it defeated, but if we must have it there should be a right of appeal in it. Surely that is reasonable. I hope that the House will reject amendments Nos. 33, 91 and 100. Resort to the courts is superficially attractive, but it would be too slow and too costly. If we include an appeals procedure, the appeals tribunal would specialise and would gain expert knowledge of the matters relating to the Bill. As I said at the outset, I hope that the tribunal will be composed of people with a genuine interest in seeing a healthy press.
      I hope that the House will support my new clause, which is reasonable. I notice that the promoter had the good grace at the outset to accept this change, so I hope that we shall not divide and that the House will accept the new clause.
      Mr. Worthington: This morning it has been disappointing to see the tactics used by the opponents of the Bill. Many people are sick of the excesses perpetrated by some sections of the press and look to the House to tackle the

      583
      issue seriously. It is most disappointing that those who are being obstructive are acting on behalf of people who are virtually journalistic thugs.
      Mr. Batiste: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Worthington: I will not play the same games as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight). I want to advance the debate.
      I freely accept that there could be a good case for introducing an appeals procedure. What is most important is that the procedure is quick and deals with relatively simple issues. The Bill provides redress for factual inaccuracies in order to deal with some of the excesses.
      I am aware of the risks of interfering with press freedom, but if the press lie, that is a diminution of freedom. If someone with a megaphone shouts, his view will be heard and the person with only his own voice will be drowned out. Rupert Murdoch with a megaphone would be a menace, but Rupert Murdoch in control of large sections of the press is a considerable threat to freedom.
      Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not intend to take interventions during his speech, as is his right. That being the case, many of us may wish to make speeches in order to deal with points that might otherwise have been dealt with in questions to him. I sincerely hope that in those circumstances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, should any requests be made to you by the sponsors of the Bill artificially to terminate the debate, you will bear that point in mind.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The whole House knows that the Chair does not anticipate hypothetical situations.
      Mr. Worthington: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The issue of freedom is important. The Bill is centrally concerned with the wrongful exercise of power by the press, but it is my belief that, if we could lay down a yardstick or a benchmark of accuracy, many of the other faults—perhaps of distortion or of bullying—could also be dealt with. Almost every story about which people have complained has had within it that essence of inaccuracy.
      I know full well that the Bill does not tackle everything that is wrong with the press at present. That is why I hope that during the debate Conservative Members will allow the Minister to speak, but by their tactics they are denying the Minister that opportunity. I hope that the Minister will respond to what has been the great success of the Bill, which is that it has brought the issue of press abuse of power into the centre of politics. Conservative Members who have spoken are aligning themselves with some very dubious characters, who are abusing their constituents, who are at present subject to the unfettered use of power. The disgraceful thing is that this country is supposed to be a democracy, but, to me, democracy means equality before the law. A feudal state is one in which there are different laws for different classes of people. When it comes to defamation and abuse of the people we have a feudal state, because there is no chance of the ordinary person getting redress from the law. The Minister and Conservative Members have ignored that. Conservative Members have not attempted in this Bill, or at any other time, to address that fundamental denial of civil liberties.
      Mr. Waller rose—
      Mr. Worthington: I shall not give way. It is time for Conservative Members to listen. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about our right of reply?"] The right of reply will come to Conservative Members in due course.
      What Conservative Members are ignoring and are giving no appeal against are the kinds of abuse that have been occurring in recent years. In recent times we have heard a lot about how there should be investigative journalism. I would accept that fully, but one of the things that has not happened is investigative journalism by the press of the press. There has been a concealing of some of the outrages that have occurred. One can take as an example the tragic case of Russell Harty. When he was on his death bed window cleaners were being bribed so that cameramen could take pictures of what was happening.
      Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is giving us his views on why we should pass his Right of Reply Bill today, but, in fact, we are debating new clause 4, which is about a press commission appeal tribunal. The hon. Gentleman's points have nothing to do with the new clause. I should have thought that, having heard my hon. Friend from Derby, North (Mr. Knight) and if he approves of the clause, he would be anxious to conclude.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is the promoter of the Bill. I am giving him the opportunity to paint the picture before he comes to the new clause, which I am sure he is about to do.
      11.15 am
      Mr. Leigh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) dealt specifically with the new clause, which concerns a narrow issue, and much of the debate has been about the legal implications. What we have now is a crude attempt by the promoter of the Bill to get into the tabloid press by talking about Russell Harty. Are we to have a serious debate on the new clause or not?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given the hon. Gentleman a hint, and I am sure that he is now about to come to the new clause.
      Mr. Worthington: I am trying to establish why, in the kind of cases we are dealing with, a right of reply to a matter of factual inaccuracy is important, why we do not have that right at present and why we accept the case for there to be an appeal within the framework of the press commission. We should look at the kinds of cases that have occurred and see that behind them is the fundamental issue of inaccuracy. I was referring to the case of Mr. Russell Harty, when window cleaners were bribed to allow photographs to be taken of a ward, attempts were made to steal doctors' records, there were impersonations of doctors and nurses and there was a hounding of suffering relatives and friends. Conservative Members are defending people who take such action. They are failing to set up a procedure, through the press commission, that would allow an appeal against such press behaviour.
      Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman brings it on his own head, because he will not give way. The hon. Gentleman appears to be speaking to an entirely different Bill from the one that I have in front of me. I wonder whether there has

      585
      been a procedural error and he has a different document. None of the circumstances he has mentioned is relevant to the Bill in front of us.
      Mr. Flannery rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will leave matters of order to the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is now addressing himself to the new clause.
      Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) has intervened repeatedly, as, indeed, have other Conservative Members. They are filibustering. They are trying to stop the democratic procedure in the Chamber by hounding my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington), who has introduced the Bill. That is entirely in line with the way in which Conservative Members are defending the people who own the press.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has been said so far is in order. It is my job to ensure that the rules of order are observed. The hon. Gentleman has assured me that he is about to address his remarks more closely to the new clause.
      Mr. Worthington: Once again, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Certainly, I want to demonstrate why I think we should have, as the new clause proposes, a better appeals procedure. The Press Council, which is the present appeals procedure, is inadequate because its methods are extremely faulty. What I am proposing—aligned with the proposal of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight}—would be infinitely better. At present, about 1,700 or 1,800 appeals against press misconduct go to the Press Council each year and of those about 4 or 5 per cent. are upheld. About 850 to 900 simply disappear each year, because people see that there is no point in taking their cases to a body that is so steered towards the needs of the press. A press commission would be a much fairer and more open system of appeal. I am happy to add to that proposal the further tier proposed by the hon. Member for Derby, North. When one considers the kind of bias that is implicit in the Press Council's judgments, it is clear that we must have a better system of appeal.
      One Press Council judgment, which I cited to the Committee, illustrates the need for a better system of appeal. A school felt that it had been abused by a local newspaper and the head teacher refused to talk to the paper because her experience was that its reporters distorted what she said. The Press Council judgment, against which there is no appeal, stated:
      "the Press Council deplores the practice of some schools, education authorities and local authorities in refusing to speak to particular newspapers or answer their inquiries. Organisations which do so have little ground for serious complaint if inaccuracies are published in good faith as a result of their absence."
      In other words, if someone's experience is that a paper distorts what he has said and he therefore decides not to speak to that paper, any subsequent inaccuracies are his fault. That is an outrage. There is no appeal against such judgments and that is why we need a less biased approach.
      586
      Another example of the present lack of appeal procedures and the biased practices of the Press Council may amuse some hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) appealed to the Press Council about an article in the Sunday Express, which said:
      "Three times in the previous 14 days Mr. Brown, Labour MP for Leith, telephoned the home of Chris Moncrieff, political editor of the Press Association. Each time he reversed the charges from Kabul in Afghanistan at £9.37 a time. Twice Mr. Moncrieff was out and his wife answered, but the third time Mr. Brown got through. He asked Mr. Moncrieff to tell the Labour Whips the weather was bad in Afghanistan and that he might not be back in time for Monday's vote on the Scottish Housing Bill. Mr. Moncrieff was as speechless as he must now be penniless."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leith legitimately appealed against that press story on the grounds that he had not reversed telephone charges three times from Kabul. The Press Council, however, found against him and upheld the report. It was only because my hon. Friend forced the Press Council to reconsider its decision and forced Mr. Moncrieff to produce his telephone bill, which showed no report of any reversed charges from Kabul, that his appeal was upheld. Currently, there is no right of appeal on a Press Council decision, but somehow my hon. Friend got his case reopened. It is necessary to have a right of appeal in such cases.
      Mr. Waller rose—
      Mr. Worthington: I shall give way just to give myself a breather.
      Mr. Waller: The hon. Gentleman has quoted from the Press Council report. It is clear from that report that only 10 per cent. of complaints relate to matters of accuracy. The hon. Gentleman said that most cases have something to do with inaccuracy, but that is not correct, because far more cases refer to matters of taste and decency.
      Mr. Worthington: For the past few months I have gone through the annual reports of the Press Council. I have only been able to look at a limited number of adjudications and in the majority of cases it is clear that the press report has been built upon inaccuracy. From that basis issues of distortion, taste and privacy follow.
      If I had introduced a Bill that gave a right of reply on reports relating to distortion, taste and so on as well as inaccuracy, Conservative Members would have said that it was unworkable. I believe that things have reached such a state in the press that it is necessary to demand that the press be accurate—that is a minimal demand. If the press is not accurate, there should be a statutory right of reply, because, at present, the press has gone too far.
      Because of the present inadequate system it is necessary to establish a press commission and an appeals procedure. The Government have asked us to trust the Press Council to reform itself. The very people who have stood by while press standards have plummeted are now to be entrusted with the job of pulling the press up by its boot straps. I have immense respect for Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, but even he is rather daunted by the messianic powers that are now being attributed to him.
      It is regrettable that the representatives of the press proprietors have not given the type of undertakings that would make it possible to withdraw the Bill. What have we heard from News International? There is an interesting

      587
      leader in The Daily Telegraph of this morning which says that standards of modern journalism rest overwhelmingly in one or two people's hands:
      "Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Maxwell, who own most—though not quite all—of the newspapers which give rise to most offence, could change the scene tomorrow, if they chose. The power lies with them."
      Mr. P. Rack is the representative of News of the World and News International on the Press Council, but what has he said about what that group will do in future to ensure the achievement of higher standards? He has said absolutely nothing. There is no credibility in the belief that the Press Council will be able to reform itself, because we have had no such undertakings from our major newspapers. The most cynical thing that has happened recently has been the appointment of an ombudsman by The Sun—he is its managing editor. Some of my hon. Friends may think that that is a joke, but it is no joke because that man represented The Sun when the Press Council investigated the infamous Ealing rape case story.
      Mr. John Browne rose—
      Mr. Worthington: No, I will not give way.
      What happened with the Ealing rape case demonstrates why it is necessary to have a better appeals procedure. The Press Council said:
      "four days after the attack, this front view full length, photograph occupied three full columns on the front page. It showed her leaving church after a service the previous day. On the photograph her features had been obscured by a black line or label masking the eyes. The story with it began by identifying but not naming her and went on
      `raped in her home prayed yesterday'
      Its second paragraph described her as a pretty, dark-haired girl, identified the vicar's church precisely, and defined their relationship."
      Mr. Greg Knight: It was accurate, then.
      Mr. Worthington: I will come to that point in a moment.
      11.30 am
      The managing editor of The Sun said
      "that the paper did not consider use of the picture tasteless and would not have published had it had thought so. Rape was a sordid and callous crime which The Sun believed it was its duty to present in a way that illustrated contempt for 'these savages'. The letter said that the picture was published to show the victim's 'ordinary, girl-next-door qualities'. It was never their intention to upset, annoy or cause offences to the victim or their readers, and if they had they were sorry."
      That is what was said by The Sun's ombudsman. What undertaking has been given by its representatives on the Press Council that it will abide by the findings of the Press Council in the future? The Press Council's code on privacy is broken daily and repeatedly, and a reformed Press Council would be acting on that. Intrusions into privacy occur every day in the press. There must be a better system than the Press Council, which cannot deliver: there must be an appeal procedure.
      The Government's silence on the issue has been disturbing. As a result, abuses of people in the press have been allowed. A fortnight ago a leaked report appeared in two newspapers, The Guardian and The Independent:
      "Minister backs press law review".
      The Minister, to his credit, admits that the tabloid journals have reached a very low level. But two weeks ago he was considering a comprehensive review of press law, including such issues as right of reply, confidentiality, defamation, the abuse of press power and other matters that currently
      588
      concern us. It was wrong of him to leak that to the press, and I hope that he will now make a statement about the Government's present proposals.
      Mr. Renton: The silence of the Government is about to be broken yet again.
      I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on the eloquent way in which he spoke to new clause 4. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), for Slough (Mr. Watts), for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and for Nuneaton (Mr. Stevens) for their useful interventions, which, I think, helped my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North to elaborate on a number of points. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) did not include the idea of an appeals tribunal in the first draft of his Bill, but we have had a useful discussion about it this morning.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North talked about "misunderstood Ministers". I should confess that I have a personal interest in ensuring that the Bill, however flawed I may think it, passes into law. I was promoted from Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to Minister of State some four years ago. The next day I picked up The Times expecting to read a glowing description of this meteoric rise in my career, the Prime Minister's perceptiveness in promoting me, and so forth. The larger part of the article about my promotion, however, concentrated on the fact that I had once portrayed Great-Uncle Bulgaria in "The Wombles of Wimbledon Common".
      Unfortunately, The Times had got the wrong Tim Renton. I was never Great-Uncle Bulgaria in "The Wombles of Wimbledon Common". I therefore telephoned Julian Haviland, whom many of us remember as an extremely good, unbiased political editor of The Times, and told him what had happened, in tones of great indignation. He was extremely apologetic and assured me that the matter would be put right. Sure enough, the next day, tucked away at the bottom of page 23 or 27, was a tiny passage of three lines, saying something like "The report of Mr. Renton's career in the pop industry was inaccurate."
      Under the Bill, I would have had an obvious claim to take to the press commission. I decided, in fact, that what the paper had said was not damaging to my career; indeed, I thought that it probably enhanced my prospects. There was, however, a sidelight. Among my new responsibilities at the Foreign Office was the post of Minister with duties relating to Hong Kong.
      Those in Hong Kong always regard the Minister involved simply as "their man": he is the Hong Kong Minister. Some weeks later I discovered that papers such as the South China Morning Post had run headlines stating "New Hong Kong Minister ex-pop star". Perhaps they went even further and stated "Ex-Great-Uncle Bulgaria new Hong Kong Minister"—which must have puzzled the Chinese a good deal.
      Moreover—here is the rub—the Hong Kong papers never noticed the tiny correction in The Times. Throughout the two years for which I had responsibility for Hong Kong, it was assumed that I was, indeed, an ex-Great-Uncle Bulgaria. That may have caused some of the difficulties in the subsequent relations between the United Kingdom Government and Hong Kong: I do not know. Clearly, however, I had a good case for the press commission, and one that could go to the appeals tribunal

      589
      suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North—and what a lovely can of worms that would have opened.
      My hon. Friend argued his case very well. As has been pointed out, one of my other responsibilities at the Home Office is immigration and nationality. In that context, there is an extensive system of appeals, run not by the Home Secretary but by the Lord Chancellor. Decisions made by the immigration authorities can, as we know, have a profound effect on individuals and their families, and for that reason it was considered appropriate to introduce and continue an appeals framework.
      It could be argued that decisions made following a complaint to the Press Council also have a profound effect on the lives of individuals, families and organisations. I can well understand that, given the potential importance of the council's decisions, an appeals machinery to review such decisions would be appropriate.
      Let me give an example from immigration records to illustrate why the appeals tribunal is so helpful. It is an instance of fact blurring into interpretations of an event by parties who are in disagreement. A Member of Parliament rings my office and complains that a young lady carrying certificates of hairdressing qualifications has been refused entry as a visitor at the airport. The immigration officer has decided, on the basis of the certificates, that she has come to this country not as a visitor but to work. The Member of Parliament has been told, however, that the certificates are simply being carried by a visiting relative to be proudly displayed to her hosts as proof of her qualifications in the country from which she has come. That is just the sort of case in which an immigration appeals tribunal that could have a further and second look at the executive decisions of immigration officers can be a valuable safeguard.
      Mr. Harry Cohen rose—
      Mr. Renton: I see the hon. Member rising to his feet and I know that he wants to ask me a question about the immigration appeals tribunal. I would much rather get on and talk about the press, but I shall give way.
      Mr. Cohen: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The kind of appeals tribunal to which the Minister refers would be absolutely worthless. In the case to which he referred the girl would be deported. The Minister would not interfere with the immigration officer's decision. She could appeal only in the country from which she came. The procedure that the Minister wants to include in the Bill would be useless.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman's Pavlovian reaction to my remark was exactly the one that I had expected. The appeals tribunal's function is to review Home Office decisions. It is no longer the duty of Ministers to interfere with those decisions. That change has been widely welcomed by a large majority of hon. Members.
      I do not intend to elaborate on the rules that might support the appeals tribunal. If my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North cares to write to me about it, should the matter progress further, we could then look carefully together at the rules.
      I share the general approval, expressed in the Chamber and in Committee, of the good-humoured manner in
      590
      which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has approached this difficult subject. His good humour seemed to be in danger of cracking for a few minutes this morning, but he quickly re-established his normal equilibrium. I wholly understand and sympathise with the concern that has been expressed about the excesses of the national press, particularly the tabloid press. There is worry about doorstepping, intrusion into people's private lives, persistent trick questioning, the taking of secret photographs and the harassment of ordinary people, especially at times of distress when they are least able to cope. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said that lots of people were sick about the way in which the press behave. I agree. However, despite the deliberations in Committee, the Bill is still fundamentally flawed.
      The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie praised the new chairman of the Press Council, Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper. I remind him of the first paragraph of an article in The Times today that was written by Mr. Blom-Cooper. It says:
      "The nuts and bolts of the Right of Reply Bill have been widely demonstrated to be utterly impracticable — The proposed legislation is also fundamentally flawed, however, in seeking for the first time to regulate the content of a newspaper by law."
      There is no point in the hon. Gentleman praying in aid the chairman of the Press Council as a supporter of the Bill. He is not. He regards the Bill as fundamentally flawed. Even the National Union of Journalists believes that it is flawed. [Interruption.] What a pity that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), who is a member of the National Union of Journalists and who was here earlier, has left the Chamber. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) should know that the NUJ has said that it is determined to regain membership of the Press Council as part and parcel of that more effective structure that Mr. Blom-Cooper is trying to organise. I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that development.
      Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Renton: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish this point.
      The NUJ considers that the Bill is flawed. It may believe in a statutory right of reply but it has made it abundantly plain that it does not consider that this Bill is the right vehicle for it.
      Mr. Wilson: Many NUJ members, including me, do not wish to be protected if we pursue mendacity. All that the Bill does is to remove the right to make factual inaccuracies—in many cases very hurtful and damaging inaccuracies. That is not a press freedom which I or any other responsible journalist wishes to maintain.
      Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point. It leads me to exactly the next point that I want to make.
      The Bill would certainly allow a correction to be enforced legally where necessary. However, let us examine the point more closely. The Bill's title is somewhat misleading. It does not create a right of reply. Such a term implies a right for an individual to state his case or to respond to published material—factual or not, inaccurate or not—in the same publication.
      What, however, does the Bill offer? It creates a right to correct inaccurate statements of fact in published material,

      591
      provided that the complainant can establish first, that the material was factually inaccurate, secondly, that the factual inaccuracy affected him personally and, thirdly, that any reasonable person might deem that inaccuracy to be damaging to his character, reputation or good standing —in other words, that it is defamatory.
      11.45 am
      Even leaving aside the notorious difficulty of drawing a clear line between fact, comment and opinion and the further problem of proving that a statement of fact is inaccurate and defamatory, it seems to me that the Bill will eventually only allow a satisfactory reply to unfair reporting in a small number of cases.
      Mr. Bruce Grocott: Can the Minister explain the constantly recurring problem of what is and what is not fact, which we can all understand causes difficulty? He, as a Home Office Minister, is responsible for, among other things, all the Broadcasting Acts, which lay down specifically that responsibility must be taken for factual accuracy. That is spelt out in the programme guidelines throughout the broadcasting media. How is it possible for the Minister, who is responsible for regulations that make for better broadcasting standards, to say that they are inapplicable to the press?
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman destroys his own case. There is much discussion and criticism now of broadcast documentaries that have acquired the name of "faction" because they are a mix of fact and fiction. Many people believe that that is a bad trend within many reportedly factual documentaries.
      Mr. Grocott rose—
      Mr. Renton: I think that I should make progress. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss broadcasting on other days.
      I want to take up the point about the dividing line between fact, comment and opinion. If, for example, we become involved in a legal suit, we believe that the facts are all on our side. The other side believes that the facts are all on its side. There is no agreement about where the facts lie. As to the borderline between fact and opinion, if the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) went into a restaurant and said afterwards—and it was reported in the press—"The food was not fresh and the service was awful", would that be fact or opinion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Opinion."] Others would say that it was fact.
      Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Renton: No. We went into this matter in great detail in Committee. There is a borderline between fact, comment and opinion.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Renton: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie.
      Mr. Worthington: The Broadcasting Act 1981 set up the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The commission was given responsibility to stop unwarranted intrusions into privacy. However, that responsibility was not defined. If the Minister can give the Broadcasting Complaints
      592
      Commission such a difficult concept to deal with, why would it not be possible for a press commission to deal with the much simpler issue of fact?
      Mr. Renton: I am very well aware of the Broadcasting Complaints commission and its terms of reference. If the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is considered by the House on Report, we shall have the opportunity to discuss privacy. Today we are discussing neither broadcasting nor privacy, but the inaccurate reporting of facts.
      Mr. Tebbit: We have had a perfect example of the difficulties about facts this morning when the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to Mr. Chris Moncrieff of the Press Association. Since then I have received a letter from Mr. Moncrieff, who is my constituent, saying that there was some difficulty over the facts because, most notably, the hon. Gentleman did not mention that the disputed telephone calls in the anecdote did not appear on Mr. Moncrielfs telephone bill because his wife did not accept the request for a reverse-charge call. Having read all the accounts of these matters, the hon. Gentleman should have been fair to a journalist.
      Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a precise example of misreporting when one part of the story is carefully left out in order to make a point. It is precisely the sort of nightmare that the Bill would produce.
      Mr. Worthington rose—
      Mr. Renton: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman as it is his Bill, but then I must make progress.
      Mr. Worthington: How is it possible for the allegation to be made that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) reversed the charges from Kabul in Afghanistan at £9·37 a time? How would one know the amount of money?
      Mr. Renton: I do not think that I am responsible for the activities of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown). In my days at the Foreign Office, when the hon. Member for Leith moved on from his regular questions about Afghanistan to a question about Albania, I remember congratulating him on making progress down the alphabet, but I do not think that I have any responsibility for his bills. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the matter on an Adjournment debate, as clearly it is a matter worth pursuing.
      We have briefly discussed the press commission. I consider that it would be another quango with no fewer than 21 members on it. What a nightmare of bureaucracy is in prospect with all 21 members having to see all the papers and all the complaints and doubtless having to agree unanimously on the outcome of each complaint within 28 days of receiving the complaint. And what at the end of the day about the Press Council? Will it fade into the distance and beyond? We have heard a great deal of criticism of the Press Council.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (M r. Ashton), who was a member of the Standing Committee, must let me develop the point a little further.

      593
      Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome the disappearance of the Press Council, but they forget that it has other important functions such as to preserve the established freedom of the press and to make representations to the Government on appropriate occasions. How will the press commission interact with the Press Council? I asked the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that question in Committee, but I never received an understandable reply. Confusion is bound to occur in the relationship between the Press Council and the press commission.
      Mr. Ashton: The Minister reads his brief and confuses question and comment. Will he make it perfectly clear whether he is speaking for himself or for the Government?
      Mr. Renton: I am pleased to say that the Government and I are as one on this issue—and that is most satisfactory. As I have said before—and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) heard me speak about this in Committee and will not be surprised by anything I say —my deepest objection to the principle of the Bill is that it intrudes on the freedom of the press. It introduces a measure of Government control over the press, and who can say what would follow, once one statutory measure had been introduced? We have not had statutory control of the press in Britain since the days of Cromwell in the 17th century.
      Mr. John Browne: My hon. Friend has said that if the Bill were passed it would intrude on the rights of the press. He is really saying that it would intrude on the rights of the press to bully individual people and that is the whole question. He places reliance on the Press Council, whose members are very hard-working people, but they have no teeth, and of course they lack credibility. He talks about ombudsmen, but they are seen not as ombudsmen but as "ombudsmice". What the House and the Bill are trying to do is to protect the individual person with ombudsmen —something with teeth.
      Mr. Renton: I heard the phrase "not ombudsmen but ombudsmice" for the first time two days ago in the Committee considering my hon. Friend's Bill. It is a nice turn of phrase, but he does less than justice to the new chairman of the Press Council, Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper, who is clearly determined to prove its effectiveness and continues to believe, as I do, in the system of self-regulation of the press. I am very pleased to note the warning given by Mr. Blom-Cooper in his foreword to the recent report of the Press Council:
      "Much more should and will be expected from all those in and out of the Press Council who have an abiding interest in ensuring that an independent, self-regulatory body should succeed in averting statutory intervention."
      That is at the heart of the matter. Evidence of the new intent and purpose of the Press Council is clear from its speedy announcement this week to investigate the propriety of the photographic coverage of the Hillsborough disaster, which has been mentioned this morning. We should all approve of the Press Council acting so quickly to examine the propriety of publishing those photographs.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: How will the Minister's announced review of press law address the
      594
      question raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the abuses of factual inaccuracies in the press? Does he intend that his review will cover that, and how will it address that point?
      Mr. Renton: Despite all his persuasive skills, the hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my own speech in my own way and in the order that I choose.
      It is my very strong view that, despite the lack of action and the feeling of apathy in the Press Council in recent years, we should not undermine its determination to bring about fundamental change.
      Mr. John Browne rose—
      Mr. Renton: With all respect to my hon. Friend, I have give way generously and others wish to speak.
      Nor do I think we should lightly jettison the commitment and good will which all sections of the press are showing to the Press Council.
      I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie on what he has achieved, not only in bringing his Bill to Report today, but because his Right of Reply Bill has woken up newspaper proprietors, publishers and editors to extent of concern that they have not shown for years. The heavies have thundered against him from Wapping, the Isle of Dogs, Southwark bridge and Chelsea bridge. They have all been telling us about the inadequacies of his Bill. The local newspapers have written to us in the same vein. I have received two letters from two newspapers printed in my constituency pointing out the errors of the Bill and very politely asking me to try and be present in the House today. I received the same message from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has even had the honour of a long and wordy article written by Bernard Levin in The Times. That article is as prolix, complex and emotional as any criticism by Mr. Levin of a bad performance of the Ring Cycle.
      Editors and publishers are steamed up. They have been made thoroughly aware of the proper, correct and understandable anxieties of many hon. Members.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
      12 noon
      Mr. Renton: I did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, so I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      The editors and publishers are, to put it crudely, in a lather and the pressure must not go away. As Members of Parliament we must ensure that editors and journalists, such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—it is good that he has left Sky television to join us today—
      Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister give way now?
      Mr. Renton: Since I named the hon. Gentleman, I shall give way.
      Mr. Mitchell: The Minister said that there were monstrous abuses by the press and that the Bill was flawed. In those circumstances, the honest and honourable course would be not to praise the Bill with faint damns and postpone everything unto the ides of Blom-Cooper and certainly not to go along with the monstrous conspiracy of the lackeys and lickspittles of the Fleet street magnates on

      595
      the Conservative Benches and filibuster against the Bill, but to provide Government time either to improve the Bill or introduce his own measure.
      Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman has now achieved his 30 seconds on television tonight. Why is it that one is a lackey and a lickspittle if one writes for The Times but not if one appears on Sky television, which is also part of the Murdoch empire? Perhaps he can tell us where the precise line of definition lies.—[Interruption.] I have appeared on Sky television with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and it was great fun. I recommend it to the House.
      If, by any chance, the Bill does not receive its Third Reading, the editors and publishers of the national press in Britain are on probation—[Laughter.] They have a year or two in which to clean up their act. If they succeed—I hope that they will—effective, quick and fair self-regulation that protects the position and rights of the private individual and the small man who cannot look after himself very well will remain the order of the day. That will happen without statutory control of the press. If not, Parliament will certainly return to this issue. For that reason and on raising the temperature of the debate I congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester.
      There is a better way out of the difficulties that would be created by the Bill and by the Protection of Privacy Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. Those difficulties have dominated our debate so far today and they dominated our proceedings in Committee. Therefore, it is right that I should let the House know that the Government have decided that there should be a review of the general issue of privacy and related matters —areas with which both Bills are concerned. The review will be conducted outside Government and will aim to report to the Home Secretary within a year.
      Mr. Ashton: Who will carry out the review?
      Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question from a sedentary position.
      Decisions have still to be taken on who should be invited to chair the review and the precise terms of reference. A formal announcement will be made in due course. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester will regard that as a positive step.
      Mr. John Browne rose—
      Mr. Renton: I will not give way to my hon. Friend.
      The review is designed to deal with the problems that have correctly and understandably concerned hon. Members on both sides of the House and I trust that it will be widely welcomed.
      Mr. Mark Fisher: People outside the House will be surprised and depressed by the fact that the new clause, which we have been debating for two and half hours, was accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) at the beginning of the debate. They will find it surprising that the Minister, by speaking for over half an hour, has indirectly associated himself and the Government with the filibuster that has prevented the serious points that have been raised both inside and outside the House from being raised. When the Minister said that he hoped the Bill receive a Third Reading—
      Mr. Renton: I did not say that.
      Mr. Fisher: He said that he hoped that we would proceed to a Third Reading. His behaviour this morning makes that difficult.
      Once again we have seen a confused stance by the Government. They did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading and they did not seek to vote against any of the amendments in Committee. They have remained passive. Yet we understand from the press that over the past few weeks, by whispering and making unofficial leaks to the press, the Government have made it clear that they are now opposed to the Bill. They would have done themselves and the debate a greater service by playing a more active role in the Second Reading and Committee stages.
      The Government and hon. Members on both sides of the House know that over the past few years there has been a growing number of abuses, as identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The Press Council's annual report for the past few years has revealed an increase in abuses by certain sectors of the press. Opposition Members accept that the regional press and the free press do not indulge in those tactics. We know that we are talking about only a small section of the press. However, the damage that can be done to people's lives, marriages, relationships and prospects is grave. If hon. Members who have sought to speak at great length this morning do not recognise the seriousness of that offence and the depth of feeling in the country, they are mistaking the mood of the House and the country.
      Mr. Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that a test of press freedom in this country will be to see how many newspapers tomorrow list the small bunch of Tories who have done the dirty work today and filibustered during this debate?
      Mr. Fisher: I agree with my hon. Friend. It will be surprising to see that list.
      I am delighted that the Minister has now explained to the House, at least in principle, the review that he intends to put in train. In the absence of the Government's support for this legislation, that will be widely welcomed.
      Mr. John Browne: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that, although the Government have announced a review, that is exactly what happened when the late Lord Mancroft introduced his privacy Bill and when Mr. Alex Lyon and Mr. Brian Walden did the same? The Younger committee reported in 1972 and since then the situation has got worse and worse. All we shall have is the eyewash of yet another review.
      Mr. Fisher: Because of the way in which they have approached this issue and the issue raised by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne), the House will be looking closely at the Government when they deliver the review. It will want strong assurances about the terms of reference. I note that, when referring to the terms of reference of the review, the Minister mentioned privacy, which is of great interest to all people, but did not mention the right of reply. I hope that in setting the terms of the review he will specifically include that and other abuses and lay out clearly for the chairman exactly what the Government expect. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the membership of the review is wide-ranging and includes independent people who represent the views of the general public.

      597
      The Government's record on appointing bodies such as this is deplorable. Too often, Government appointments to such review bodies are extremely partial. I hope that on this occasion the Minister will ensure that a wide range of views is included in order to give it the credibility that the public require and that is necessary in view of the debate we have had over the past few weeks.
      History will be on the side of the Bill, and we shall return to it next year. This is the fourth or fifth time this decade that an hon. Member has tried to introduce such legislation. We have moved further, thanks to the excellent work and advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. We have at last persuaded Ministers and hon. Members that this issue cannot and will not go away. The Government must recognise that and understand the seriousness of the problem.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has done an excellent job over the past few weeks. He has shown clearly the seriousness of the abuses that have occurred. His anxieties have been echoed around the country. It is up to the Government, if they cannot support the Bill, to get on with the review, give a time limit for it, undertake that they will introduce legislation at the end of it and bring their recommendations before the House. The public will expect nothing less of the Government, and it is up to them to fulfil those expectations.
      Mr. Rooker: In the interests of the little people against the lie sheets, I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 100, Noes 26.

      Division No. 169]

      [12.10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Flannery, Martin

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Foster, Derek

      Allen, Graham

      Fraser, John

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Battle, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

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

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Boateng, Paul

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Grocott, Bruce

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

      Ground, Patrick

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Hardy, Peter

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Holland, Stuart

      Browne, John (Winchester)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clay, Bob

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clelland, David

      Irving, Charles

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Cohen, Harry

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corbett, Robin

      Leighton, Ron

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      McFall, John

      Crowther, Stan

      McKelvey, William

      Cryer, Bob

      Madden, Max

      Cummings, John

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Marek, Dr John

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

      Marlow, Tony

      Dixon, Don

      Martlew, Eric

      Dobson, Frank

      Meale, Alan

      Doran, Frank

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Fallon, Michael

      Murphy, Paul

      Fearn, Ronald

      Nellist, Dave

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Fisher, Mark

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      598

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Redmond, Martin

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Renton, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      Richardson, Jo

      Vaz, Keith

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wall, Pat

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilson, Brian

      Shelton, Sir William

      Winnick, David

      Shersby, Michael

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Short, Clare

      Worthington, Tony

      Skinner, Dennis

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Squire, Robin

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody

      Strang, Gavin

      and Mr. George J. Buckley.

      NOES

      Ashton, Joe

      Rathbone, Tim

      Batiste, Spencer

      Redwood, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Stevens, Lewis

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Walden, George

      Forth, Eric

      Waller, Gary

      Gow, Ian

      Wheeler, John

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Knapman, Roger

      Lightbown, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Mr. Greg Knight and

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Mr. John Watts.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Mr. Batiste: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must proceed to put the Question.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House proceeded to a Division:—
      Mr. Watts(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the Division, within the total of 100 in favour of the closure, one hon. Member was included who voted in both the Aye and the No Lobbies. In those circumstances, has the necessary total of 100 votes been cast in favour of the closure?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not affect the numbers. It is always possible for an hon. Member to cancel his vote by going in to the other Lobby.
      Mr. Tebbit(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take the point of order when I have appointed the Tellers.
      Mr. Tebbit(seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said correctly that an hon. Member may have voted in both Lobbies to cancel one vote. Have you ascertained whether he wished to cancel the vote that made the total up to 100 for the closure, or the other vote? If the former, surely the closure cannot be passed by the vote of an hon. Member opposed to it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Division was carried out correctly. I have made inquiries, and I am satisfied of that.
      Mr. Roger King(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the point of order related to the Division? If not, I shall take it afterwards.
      Mr. King(seated and covered): It is a point of order concerning the Division, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am in some difficulty in deciding how to vote because I have only heard speeches in favour of the new clause. I have heard nothing—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not question the judgment of the Chair in accepting the closure.
      The House having divided: Ayes 96, Noes 23.

      Division No. 170]

      [12.24 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Irving, Charles

      Allen, Graham

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

      Ashton, Joe

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Leighton, Ron

      Battle, John

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

      Lightbown, David

      Boateng, Paul

      McFall, John

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      McKelvey, William

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Madden, Max

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

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Marek, Dr John

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Martlew, Eric

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Meale, Alan

      Buchan, Norman

      Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

      Clay, Bob

      Murphy, Paul

      Clelland, David

      Nellist, Dave

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Cohen, Harry

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Corbett, Robin

      Redmond, Martin

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Richardson, Jo

      Crowther, Stan

      Rooker, Jeff

      Cryer, Bob

      Ruddock, Joan

      Cummings, John

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Shersby, Michael

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

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dixon, Don

      Soley, Clive

      Dobson, Frank

      Spearing, Nigel

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Squire, Robin

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fearn, Ronald

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Strang, Gavin

      Fisher, Mark

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Flannery, Martin

      Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

      Foster, Derek

      Tredinnick, David

      Fraser, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Fyfe, Maria

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Garrett, John (Norwich South)

      Wall, Pat

      Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Wilson, Brian

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Winnick, David

      Grocott, Bruce

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Ground, Patrick

      Worthington, Tony

      Hardy, Peter

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Hoyle, Doug

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      and Mr. George J. Buckley.

      NOES

      Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Redwood, John

      Doran, Frank

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Short, Clare

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Gow, Ian

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

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

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Janman, Tim

      Walden, George

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Waller, Gary

      Knapman, Roger

      Watts, John

      600

      Wheeler, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Mr. Spencer Batiste and

      Wood, Timothy

      Mr. Lewis Stevens.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 5

      COMMENCEMENT
      `This Act shall come into force on such date as the Lord Chancellor shall by statutory instrument provide.'—[Mr. Gow.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Gow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 77, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, after 'appointed', insert—
      '(a) on the establishment of the Commission'.
      No. 96, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'Secretary of State' and insert 'Lord Chancellor'.
      No. 76, in page 2, line 2, after 'State', insert—
      ', and (b) in subsequent years by the Secretary of State and the Commission in equal numbers.'.
      No. 84, in the schedule, page 4, line 17, leave out
      'by the Secretary of State'.
      No. 88, in page 4, line 23, leave out
      'by the Secretary of State'.
      Mr. Gow: Tomorrow we shall celebrate the anniversary of the birth of his late Majesty the Emperor of Japan. Hon. Members may wonder about the relevance of that anniversary to the debate. It is a question which has occurred to my hon. Friend the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household, who is characteristically seated in his place. We noted that anniversary on an earlier occasion. Is it a matter of fact or a matter of opinion? The Bill is concerned with fact or opinion.
      The new clause mentions the Lord Chancellor. It has been tabled for two reasons: first, to show my right hon. and hon. Friends' confidence in the Lord Chancellor—a confidence which, apparently, is not shared by all of Her Majesty's judges—and, secondly, to bring sense to the Bill. It is difficult to bring sense to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister, as diligent as ever in the performance of his duties, is still present. [Interruption.] The Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household laughs. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) laughed. He has now ceased to laugh. He recognises the truth of that remark.
      As I said, we need to bring some sense to the Bill. It is difficult to bring sense to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister read out to the House an article by Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper who, as the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household knows, is one of Her Majesty's counsel. He has been appointed chairman of the Press Council. No better appointment to that important office has ever been made. I praise Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper. He is a lawyer of outstanding quality, and he has a sense of honour. I was surprised when some Opposition Members gave the impression that they had no confidence in Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper. [Interruption.] That was the impression.
      Mr. Fisher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Gow: A Wykehamist always gives way to an Etonian.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, wherever he was educated.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has had to leave the Chamber. I make it clear on his behalf that, far from casting any aspersions on Mr. Blom-Cooper, my hon. Friend has gone out of his way, on Second Reading, in Committee and today, to pay tribute to him and to the reform of the Press Council that he is seeking. The fact that my hon. Friend considers that that work is likely to be doomed, because the Press Council is organised by those who control and own the press, is another matter. My hon. Friend's personal opinions of Mr. Blom-Cooper are clearly on record. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that and accept that no Opposition Member has cast any aspersions on Mr. Blom-Cooper.
      Mr. Gow: I made the fairly innocent and, I thought, accurate remark that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and hon. Friends gained the impression that Opposition Members—other than the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—do not think very highly of Mr. Blom-Cooper. My right hon. and hon. Friends are not shaking their heads and saying, "You have gone off your head, Gow." Instead of shaking their heads, they are nodding. The heads that are nodding do not belong to me but are those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. They are of age, and they can give their own indications.
      I see on the Treasury Bench three Ministers—as will the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) if he looks straight ahead. Whips are certainly Ministers—that is beyond dispute. Each of those three Ministers, chosen by the Prime Minister herself, agrees that the impression given by Opposition Members was that they do not have confidence in Mr. Blom-Cooper. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central is entitled to say that the wrong impression was given, but it is characteristic of the Labour party to give the wrong impression. It is always doing that.
      Mr. Fisher: Without labouring the point, that matter will be resolved by reading the Official Report. Nothing on the record will show that my right hon. or hon. Friends gave such an impression. It might be that Conservative Members misinterpreted sedentary remarks, which can easily cause confusion. However, I suspect that nothing in the record of today's debate will bear out the impression gained by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I am sure that he accepts that.
      Mr. Gow: Certainly I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is being so agreeable that I have even referred to him as "my hon. Friend." However, during the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister—and it was an excellent speech —he referred to the chairman of the Press Council. He was not ruled out by your immediate predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he was not out of order. When my hon. Friend the Minister made that remark, it was greeted with derisory laughter from the Opposition Benches. I am not inventing that incident. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Ground) agrees. It is not only lay right hon. and hon.
      602
      Friends who concur with my account. Not one of my right hon. or hon. Friends quarrels with what I say. That does not happen very often, but it has happened this morning.
      Mr. Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that the exchanges between him and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) illustrate one of the essential difficulties in the Bill? Even a matter so simple and matter of fact as what was said earlier in the Chamber can give rise to great controversy. Equally intelligent right hon. and hon. Members, listening to the same words, and seeing the same facial expressions, can arrive at wholly different conclusions as to the intentions behind words that were spoken.
      Mr. Gow: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who in former times was my Parliamentary Private Secretary. If I may so, he was excellent—and I hope very much that he will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because he has an important contribution to make to our proceedings.
      I do not want to devote my speech only to the subject of Mr. Blom-Cooper, but I place on record that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have great confidence in his ability, intelligence and sense of honour. I set out to put some sense into the Bill, but that is not easy.
      I welcome the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to our proceedings. Earlier, before you were in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman was seated not where he is now, below the Gangway, but on the Opposition Front Bench. I hope that he will return there, because that is where he belongs.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I notice, however, that we have amendments before us and that the hon. Gentleman has had more than five minutes on his preamble. I should be grateful if he would relate his remarks to the amendments.
      Mr. Gow: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
      Mr. Tony Banks: I feel that I belong to the Front Bench through instinct and merit, but, unfortunately, not through office held.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. Gow: It is a matter of deep regret to the whole House, but above all to him, that the hon. Gentleman is not seated on the Opposition Front Bench. Although the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) does not share the high regard which I have for the hon. Gentleman, I have good news for the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman will not be leading the Labour party after the next election. Then will come the time for rapid preferment for the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Tony Banks: I cannot say that I necesarily wish such a scenario to come about or that I share the hon. Gentleman's predictions. If my promotion is as rapid as he suggests, I hope that my demotion is not as rapid as his was.
      Mr. Gow: As a matter of fact, I was not dismissed. I may have departed before I was dismissed, but I was not dismissed. That is a reasonable point to make.
      New clause 5, which has been studied so carefully by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, will put some sense into the Bill.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Gow: I am trying to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) is now in his place, so I want to proceed.
      New clause 5 provides that the Bill shall not become operative until a date selected by the Lord Chancellor. Why? My hon. Friend the Minister read out part of an excellent article by Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper. We cannot have the Bill becoming operational before we have set up the press commission. Does my hon. Friend understand that point? The Bill cannot become law until we have appointed 21 members of the press commission. I am sure that he agrees.
      I want the Lord Chancellor to decide by statutory instrument when the date shall be. That is perfectly common procedure. It is commonplace for an Act of Parliament to include a date on which that Act shall take effect. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West agrees. We have no such clause in the Bill. That is why I have tabled new clause 5, which is supported by some of my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Renton: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with rapt attention. I am hoping that he will explain why the Lord Chancellor, rather than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, should give his seal of approval to the time when the Bill shall come into force. After all, the Home Secretary would appoint the members of the commission. Earlier this week he was quoted as saying that that would be a heavy task to which he was not greatly looking forward. I may not have quoted him exactly, but that was the message of his remarks. I am not wholly clear yet why the Lord Chancellor, rather than the Home Secretary, should trigger off the Act, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will soon enlighten me.
      Mr. Gow: For the very reason to which I referred in an intervention before 10 o'clock this morning. The words "The Secretary of State" in a Bill do not mean only the Home Secretary; they mean any Secretary of State.
      The point that I want to make in response to the Minister's intervention is that I have much greater confidence in my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor than I have in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales has strange views about economic and monetary policy. He is one of those people who still do not understand what most of us already understand about economic and monetary policy. Even the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) understood. He was the first Socialist monetarist.
      The right hon. Member should take my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales for a long walk over the hills, and explain to him that, when the rate of growth of the supply of money and the rate of growth of the supply of goods and services get out of balance, the consequence is inflation. That is why we do not want the Secretary of State for Wales making the appointments. If one is unsound on an issue such as monetary policy, one's judgment can be affected dramatically in other ways.
      Mr. Batiste: Can my hon. Friend help those of us who were concerned about the way in which the Bill appeared to be creating some Orwellian nightmare of a Ministry of Justice? Leaving aside the personalities in the various offices, but, looking purely at the comparison between, for example, the posts of Home Secretary and Lord
      604
      Chancellor and drawing upon my hon. Friend's unrivalled experience in the House and of the people who have held those offices in the past, does my hon. Friend believe that it is inherent in the various responsibilities of those two offices that the Lord Chancellor would be the better person to deal with those difficult issues?
      Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It was not only the views of the Secretary of State for Wales that made me put down the new clause. Why I seek massive support for the new clause is that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is under assault from the judges. When my noble Friend is under assault, we in this place can put down a marker to show our confidence in him. We have to appoint 21 members of the press commission, which is far too many and one of my amendments seeks to bring it down to five. My noble Friend deserves the confidence of the House in deciding when the Bill shall become operative. We want to show some of the judges, who have been criticising my noble Friend's proposals, that we back him. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), we are giving him another job. My hon. Friend is well versed in all matters related to journalism. Indeed, he is a distinguished writer himself. I wish that he would write more frequently in the newspapers and speak mare frequently in this place.
      Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I am longing to.
      Mr. Gow: I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
      One cannot allow the Bill to become operative on the day that it reaches the statute book, because those 21 folk must be in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South would be a very good member of the press commission, but I am not volunteering him for that post. Certainly, we do not want the Secretary of State for Wales to be involved, because he is unsound on monetary policy.
      Mr. Roger King: What about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)?
      Mr. Gow: No, I shall not mention him any more.
      The third and most important reason is that we want to show our confidence and trust in my noble Friend. I believe that it is a very uncontroversial new clause. It will be widely welcomed. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, who sits alone on the Opposition Front Bench, will welcome it warmly, but we shall receive no welcome from any representative of the Liberal party. We have noted that there has been an absence of any representative on the Liberal Benches even though the Liberal party is constantly proclaiming its concern about the press. It is a characteristic disgrace that there is no representative of the Liberal party here.
      Mr. Wareing: I want to strike a serious note in relation to this subject.
      Amendment No. 96 is of particular interest to me. When my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) introduced the Bill, it was with the serious intention of ensuring that the press commission, which he proposes to take the place of the inane, anachronistic and toothless tiger, the Press Council, should be accountable to the House of Commons.
      If there is to be accountability to the elected House of this Parliament, there must be a Minister—in this case the Home Secretary—who should be responsible for

      605
      answering questions or listening to complaints and problems which hon. Members, elected by their constituents, raise on the Floor of the House.
      If the press commission had been in place during the past week, I and other colleagues on the Labour Benches and, possibly on the Government Benches, would have been raising some of the matters that we have unfortunately had to see in the pornographic sections of the British press. I would have been able to say to the Home Secretary—I could not say it to the Lord Chancellor —that he should look at the creatures who were able, on Wednesday, to publish their filth on the front page of The Sun. Incidentally, that is the same newspaper which got one of its journalists to ring me up a couple of months ago when a Conservative Member suffered the misfortune of his wife's death. That journalist telephoned me on a Sunday and pried into the private life of that hon. Gentleman. I told that journalist to get off, get himself another job—this time a job with dignity. Nobody with any dignity would work for The Sun.
      In my home town of Liverpool there is now a massive boycott of that newspaper, a boycott which I wholeheartedly support. I hope that people up and down the country who have read the filth in Rupert Murdoch's paper will in future say no to buying any newspapers from that stable, including The Times.
      No one in this country should be permitted to own more than one newspaper. If the Minister and other Conservative Members believe what they say about competition, there should be competition in the press. It should be possible for other proprietors to publish newspapers so that a wide stratum of opinion is expressed in our national press.
      When the Minister reviews the situation—he says that he intends to do so—it is important to take on board the feeling on the Labour Benches that the Home Secretary is the right Minister to be responsible for answering to the House.
      I hope—I suppose it is a forlorn one—that my hon. Friend's Bill will become law during this Session. I have no doubt that the Bill will become law in the due process of time, because we shall return to this subject time and time again. I hope he will understand, however, that we must have a Minister in the House of Commons responsible for answering for any press commission—or, if my hon. Friend is unfortunate, for the Press Council.
      The Press Council, as I have said, is a toothless tiger which came into existence in the 1940s. The Royal Commission on the press stated in 1948 that the regular diet of the British public on a Sunday was crime, sex and violence; that has not changed after 40 years of the Press Council. Now we need a body with real teeth to take up the complaints that we bring to the House—even, perhaps, complaints about hon. Members who give quotes to the national press rather than raising points in the House.
      1 pm
      On Monday the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) was called by Mr. Speaker to question the Home Secretary following his statement about the Hillsborough disaster. I have not seen the hon. Gentleman here since. If he had been here, it might have been possible to persuade him to raise in the House points that we could then have contested.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with a new clause that is fairly specific. I should be obliged if he would direct his comments towards it.
      Mr. Wareing: I am trying to make the point, Madam Deputy Speaker, that amendment No. 96 attempts to transfer accountability from this House to the other place. The Lord Chancellor may have highly desirable qualities as a judge: he may be able, very rationally and properly, to make appointments to certain bodies—for example, the Council of Tribunals. The Home Secretary, however, is the right Minister to refer to the press commission matters raised by constituents.
      Constituents have taken the trouble—and have used their money—to telephone me in London, 200 miles from the constituency, to complain about what has been said in The Sun. Many people believe that the press is not sensitive enough in other respects. I heard the Minister mention on the radio this morning the recent case involving the Princess Royal's letters, and I have referred to the hon. Member who was bereaved in the recent past.
      Surely to God there is a need for the Bill. Surely to God there is a need for a press commission—for something more than we have had over the past 40 years, which has not altered the press one little bit. Surely it is right for the Home Secretary to be able to exercise some control, on behalf of this democratic body, over the national press. We hear talk about freedom of the press, but there is no free press in this country. There are fewer newspapers and fewer newspaper proprietors than there were in 1948.
      We should be able to question the Home Secretary. We do not wish to listen to Rupert Murdoch's vicars on earth on the Conservative Benches; we want our constituents' complaints to be dealt with. Who is in a position to redress the foul material that we have seen in The Sun this week, or even to register a complaint against the large photograph displayed on the front page of the Daily Mirror? To whom should we complain in the light of the last 40 years of Press Council inactivity, unwillingness or inability to deal with what happened throughout that period? It has to be the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Pat Wall: My hon. Friend asks who should be responsible for dealing with press outrages. He referred, rightly, to the absolute horror of the people of Liverpool over the headlines in The Sun and The Star and the abominable, frightening and terrifying photographs of the disaster. At the time of the Valley Parade football ground disaster in my constituency, there were press allegations that the fire had been started deliberately by incendiarists. They caused enormous anguish to many people in Bradford who were already devastated by the injuries and the loss of life. Nothing was done about that, despite the fact that the Popplewell inquiry found that those allegations were completely erroneous and untrue. As the representative of a constituency that suffered from such a disaster, I can only sympathise with my hon. Friend and the people of Liverpool who have had to put up with not only the Hillsborough disaster but the filth and calumny that has been heaped upon them by the dregs of the press.
      Mr. Wareing: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. I hope that it registers with Ministers. That would be in the interests of the families of the 95 people of Liverpool who died and of all those who suffered as a result of the fire

      607
      at the Valley Parade football ground in Bradford. They are far and away more important than millionaire tycoons, some from overseas, who are allowed to get away with all this filth without any real action being taken against them by a Minister of the Crown.
      When the Right of Reply Bill ultimately reaches the statute book it is important that the Minister with responsibility for these matters should be able to refer them to a press commission that has real teeth and that can dispossess these people—or creatures; that is how they are looked on by my constituents in Liverpool. That is why we oppose the new clause. All that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) seeks to ensure is that the problem is moved further and further away from the democratic representatives of constituents and that it is dealt with by the other place. We must ensure that the Home Secretary is able to deal with these creatures of the press. I hope that we shall create a press commission that has the power to impose real penalties on wrongdoers who are doing more damage to the press than any damage of which pornographers could be accused.
      Mr. Greg Knight: I wish to speak briefly about my amendments which are grouped with new clause 5—Amendments Nos. 76, 77, 84 and 88. I invite the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to say at the end of my speech that he is prepared to accept the amendments. Their purpose is to alter the appointments procedure. According to the Bill, the Secretary of State would appoint all the Members of the press commission for the first year. The amendments provide that in subsequent years only half the members would be appointed by the Secretary of State and that the other half would be appointed by the press commission.
      I urge the promoter of the Bill to accept the amendments because, under the Bill as drafted, the Secretary of State would have complete control over the press commission because it would allow him to appoint all its members. That raises important questions about the independence of the press commission and the issue of Government control. Some fear that a future Government might use the press commission as a Government agent to exercise a form of censorship. I was shocked that yesterday the Evening Standard expressed that very fear. Its editorial column headed, "Rights and wrongs" stated:
      "By giving the most secretive Government in the Western world statutory control of the Press, it would inhibit our fundamental purpose to investigate and write about matters of real public interest … Nor is there anything to protect the newspaper from frivolous demands for reply, each of which would have to go before the Government-appointed press commission for settlement within 28 days."
      There are already fears that the press commission would act as an arm of Government.
      I was absolutely amazed by the comments in the Evening Standard because I regard my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary as one of the most liberal Home Secretaries we have had, and I am sure that those fears are groundless. Nevertheless they have to be taken into account. To give the press and the public confidence in the press commission's independence, clearly the Government should relinquish some of their control over it. The easiest solution would be for the Secretary of State initially to appoint all the members of the press commission, but subsequently it would be reasonable and sensible for the press commission to appoint a proportion of its members
      608
      —my amendment has suggested half—so that accusations such as that in the Evening Standard cannot fairly and reasonably be made.
      Mr. Batiste: It will be clear from some of my interventions in the debate that I am unhappy with the drafting of the Bill. I abstained on Second Reading because I hoped that the Bill would emerge from Committee in a form that I would find acceptable. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is in his place as it is important that he understands why some of us have opposed his Bill today, but would not necessarily oppose a future Bill on similar lines were it drafted and structured differently.
      I fully appreciate the disappointment that the hon. Gentleman must feel, having been successful in the ballot and having chosen an important subject for his private Bill, to see it disappear into the sands of time on Report. Having read the Committee Hansard, I recognise the good nature in which the Bill has proceeded, and I should not like him to feel that I was aggrieved at the way in which he handled my earlier attempt to ask him questions. By the same token, I hope that he will pay serious attention to the points that I should like to make about new clause 4 and, the amendments grouped with it.
      I should disclose an interest in the sense that I am a lawyer and my law firm acts for a wide variety of clients, some of whom publish local newspapers, but not for the national or tabloid press. On occasions we have acted for those who are deeply aggrieved at what goes into the press, so I have been able to examine the issue from both sides. Perhaps my greatest interest, as a lawyer, is that the Bill as drafted would create so much extra work for lawyers in the courts that it would go a very long way towards replacing the loss of the conveyancing monopoly. In that sense perhaps I am speaking against my interests in saying that I should prefer a Bill that was less likely to come to the courts for judicial review and interpretation of so many of its clauses.
      The core of my concern is the nature of the press commission. As the Bill is drafted, there is the potential for the commission to become, as I said earlier, some Orwellian nightmare of a Ministry of Justice, having in place all the apparatus of oppressive censorship, including a kangaroo court, palm tree justice and all the other things that I would find unacceptable in any other area of judicial activity in Britain.
      1.15 pm
      The amendments relate to a particular part of the Bill so I shall confine my comments to that. However, flowing from that is a wider range of issues which concern my hon. Friends and myself. We are genuinely appreciative of all the points that have been raised by hon. Members and by many of our constituents. They are fed up with the antics of some sections of the press and their incapacity to appreciate the resentment they have created by their behaviour. Nobody outside the House should think that those of us who have been trying to amend the Bill to a form that we would find acceptable are offering comfort to those sections of the press. Should a Bill appear next year, either from a private Member or the Government, our reactions would not necessarily be the same.
      Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman said that his actions and those of his hon. Friends should not be interpreted in

      609
      that way. Does he not understand that that is how the tabloid press will interpret them? The press will take comfort from his comments and will see that they are being enabled to go on in this thoroughly unacceptable manner because hon. Members have sought to block this constructive Bill.
      Mr. Batiste: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because I can do no more than put on record my interpretation and, if any other interpretation is drawn from my comments, it will be wrong.
      I have had considerable experience of the way in which tribunals in different areas operate. I have to balance the wrongs done to some individuals, which are so far without remedy for all sorts of reasons that have been described during the debate, with what I would see as the hamstringing of the press. That is not just a convenient slogan for trying to stick up for newspaper barons. It is an appreciation of the fact that one of the important pillars of a democracy is a press which at times is willing to make itself unpopular with Governments and people in trying to expose the truth. The press may sometimes go over the line, but, in balancing those issues, it would be wrong for a Member of Parliament to support what seems to be easy and popular now while placing in hostage the future of something that is fundamental to our democracy.
      I support some amendments in the group and not others, the switch from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor in the appointment of members of the press commission appears in one of the amendments. It will be clear from what I have said that my main concern is caused by the nature of the press commission. Clause 2 states that the press commission shall
      "comprise 21 members … appointed by the Secretary of State."
      I looked for some further clarification as to the balance of the commission. I looked to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the schedule but I found that the only balance listed is in terms of race, gender and regional representation in society. Those are important matters, but when one is appointing a group of people who can have a profound effect on our society, many other factors should be taken into account.
      For that reason, we must look at the nature of the appointment of those people. I should have preferred to see much more specification in the Bill. When quangos are created elsewhere, a careful balance between the competing interests is usually provided in the Bill. It is a grave omission that there is no such balance in this Bill. The attempt at balance listed in the Bill does not carry any serious significance having regard to the nature of the work to be carried out by the commission. It has no boundaries and can deal with matters as they arise, but, because of its voluntary nature, it does not need safeguards to prevent abuses of power. I appreciate hon. Members' points that the Press Council by no means fulfils that role, but I hope that the voluntary body created as a result of Mr. Louis Blom-Cooper's appointment and the changes that he is proposing will give the public and hon. Members greater confidence.
      I accept, however, that there may have to be some form of statutory control, but, rather than creating a press commission, we should be considering a quasi-judicial body. Across many aspects of society, when it is deemed that the courts are too formal, long winded or costly to
      610
      offer a reasonable and quick remedy, we have had much experience in the establishment of a variety of tribunals and appointments to them. I have experience of industrial relations, and much of the transformation in industrial relations over the past decade occurred as a result of industrial tribunals and the confidence that they have engendered in both sides of industry. A clear and sensible appeal procedure is available, and I should like us to take that direction.
      I should like the promoter to accept that the implementation of this Bill and appointments made under it should be left with the most senior member of the judiciary. It is difficult not to feel strongly about the experiences of the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), but moving to a system under the Lord Chancellor would not stifle the development of the Bill. Rather it would put it on a path for which there would be wider acceptability.
      The role of such a body would be not only to hear complaints but to issue guidelines. I have difficulty understanding what this largely ill-defined body will do to establish guidelines without a clear indication of the methods that it must consider and what penalties will be available.
      Bodies such as the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service have been charged with the duty of establishing guidelines to improve industrial relations. A solution to establishing a code of behaviour is not an insuperable problem, but the key to much of ACAS's success is that to a large degree it is voluntary and because of the treatment of its codes as evidence in hearings in industrial tribunals it carries much weight. The amendments that shift the balance from the Home Office to the Lord Chancellor and the judicial system must be an important step in the right direction for future Bills.
      Under the proposed amendments the new body would be established by a statutory instrument. The House should have another opportunity to express its will before a Bill is passed because there are bound to be developments between now and then that hon. Members should take into account. I should be willing to support an amendment to that effect, but I am less enthusiastic about the other amendments that have been tabled, especially amendment No. 77, which proposes that initially the commission should comprise 21 members. I think that 21 members is far too many and should not like an amendment to expand that number because it could grow uncontrollably if there were no limits.
      Although I share the disappointment of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie that his Bill will not get on the statute book, I hope that he will accept that there is a great deal of good will for his aims, even among hon. Members who have spoken against aspects of the Bill. We are looking forward to seeing legislation that will redress the considerable wrongs that undoubtedly exist in a way that we can accept.
      Mr. Grocott: I should, perhaps, declare an interest as a member of the National Union of Journalists, although I do not agree with the approach of my union to the Bill. I also could not disagree more strongly with the views of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste), who said that he did not consider the Home Secretary to be the right person to deal with appointments to the press commission. The Home Secretary is precisely the right person for an extremely important reason. He already has the statutory

      611
      responsibility across broadcasting for ensuring that a range of objectives, similar to those we are trying to obtain in the Bill, are secured.
      The Minister of State gave a wholly unacceptable reply to my earlier intervention. Home Office Ministers are responsible under the Broadcasting Act 1981 for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to satisfy itself that:
      "all news in the programmes (in whatever form) is presented with due accuracy."
      That is the responsibility throughout independent television. It is astonishing that the Home Office should take the view that it is important to ensure fairness, impartiality and accuracy in broadcasting, yet should not seem to be concerned to ensure those objectives for the press.
      It is odd that Home Office Ministers should keep saying that the whole matter is unworkable. That was also the gist of the comments of the hon. Member for Elmet. Of course, concepts such as fairness, impartiality and accuracy are difficult and we could all debate them for hours, but it seems that we keep trying to rediscover the wheel. Such questions are asked and dealt with day in and day out by the people whose business is to be involved in broadcasting journalism, and such questions are dealt with by means of documents such as the television programme guidelines, which lay down sensible requirements about accuracy and the necessity to correct inaccuracies when they occur and, on live broadcasts, to ensure that the error is admitted as quickly as possible after the inaccuracy has occurred.
      There are difficulties in implementing the guidelines, but no one believes that the regulations are a serious intrusion into the freedom of journalists and broadcasters. On the contrary, they enhance the quality of journalism. Journalists working in broadcasting do not feel inhibited by having to work under such guidelines. I have not yet met one journalist who has said that he will not leave printed journalism to join the broadcasting section because he would be hopelessly inhibited in what he could say. There is no shortage of people wanting to leave printed journalism to go into broadcasting.
      These are commonsense rules and regulations. They are spelt out and are open for anyone to see. People can see copies of the television guidelines in the Library. One can complain if one feels that one has been treated unjustly and, ultimately, the Home Secretary has the statutory power to see, through the Independent Broadcasting Authority, that frequently offending companies are no longer able to broadcast when the franchises come up for review. No one sees such a regulatory framework as unfair or restrictive—the spectres raised by Conservative Members who suggested that we are trying to create a monster through this innocuous and gentle little Bill.
      It is surely far better that the pressures and controls are made open. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has left us. He sat through the earlier part of the debate and had I known that he would not be here when I spoke, I would have informed him accordingly. I thought that he might want to listen to the whole debate, rather than to rely on what the press has to say on the matter. It is astonishing for him to talk about restricting the freedom of the press when, as a senior Minister, he did his utmost to intimidate the BBC. I infinitely prefer regulations that are clearly spelt out and understood, and to which everyone can refer when the
      612
      need arises, to the nasty little phone call and to the nod and the wink, more in keeping with the style of the right hon. Member for Chingford.
      1.30 pm
      What do we need to fear, and why is not the Home Office being consistent? I think that the Home Secretary should make the appointments and I await in vain a proper explanation of why the Government want to regulate broadcasting but not the press. I fear that the answer is the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher): they want broadcasting to follow the example of The Sun. Their approach will then have the merit of consistency, although it will be a deeply depressing day for freedom and for the accuracy, objectivity and quality of journalism.
      The Government tell us that the proposed Broadcasting Bill takes the press as its model. The Home Secretary himself has said that it will give people the choice that they have when they thumb through newspapers in a newsagent's shop. There are two models for accurate news and current affairs reporting in this country. One is the press—in particular the tabloid press—and the other is public sector broadcasting. I know which model I prefer. It is absolutely essential that we are consistent in our approach to these matters, and to look to the example of the broadcast media is infinitely preferable to the alternative.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Ian Aitken—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—I am sorry, Mr. Jonathan Aitken.
      Mr. Aitken: I have not changed sides yet, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) had a point when he complained about the possible lack of consistency in our approach towards broadcasting standards and standards in the press. Only last week, I was able to draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in a question to the fact that the Government and the Home Office had endorsed the latest EEC directive on broadcasting and television which enshrines in EEC legislation the principle of a right of reply. It is somewhat bizarre to find the Government apparently endorsing the right to reply by stealth in Brussels while being so oddly equivocal about it—to put it politely—in this place.
      Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend's words "by stealth" have stung me into action. My hon. Friend should know that the original draft of the EC directive contained the words "right of reply". We specifically arranged for that article to be changed to ensure that all that Britain had to do to comply with the directive was to continue with our Broadcasting Complaints Commission, which has existed for a long time and whose remit specifically and only covers
      "unjust or unfair treatment … or unwarranted infringement of privacy in, or in connection with the obtaining of material included in, sound and television programmes."
      Those are the limited objectives of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. The EC directive deals only with broadcasting, in any case, and we ensured that the relevant article was amended to make it clear that we should merely have to continue with our present Broadcasting Complaints Commission.
      Mr. Aitken: Even that limited achievement would be welcome in legislation on the press. By the words "by stealth" I meant "by parliamentary stealth". The fact remains that the House has been given no opportunity whatever to debate the directive, which is a matter of some shame in the way in which we deal with European legislation.
      Mr. Renton: My hon. Friend has forgotten that the draft directive was debated way back in January 1987.
      Mr. Aitken: We are getting away from the Bill. That was an extremely bad point. The directive, which has been massively redrafted, is heading for ratification by the Commission. As the Select Committee on European Legislation discovered the other day, it has not been properly debated. There has been quite a row on the matter. My hon. Friend the Minister may be more astray with his facts than I am. I want to get back to the new clause.
      Mr. Gow: Is my hon. Friend aware that every one of his hon. Friends, with the sole exception—I am sorry to have to say this—of my hon. Friends the Minister and the Comptroller of Her Majesty's Household agrees with him about that EEC directive? I want him to know that he has unanimous support, apart from the two present occupants of the Treasury Bench.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said that he would like to get back to the new clause. I am sure that he will do so now.
      Mr. Aitken: I am heartened by the unanimity of support for what I have said so far. I suspect that mine will be the only Conservative voice in favour of the much-maligned Bill. I am glad to support the new clause which was ably and amusingly moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow).
      The new clause raises the issues whether the Bill should be handled by the Lord Chancellor and whether it should be delayed at the Lord Chancellor's discretion. I suspect that that was the prime purpose of my hon. Friend's thinking. Many experts on delaying tactics are present. I hardly think that it is necessary to drag in the poor old Lord Chancellor as a delaying long-stop. Nevertheless, although I support the Bill, I am not unduly critical of the delaying tactics which have been used by some of my hon. Friends. All is fair in love, war and parliamentary procedure, as the saying goes.
      There is some merit in pausing and thinking about the Bill. Neither my hon. Friends nor the editors who have addressed us through a microphone over the past few days needed to have got quite so hot under the collar about the Bill. It is flawed to some extent, and the flaws were visible from the start. Three months ago, I wrote to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) to say that I would start with him on the Bill but that I had some doubts about whether I would finish with him. There are some genuine doubts, some of which may be resolved by the introduction of the delaying mechanism of the Lord Chancellor.
      I pay a genuine tribute to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. He has done more than any other individual in recent memory to start the important process of cleaning up the Augean stables of the British tabloid press. There is wide agreement that the clean-up should take place. We seem to disagree on the methods by
      614
      which it should take place. Should it involve statutory legislation? Should it involve the Home Secretary? Should it involve the Lord Chancellor?
      I am attracted to the new clause, not least because of the persuasive arguments which were put forward on legal or quasi-legal grounds by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste). The new clause envisages the Bill being passed and then being suspended like some legal sword of Damocles over the head of the British press until it can be dropped on it—presumably after acts of further misbehaviour—at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor. If we accept the new clause and pass the Bill, we will give the British press one last chance to put its own house in order. If it does not do so, the Bill—warts and all, flaws and all —will crash down on the head of what used to be called Fleet street.
      The cry "Let's give the press one last chance" has been heard with great frequency and intensity in the past few days. There has been an almost hysterical reaction to the Bill from editorial writers, proprietors, editors and journalists. I have been much amused by all the comment. I was riveted to receive an expensive glossy brochure from Mr. Max Hasting, the editor of The Daily Telegraph. I was even more amused when the editor of the "Sunday Lonhro" addressed us all last Sunday in an editorial of Guardian-like length about the need to kill off the Bill. If there is one newspaper at what used to be called the quality end of the market that has sacrificed all pretence to integrity and impartiality, it is the "Sunday Lonhro" and its journalists—or, as they should now be called, `Rowlandists'.
      The serious aspect of press over-reaction to the Bill is that if only one tenth of the energy, dedication, crusading zeal and expense that the press put into opposing the Bill was devoted to putting its own house in order, there would be no need for the Bill and for Parliament to spend time on the matter. If the press does want to put its house in order, I see precious little sign of any serious intention to do so.
      One of the ways in which the press could put its own house in order is to spend much more of its own money on the Press Council, giving that enfeebled but well-intentioned organisation better-paid staff, more professionals, and its own investigators, lawyers and publicity budget. The national press could well afford to do that.The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph make profits of more than £30 million a year. The Sunday Times, whose editor has been just as pompous as other editors in his comments on the Bill's weaknesses, makes more than £70 million per year. Its stablemate The Sun, makes more than £60 million per year. The national press as a whole is making unprecedented profits of about £250 million a year. What proportion of those enormous profits goes to the Press Council—the only alternative regulating body to that proposed in the Bill?
      It is revealed on page 213 of the Press Council's 1988 annual report that the Newspaper Publishers Association, which represents the entire resources of all national newspapers, contributed £276,000—about 0·1 per cent., or one tenth of one per cent. of the profits of the national press—to the goal of self-regulation. I say to the press that it should put its money where its big mouth is. Instead of the Press Council having a £500,000 budget, it should have a budget of about £5 million to do the job that the Minister and the amendment want it to do.
      In the absence of serious press money or intentions, new clause 5 returns to the whole question of statutory

      615
      regulation and who should enforce it—the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary. I am a late convert to the right of reply cause. For most of my own journalistic and political life I have held aloft the rather tattered banner of press freedom. I opposed the first right of reply Bill introduced by Mr. Frank Allaun. I am still nervous about supporting a measure that will undoubtedly impose restrictions on the press. One of the strong reasons for my nervousness is that most of the British press does not need or deserve right of reply legislation. We should all feel a certain sadness that so many decent national and regional newspapers that report the news fairly and honourably correct their own mistakes are confronted with a Bill of this kind because they are tarred with the brush of the lower tabloids. What a mean and dirty brush it is.
      Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman remarks that many national and regional newpapers do not deserve the Bill. However, if they are careful about the accuracy of their reporting, they have nothing to fear from the Bill—contrary to the impression given by many journalists in editorials and features over the past few days.
      Mr. AitkenI agree that the Bill, even with its undoubted flaws, does not hold out the threat of a sword of Damocles —as I called the amendment—to the decent press. After all, right of reply legislation exists in many other countries without provoking the excitable reaction we have witnessed over the past few days.
      There is a cancer growing at the heart of the British press today. At the centre of that cancer is the fact that some tabloid newspapers have moved right away from reporting the news and from all forms of traditional journalism, investigative or otherwise. At the lower end of the tabloid market, journalism has been replaced by voyeurism. The reporter's profession has been infiltrated by a seedy stream of rent boys, pimps, bimbos, spurned lovers, smear artists bearing grudges, prostitutes and perjurers. It is a cast of shame which has not been seen in public since the trial of Oscar Wilde. Yet here it is propping up the pages of the tabloids with monotonous and tasteless regularity. That is the force that makes constituents say to Members of Parliament, "Get on and do something about it".
      Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman draws an excellent analogy between the lack of a right of reply in the United Kingdom and its existence in other countries. Does he agree that Britain and Australia are the two countries with the most concentrated ownership of newspapers and, possibly, the worst quality of tabloids in the world? Countries with a diversity of ownership tend to have a far better quality of average newspaper than we have.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Aitken: The concentration of ownership is undesirable. As the story of the Irishman goes, "I would not have started from here" with this concentration of ownership in the British press or with the even greater concentration that exists in the Australian press.
      There could, however, be some advantages in the concentration of ownership when it comes to cleaning up the act. It is not circulation wars, competition or the fight for profits that have brought about this unhappy position. It is, to use an old-fashioned label, the moral standards of certain proprietors and editors which has caused the rot to set in. A newspaper, like a fish, rots from the head
      616
      downwards. Certain newspaper proprietors have given encouragement and promotion to a thoroughly evil clique of lower tabloid editors, whose ruthlessness and recklessnes with the truth is so notorious that their papers publish lies regularly and unashamedly.
      The House is considering the Bill because Parliament thinks that it is time for the lying to have to stop. The question is: who will stop it? Clearly, the Government are not keen to stop it now. Until today their most memorable contribution to the argument about standards in the lower tabloids was to recommend the previous editor of The Sun for a knighthood. So much for Victorian values.
      The announcement today of my hon. Friend the Minister that the British tabloids are now on probation is like putting Jack the Ripper or the Boston strangler on probation. It is not likely to be effective. One then turns to the courts, which brings me to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet. Can the courts in any judicial form with the help of the Lord Chancellor, whose role in this is important, do anything to stop the lying? They are doing their best. Juries' massive awards of libel damages are a symptom of the public's distaste for what is going on, but for every Koo Stark, Elton John or Jeffery Archer, there are 50 ordinary individuals libelled just as gravely in terms of loss of reputation, who simply cannot afford to use the libel laws to seek redress. Courts of law, like the Ritz hotel, are open only to those who can afford them.
      The tabloids now write into their editorial budgets costs for settling libel actions. It is a lie now, pay later habit. If a tabloid makes as much as £1 million a week, settling two or three libel actions at £30,000 or £40,000 a time makes a small dent in the profits.
      To illustrate how ineffective the courts are, even at the most excitable and dramatic end of the scale, I shall run through the most spectacular libel case of them all. This will show why we need the involvement of the Lord Chancellor. The case of Elton John v. The Sun was the worst of its kind, not just because of the viciousness of The Sun's smear capaign or size of the libel damages, but because of the fascinating insight which it gave the world into the techniques and tactics of the newspaper, particularly from the moment after it knew that it had made a disastrous mistake.
      The headlines tell their own story. On 25 February 1987, The Sun newspaper splashed across its front page: "Elton in Vice Boys Scandal". On the next day the headline was, "Elton's Kinky Kinks"; on the next, "Elton's Drug Capers" and on the next, "Elton's Pink Tutu Party". There was a series of allegations about drugs, male prostitutes and bondage. Every smear, criminal and moral, was in those articles.
      Those stories were prepared by the editor of The Sun, Mr. Kelvin MacKenzie, and appeared under the byline of his brother, Mr. Craig MacKenzie. That was the gentleman who The Independent told us has a nickname in the confines of The Sun of the "bouncing bog brush". Mr. Murdoch is not in favour of jobs for the boys, but he appears to be in favour of jobs for the brothers and jobs for the bog brushes.
      Those bouncing bog brushes smeared their filth for days and days across the front page of the newspaper. However, there was a central flaw in those stories. They were entirely made up. They were sheer unadulterated fiction. The basis for those stories was uncorroborated allegations contributed by a rent boy, who appeared in The

      617
      Sun as Mr. Graham X, but whose real name was Mr. Stephen Hardy. He was paid by The Sun £2,000 down and a retainer of £250 a week.
      In a riveting feature published in The Independent magazine, published in February, Stephen Hardy said:
      "97 per cent. of it was untrue. I would give The Sun a line and they would write it all up. It was a manufactured story."
      What is fascinating about that, and why we need the Lord Chancellor, as suggested in new clause 5, is that The Sun discovered early in the procedure that it was horribly wrong. It had clearly not done its homework, it had not checked the story and it knew that it was printing lies.
      What did The Sun do, however, when at the very start of the procedure, Mr. Elton John, through his lawyers, sought a retraction, an apology and a right of reply? Despite knowing that it was wrong—after printing the big lie—it decided it would win through by going for a bigger lie. It then doubled its pressure, as can be seen from the headline on 27 February, which said: "You're a Liar Elton." I might add that that is a familiar technique of The Sun.
      There was a famous Press Council ruling about a Wapping lorry driver called Mr. McCabe. The Sun printed all kinds of nonsence about him and he went to the Press Council. He obtained a ruling in his favour. The Sun then printed the Press Council's ruling under the headline,
      "You"re Still a Lying Trucker."
      The Sun continued to scour the planet for more filth on Mr. Elton John. It paid £10,000 for polaroid pictures of him nude with a man, which had nothing to do with its original allegations. The Independent said:
      "The Sun's game plan was to keep on hitting Elton John so hard that he would give up long before the judge heard the matter."
      That is what The Sun tried to do, but Elton John stuck to his guns and he received £1 million in libel damages and an apology from The Sun—which infuriated the judge—"Sorry, Elton." It was a cheeky style of apology.
      The story of The Sun's handling of that case has clearly shown what its moral standards are. Paying £1 million must have hurt even Mr. Murdoch's pockets, but clearly it was not enough. Mr. MacKenzie is still in his place. No one appears to have been fired over the incident. There has been no proper apology to the public or to the readers. As the judge said in the case of Elton John, it was a pretty cheeky kind of apology that was eventually printed. Therefore, it is not satisfactory to say that the courts are adequately handling the matter through the antique machinery of the libel laws. If The Sun is making more than £1 million a week, it can afford to pay £1 million in damages.
      The Press Council has been held up by the Minister as a great shield and the reason we do not need the Bill: warts and all, the Press Council will do the job for us. However, in the past the Press Council has been absurdly weak and ineffective. We are asked to believe that the arrival of Louis Blom-Cooper—my hon. Friend paid tribute to him when moving the new clause—means that all will change. It is believed that somehow Hercules has arrived at the Augean stables or Superman has reached the sewage farm. We had the same high hopes when Sir Zelman Cowan was brought from Australia. He presided over the most disastrous deterioration of standards in the history of Fleet Street.
      618
      I am somewhat underwhelmed by the prospect of Mr. Blom-Cooper's new broom. I wish him well, but there are many things wrong with the Press Council. Editors do not have to appear in person, but I am glad that the NUJ is to take up Press Council membership; that is a step in the right direction. Complainants have no right to an oral inquiry, the findings, if published at all, are published in much too small type and, above all, the Press Council lacks resources.
      What on earth is there to stop another Elton John, another McCabe, another spate of excesses? We see them almost daily in the tabloid newspapers. In the end the buck must come back to us. It is all very well to say that the press is on probation and that we should give it one more chance. I would love to believe that that approach would work, but I believe that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has done the House and the country a fine service. His Bill is full of flaws and, under parliamentary scrutiny, perhaps it does not deserve to reach the statute book yet—perhaps we need new clause 5 as a long stop.
      In the end, unless there is a real change of heart, a new direction of resources and a new determination by the press to clean up its act, we will be back in business again, with some form of ferocious and totally deserved restrictive legislation on the press, which all of us would greatly regret.
      Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I intend to be brief. We have just listened to a delightful speech from the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not try to follow him in wisdom and humour and if I try to stick to the amendment.
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who introduced the new clause, is a bit unfair on the Lord Chancellor. I would have thought that he had enough problems on his hands dealing with the lawyers, of whom the hon. Gentleman is one, and he should leave the journalists alone. Lord Chief Justice Lane has ludicrously said that the Lord Chancellor is wearing a swastika on his arm and that he is leaning towards the right of Fascism. Lord Justice Donaldson is organising a strike and Queen's counsellors in this House are meeting in the all-party barrister's committee upstairs plotting the Lord Chancellor's downfall and, no doubt, his death. A previous Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, has said that the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister are guilty of ideological baloney. I would have thought that that was enough for anyone to deal with and a good enough reason for leaving the Home Office to deal with this Bill.
      I am sure that the Lord Chancellor would have been rather puzzled if he had read the papers this week. He would have pondered on how an unholy alliance has come about between the Home Secretary, the editor of The Guardian, Peter Preston, the editor of The Observer, Donald Trelford and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Even the right hon. Gentleman must admit that it is an unholy alliance and that it was not always thus. I am sure that we were all pleased to see that the right hon. Gentleman took about £11,000 from The Guardian for telling lies about him, but I also understand that such an alliance will not always exist in the future. I believe that Donald Trelford, editor of The Observer is trying to make unkind comments about the right hon. Gentleman when he was Secretary of State for Industry concerning some

      619
      shop and the House of Fraser. But they have all come together in a grand alliance and I am sure that the Lord Chancellor will be worried about that.
      One serious argument in favour of handing over some of the responsibilities for the Bill to the Lord Chancellor's Department was highlighted when my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) compared the regulation of television with the regulation of the press. I speak as someone who worked in television for four years and as a Member of the NUJ who writes a bit now and then.
      There is a genuine worry about the Home Office running the Bill, which might be a good argument in favour of the Lord Chancellor. The Home Office has used a system of censorship that has, for a long time, been secretive and unpleasant. Last night I was reading some history about the way in which censorship has operated in broadcasting. I asked myself whether we want the Home Secretary and, with great respect, the Minister present to have anything to do with the Bill? I thought back to the early 1980s when a television programme "Death of a Princess" was broadcast. Immediately the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary responded to criticism from Saudi Arabia and said that trade was more important than freedom of speech. They believed that we should censor that programme and that we should not show it again. More recently, I thought about another drama documentary. "Tumbledown", which dealt with the Falklands war. The Home Office made quiet noises, saying "We really do not think that this programme should be shown. There ought to be some censorship—some restriction of freedom of expression."
      2 pm
      I thought about another television programme, "Death on the Rock". Again, the Home Office made it clear that it did not want the programme to be shown. I remember "Real Lives", a television film in which a former Home Secretary was shifted elsewhere and then shunted off to Europe as part of his hurry-on-down process—I refer to Sir Leon Brittan.
      I thought of the Zircon film, which again the Home Office did not want shown and which was suppressed. I thought of "My Country, right or wrong", another BBC programme that the Home Office wanted to be suppressed. I even thought of a drama which the Home Office had managed to stop, "Left Over People" by Tom Pickard. I remembered the BBC's attempts to secure a repeat of a drama called "United Kingdom" by Roland Joffé, on which I was a researcher.
      Surely it would be better for the Bill to be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor than by the Home Secretary and the Minister who tried to censor all those programmes. The Home Office's record of censorship is appalling. Why are the editors of so-called radical papers, Peter Preston of The Guardian and Donald Trelford of The Observer, forming an unholy alliance to blast off against my hon. Friend's modest little Bill? It makes me wonder whether someone ought to pass the sick bag.
      Mr. Patrick Ground: The new clause and amendments raise two important questions—first, whether the Bill should come into effect on the day on which it is passed or at a later date, and, secondly, whether the Home Secretary or the Lord Chancellor should administer it.
      620
      The amendments, and the debate on them, illustrate the difficulties of the Bill, which I mentioned on Second Reading—the confusion between the judicial remedies and the types of remedy provided by the Press Council and the press commission, and the constitutional difficulty of Government-appointed nominees correcting factual errors in the press.
      Obviously no Minister is rushing forward to carry out the responsibilities imposed by the Bill. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) seemed to see some sinister reason for the Government's lack of enthusiasm for the task, but I see some virtue in their reluctance to grapple with such powers. That reluctance stems from a recognition of the constitutional dangers of Government becoming involved in the correction of errors in the press. The examples quoted by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) illustrate the possible difficulties of a confrontation between the Government and the press about a number of sensitive matters.
      I accept that, when circumstances require the exercise of something resembling judicial functions, there is a strong case for making the Lord Chancellor responsible for appointments and for the administration of the legislation. Recommendations have been made that planning and transport inspectors should come under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor, and I see the force of such arguments in the present context. I suggest that the duties that the Bill would impose would sit uneasily with the Lord Chancellor's other duties. The appointment of the Lord Chancellor to this task implies that the body to be created would be a much more judicial body than would really be the case. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is involved with broadcasting and television, I am led to the conclusion that, if a Minister is to be given the job, it should be given to him rather than to the Lord Chancellor.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will tell us what he thinks about the starting date of the Bill. He says that history will be on the side of the Bill, but at no point did I hear him say that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen are behind it or its starting date. I heard him speak on Second Reading and I listened to his speech today. I should like him to clarify when, if at all, he considers that the Bill ought to come into force.
      I listened with great sympathy to what was said by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) both on Second Reading and again today, and I share the admiration that has been expressed about the way he has conducted the Bill. However, the two difficulties that I have mentioned prevent me from supporting it. I believe that we should benefit from a delay in the starting date of the Bill, if it were to reach the statute book, in order to assess the reforms that the Press Council is undertaking. I envisage greater benefits from the reform of the Press Council than from the somewhat inadequate remedies that the Bill contains.
      For those reasons, I do not support the inclusion of the Lord Chancellor in the Bill. I support, however, the deferment of the starting date so that there may be more time for further reflection.
      Mr. Tebbit: I oppose the new clause for slightly different reasons from those that were given by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore). As is known, there has been an unholy

      621
      alliance between myself and Mr. Peter Preston, who courageously published in his newspaper an article by me that attacked strongly his newspaper's record on this matter and brought out the fact that I had been forced to go to law to clear my name after an unfair and untrue allegation was published in his paper. That shows an element of courtesy and decency by The Guardian. I do not usually praise that newspaper, so I take this opportunity to do so.
      The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch made the interesting point that he does not trust the Home Secretary to deal with these matters because of his record on the electronic media. He ought, therefore, to come all the way with me and say that he does not trust the record of Ministers or politicians as showing that they have any influence whatsoever over what the press should or should not publish. In that case, he would become, with me, an opponent of the Bill in general.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, that does not mean that there is not a great deal that is wrong with certain sections of the press. If we can find a way to bring more pressure to bear on them to change their attitudes, I am all for it. What gives me the greatest unease—whether it is the Lord Chancellor or the Home Secretary—is that Ministers would have the power to appoint people to what is called a press commission that would inevitably seek more and more power to deal with what the commission regard as press abuses.
      We should not accept the new clause, although it was introduced so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), because when something gets into the hands of the legal profession and the Lord Chancellor it moves away from things that we ordinary mortals may comment on into a rarefied area where people go all judicial on us. It is very difficult to get Law Officers into a debate in the House about the conduct of their Department's affairs. It is not nearly so difficult to deal with a Secretary of State or a Home Secretary. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend.
      The most important result of the activities of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie is that the Government have been forced to think seriously about the extent of their responsibility for putting pressure on the press to publish or not to publish. I am totally against the so-called right of reply being a statutory right enforced by state-appointed commissioners. Quite rightly, the Government have concluded that they should conduct a broad-based inquiry and we should await any recommendations that might be produced.
      Sir Peter Emery: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the appointment of commissioners, is he not terrified at the fact that clause 6 suggests that the commissioners
      "shall issue guidelines and advice as necessary to improve editorial standards."?
      Does that not mean that Government-appointed commissioners could begin to judge exactly what the editorial content of newspapers may or may not be? That would be an extremely slippery slope.
      Mr. Tebbit: To stay precisely in order, I have not referred to my amendment which would remove those powers from the press commission, if it were ever to be created.
      622
      As a consequence of the efforts of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie and my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) newspaper proprietors must be beginning to think that, however many friends of the free press sit in the House—and I believe that the great majority of us believe in the concept of a free press—sooner or later we shall be rolled over by the forces of those who are prepared to dilute the freedom of the press to deal with a perceived wrong. That would be extremely dangerous.
      Like many of the other irritants of democracy that we have to put up with, a free press is part of the price we have to pay. I am willing to pay that price. I have been hurt by the press more than once. Occasionally one can come back on the press, if one has the resources to do so. Most people cannot, but it is part of the price we pay for democracy. The press barons have to acknowledge that part of the price they must pay for the right to run newspapers, make profits out of newspapers and influence opinion through newspapers is that those newspapers have to be decent in the terms set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). It has been noticed that a certain group of newspapers appears to have changed slightly. Another group of newspapers adopts various standards for different newspapers in the group.
      I would not say that the Daily Mirror is guiltless. Such headings as, "And you're a liar too", and "You're still a liar" did not only appear in The Sun, but also appeared in the Daily Mirror. There would be great disputes across the Floor of the House and elsewhere as to whether those headlines were true.
      Standards have to be improved and today's debate must send a signal to those press barons saying, "If you want to continue to be in business with a free press in a free country, you must consider whether, exceptionally, a proprietor has not only the right but the responsibility to put pressure on his editors to behave in a manner which would enhance the reputation of the press and not damage it."
      Mr. Fisher: To my surprise, I find myself in sympathy with much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Like him, I cannot support the new clause, even though I enjoyed the amusing and elegant way in which it was moved by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I was somewhat surprised, even shocked, by the vicious attack he launched on his right hon. Friend—I use the word "Friend" loosely or conventionally—the Secretary of State for Wales. Such clear splits in the Government so close to the by-election in the Vale of Glamorgan will have been noted.
      2.15 pm
      The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised some important issues. He addressed himself most clearly to the question of which Department should have responsibility for appointment. The prior and implicit issue raised in that is whether any Department should be involved. It is on this point that I have sympathy with the right hon. Member for Chingford. If we are serious about the independence of the press and broadcasting, we have to do everything we can to loosen Government ties. That is easier said than done. It is not only a matter of legislation. It is potently a matter of patronage in the appointment of members of the BBC, the IBA and commissions such as the press commission.

      623
      Although I strongly support everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has done in promoting the Bill, he knows that we have had differences of opinion and that I have some grave reservations about this part of the Bill. It leaves to the Government—any Government—patronage in appointing members of the press commission. We have to find some way of establishing independence. That is not easy, and it is not something that Her Majesty's Opposition have yet cracked.
      The growth of patronage spreads across and weakens public life. The fingers of Government, whichever party is in power, are spread so widely across many public bodies in which it is not only unnecessary but counter-productive for the Government to be involved. Therefore, I agree with the right hon. Member for Chingford. However, the methods that one can envisage of creating independence in any such body and finding other ways through which those people can be appointed are either cumbersomely democratic or not yet clear to me.
      Mr. Tebbit: It is not often that we find ourselves in so much agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to come with me the next step of the way and say that it would be infinitely preferable if we did not have to have these forms of control, which inevitably mean that somebody—and who else but the Government?—has to appoint commissioners of some sort. I look forward to the day when there are as many channels on our radio and television as there are channels available in the press and when we can get rid of Government control of any sort, except in respect of decency, over television and radio. I hope that he will join me in that view.
      Mr. Fisher: The right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I will not join him in that view. There is a great deal of difference between the Government having a direct influence and control through patronage, and the responsibility of the Government, on behalf of our society, to set a framework that protects the rights of individuals and in which a diversity of programmes can be ensured in our broadcasting media.
      Mr. Grocott: At the risk of driving a further wedge between my hon. Friend and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) I must say that if there is to be Government involvement, it is better that it is understood and in statute than if it is the type of Government pressure that came from the right hon. Member for Chingford when he was a senior Minister in the Government. He applied quite nasty pressure on the BBC but he has been honest enough to admit that. I put it to him once that he had made veiled threats to the leaders of the BBC and he was honest enough to say, "When I make threats, they are not veiled."
      Mr. Fisher: That succinct turn of phrase has a ring of authenticity. The right hon. Member for Chingford is nodding to confirm that he is the true author and begetter of the phrase. The phrase does him more credit than the instinct. I was in my local radio station the day after he made that statement in September or October 1986, and the effect of it on senior and experienced journalists was worrying. They were struck and concerned by such overt pressure from someone who was then a senior member of the Government.
      Mr. Tebbit: The essence of the remark was that if I had made a threat it would have been open because I do not make behind-the-doors threats, such as those that have been made by some Governments in the past. I made no threat whatever because there was no open threat. The hon. Gentleman will not find on the record anywhere a threat that I made against the broadcasting authorities. There was a lot of pressure, yes, to tell the truth and to balance it fairly, but no threat.
      Mr. Fisher: I think that we are getting into semantics, and I want to deal with the central point of the amendment—which Department should be responsible.
      Curiously, under this Government and previous Governments, press matters are dealt with by the Department of Trade and Industry. The broadcasting world has been interested by the power struggle between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Home Secretary. I am glad that in this instance the Home Secretary has been supreme and that the Minister of State, Home Office has guided the legislation.
      Mr. Skinner: I have just had an article passed to me about the right of reply. It appears that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has been busily demanding a right of reply of the Waltham Guardian of 20 April 1989. The right hon. Gentleman complained in a letter that his name had been left out. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and other hon. Members are mentioned in this article. Although the right hon. Member for Chingford opposes this Bill, he demanded a right of reply from the editor of the Waltham Guardian and got one. The editor says; "Our apologies to Mr. Tebbit for the arm twisting". No, that is not him. He says:
      "The omission was due to a paragraph falling off at the printers. Of course he has played a part in trying to remedy the Waltham Forest court situation, which we reported, and we are grateful to him and the borough's two other MPs. We are always ready to publish corrections to these reports where inaccuracies make a fundamental difference."
      The truth is that if many people in Waltham Forest had written to the editor and said, "I want my letter printed and a right of reply" they would have been refused.
      Mr. Fisher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interesting and intriguing intervention.
      Labour Members do not believe that the Department of Trade and Industry is the best Department to deal with the newspaper industry, because, like broadcasting, it is not just another industry but a key element in the culture and communications of our society. The public agenda, values, traditions, and ideas of our society are sustained arid carried by the press, so it must not be dealt with like textiles or other industries. It is essentially a cultural industry and should be so handled.
      For the same reasons the Labour party is concerned that the Home Office is involved in the Bill. A Department that has responsibilities for prisons, probation and the control of immigration is not the appropriate Department to ensure the right of reply.
      I share many of the concerns that were expressed passionately and eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (M r. Sedgemore), when he went through the Government's disgraceful record on editorial interference in programmes such as "Real Lives" and "My Country Right or Wrong", the injunctions on the BBC's "Death on the Rock" and the refusal to accept the Windlesham report. There was also

      625
      their pressure through injunctions on The Guardian, The Independent and other newspapers, which is relevant to the Bill.
      Mr. Renton: I greatly resent those ridiculous remarks. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that it is because of our wish to protect the freedom of the press that we have been carefully neutral on this Bill and the Protection of Privacy Bill despite the support for them from Members of all parties? We are anxious that there should be no statutory control of the press.
      Mr. Fisher: The Government are incapable of protecting editorial independence in the press or broadcasting, so they do not recommend themselves as being likely to protect the rights of the public through the right of reply. The Government's record is against them.
      For the same reason I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne who proposed that the matter should be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor's Department. We are dealing with issues of culture, communications, access, editorial independence, and freedom of speech and information. A Labour Government will set up a Ministry to deal with the arts and the media—[Interruption.] We made it clear at the last general election that we would do that. The Ministry would have responsibility for the press and would be the most suitable Ministry for protecting editorial independence. Broadcasting, publishing and the press have issues such as access and editorial independence in common, but they have little in common with prisons, the probation service and immigration.
      The next Labour Government will introduce a Bill dealing with the right of reply, although it will not be in precisely the same form as the present Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie has often said, he has tried to carry hon. Members of a wide range of opinions with him, so he has pared down the Bill
      626
      to its essence. He has removed broadcasting, which is included in such legislation in many other European countries and he has removed other elements. The possible defeat of the Bill gives the Labour party time to consider afresh the form in which it will introduce a similar Bill when in government which other hon. Members will support. It will be part of a package that protects the consumer against the unbridled power of the press and protects editorial independence and the strength of journalists. We desperately need freedom of information legislation to protect the rights of journalists, just as we must protect the right of reply for individuals. The House has accepted the principle that the public have such a right of reply. Next, we must introduce such a Bill.
      Mr. Worthington: I want to express my appreciation to all the supporters of the Bill for the help that they have given. I also want to express my appreciation to the oppontents of the Bill. An enormous amount of help has been given to the framing of future legislation on the right of reply. We recognise the complexities of the issue, and Labour Members have a genuine addiction to a free press. I also welcome the Minister's statement that there is to be a review of matters of privacy and related issues. But I am sure that the Minister will recognise that his statement has rivalled any in the past in its vagueness about the remit of the review, and he made no statement on who was to chair it.
      Let me conclude by emphasising the seriousness of this matter. Next week will be the first anniversary of the death of a young actor called David Scarboro who used to be in East Enders. His family, his fellow villagers and many of his colleagues on the cast of East Enders believe that his death was brought about largely by press harassment yet the News of the World and The Sun never acknowledged their part in the misery that that lad's life became. I hope that we shall remember cases like that as we wait for the Press Council to try to put its house in order.
      It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Private Members' Bills

  INTERNATIONAL PARLIAMENTARY ORGANISATIONS (REGISTRATIONS) BILL
  Order read for consideration in Committee.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Committee Friday 28 April.

  LOTTERIES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not printed.

  ABORTION (RIGHTS OF ANCILLARY WORKERS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.

  NATIONAL IDENTITY CARD BILL
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [10 February.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  INSTALLATION OF SMOKE DETECTORS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.

  SCOTLAND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  FUEL AND ENERGY PROVISION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 26 May.

  PROTECTION OF RESIDENTS IN RETIREMENT HOMES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 5 May.

  HOUSING THE HOMELESS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS (ACCESS TO INFORMATION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 April.

  FUNERAL INDUSTRY (CODE OF PRACTICE) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  LONDON GOVERNMENT BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

  JUNIOR HOSPITAL DOCTORS (REGULATION OF HOURS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 April.

  COAL MINING SUBSIDENCE (DAMAGE, ARBITRATION, PREVENTION AND PUBLIC AWARENESS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

  RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS (ABOLITION) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 July.

  INDECENT DISPLAYS (NEWSPAPERS AND WORKPLACES) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 April.

  AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

  GAMING MACHINES (PROHIBITION ON USE BY PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till 12 May

  RIDERS OF EQUINE ANIMALS (WEARING OF PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 28 April.

  COUNTING WOMEN'S UNREMUNERATED WORK BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Madam Deputy SpeakerSecond Reading what day? No day named.

  BRITISH RACING COMMISSION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

  FOOTBALL SPECTATORS (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Second Reading deferred till Friday 12 May.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Tuesday 25th April, the Motion in the name of Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Health and Safety may be proceeded with, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon; and if proceedings thereon have not been disposed of at the end of that period, Mr. Speaker shall then put the Question.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Fullerton Hospital, Doncaster
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]
2.34 pm
Mr. Martin Redmond: I am pleased to have this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the disastrous consequences that the closure of Fullerton hospital will have for the local community. The importance of the matter is evidenced by the presence of so many hon. Friends. Fullerton hospital was built by the Denaby-Conisbrough community many years ago, to provide facilities for and to meet the demands of local people. Cadeby and Denaby pits were major contributors to the building of that hospital. However, when the National Health Service was created, the local community had no hesitation in seeing that Fullerton was a part of the service.
The building has not had much spent on it in the past. Nevertheless, it is still a substantial building which has stood the test of time. It is surrounded by gardens, providing a healthy environment for patients in their twilight years. There was a need for Fullerton when it was built, and there is still a need for it now.
The two wards at Montagu hospital will not stand the test of time and will require substantial amounts of money spent on them if they are to remain in use in, possibly, 10 years. Also, Montagu hospital does not have the same environment as Fullerton.
Doncaster hospital has one of the lowest administration costs in the country. It has been and still is nurse-oriented, but, because of the way in which the Government funded the pay rise last year, Doncaster now has financial difficulties. If that were not so and if the Government had played the game with the health authority, I would not be making this case for Fullerton hospital this afternoon.
By closing Fullerton hospital and thus reducing services, £100,000 will be saved to fulfil the previous commitment to Montagu hospital—robbing Peter to pay Paul, or hand-to-mouth short-term policies. I honestly believe that the long-term needs of the Doncaster area will be met only by long-term planning. If the authority did not have such financial problems, which are through no fault of its own, it would have opened a children's wing.
Last week, I received a letter from the Minister, drawing my attention to this new development. But there is no money to staff it. Is the Minister suggesting that another old folks hospital such as Fullerton should be closed to get the money to provide the staff? The Cancer Trust in Doncaster is providing a hospice. Doncaster health authority cannot meet the promise on the staffing of it.
There is a cash crisis in Doncaster, and the closure of Fullerton will result in several premature deaths. The closure of Fullerton has no relation to the future needs of Doncaster. We must ask whether we are to provide love and care for our elderly or allow them to end their lives alone and unwanted. Society owes it to them to allow them to end their lives in dignity, and we should show them some compassion in their twilight years. That is the hallmark of a civilised society. The problem is a growing number of elderly people and the absence of any long-term strategy to cope with them.

631
We still await the Government's reponse to the Griffiths report, which is wanted as quickly as possible and should be considered in conjunction with the Wagner report. There is a national discrepancy between the number of residential and National Health Service beds of about 25,000. For humane reasons alone, there is a case for keeping Fullerton open until the sums are correct. If Fullerton closes, that will have terrible consequences for a long-term policy has yet to be determined.
Trent regional health authority has no long-term plans. According to a recent parliamentary answer, Trent is still holding consultations and reviewing its strategy. Examination of Doncaster's population shows that those aged between 75 and 85 numbered 12,785 in 1986. By 1996, that figure will grow to 14,290—an increase of 11·8 per cent. By 2006, that aged population will grow to 15,720—an increase of 23 per cent. In 1986, those aged 85 or more in Doncaster totalled 2,750. By 1996, that figure will grow to 3,161—an increase of 14·9 per cent. By 2006, the figure will be 5,070—an 84·3 per cent. increase. Those figures are horrendous.
The local authority will not be able to assist because the average age of those in local authority care is 82. More than 80 per cent. of all residents in social service care are more than 75 years of age. Everyone knows that local authority part III accommodation is under stress. Because of the make-up of our population, social services are the second biggest spenders in the local authority. The local authority has suffered a one third reduction in rate support grant since the Government were elected in 1979, and one can see the effect that that has had.
The Dearne valley is a deprived area, and that is why the Government, with the co-operation of the local authority, are endeavouring to lift morale. However, with the proposed closure, the health authority will undermine the work both of the Government and of the local authority.
Because of high unemployment, many people leave the area to seek work. It is the young and active who leave, giving rise to an imbalance in the population and to a disproportionate number of the infirm and elderly to be looked after. The family unit is split up, because if the young go away to seek work, they cannot take with them their elderly or infirm parents. As a consequence, the local authority has to provide care services. Other family members who remain are faced with Government regulations that hit those wishing to meet their family responsibilities, because the care allowance is so small. Looking after their parents could financially affect their own families.
I turn to the Trent regional health authority report, a copy of which I presume the Minister has. The report of the health authority's sub-committee gives the background to the proposed relocation. The sub-committee took just five minutes to discuss that important subject, which is deplorable. Paragraph 1.2 of the report states:
"Fullerton Hospital … currently provides a maximum of 34 beds."
However, it is stated later:
"There are currently 25 beds in use at Fullerton Hospital."
That represents a deliberate policy of run-down by the local authority in advance of the Minister's decision.
Paragraph 1.3.3 talks about paramedics, but not with this type of patient. I should like the Minister to look at some photographs I have here because they depict the type of patient. Paragraph 13 talks about Fullerton having to
632
be served from Montagu hospital. Montagu hospital is already linked with Doncaster royal infirmary, so I do not see any difference between DRI-Montagu and Montagu-Fullerton.
Paragraph 1.3.4 talks about savings of £100,000. I question whether that is a true figure. Certainly when one takes into consideration humanitarian aspects, money pales into insignificance. Paragraph 1.3.5 talks about appropriate medical care, but it is rubbish. Fullerton is better. Paragraph 1.4 talks about the relocation of services. Could we not have a ballot of staff, patients and the community on that?
I pay tribute to the staff and friends of Fullerton hospital. They have played a tremendous role in the past and have been instrumental in adding many years to patients' lives. Paragraph 3.2.2 talks about giving the name "Fullerton" to a ward at Montagu hospital. That is a load of rubbish. Paragraph 3.2.3 talks about upgrading, but, because of the financial problems of Doncaster, that will not take place. I do not think that the proposals in paragraph 3.2.4 will take place either.
Paragraph 3.2.5 talks about Conisbrough hospital being at risk. Unless we get cash to maintain services, we are on a downward spiral. Paragraph 3.2.6 will be affected by restrictions on finances. All I can say on paragraph 3.2.7 is that Doncaster council has its own financial problems. One must question whether paragraph 3.2.9 is correct. Money problems will affect paragraph 3.3. For those reasons we need to look again.
"The principles that adequate health care should be provided to all regardless of ability to pay must be the foundation of any arrangements for financing the Health Service."
Those are not my words, but those of the Prime Minister at the Conservative party conference in 1982 and repeated in the 1983 Conservative party manifesto.
I pay tribute to all those connected with Fullerton. They have done a tremendous job in the past and would do so in future. Will the Minister instruct the health authority to consult the patients and the staff at Fullerton, and the people of Doncaster? If he does, there will be an overwhelming majority, indeed a unanimous vote, to keep Fullerton open. I plead with the Minister on behalf of the elderly who have been served so well in the past and on behalf of my constituents to intervene and keep Fullerton open.
2.49 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on his success in the ballot. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in the welfare of his constituents and in the affairs of his local district health authority, Doncaster, and its region. Trent. The hon. Gentleman pursues that interest with great energy and vigour. I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman served as vice-chairman of Doncaster health authority in 1982. I am sure that the House appreciates the clear and direct way in which he has presented the arguments on behalf of his constituents. As he knows, I stood for election in his constituency in 1979, and I have great respect for him, for his constituents and for the county of South Yorkshire.
Fullerton hospital has been serving the people of Doncaster for more than three quarters of a century—initially providing acute services to the local area and for

633
many years catering for orthopaedic patients transferred from the Doncaster royal infirmary. In recent years the hospital has been used to provide continuing care for elderly patients. Given that history, I well understand the intense feelings of loyalty that it arouses among the local community. The health advisory service, when it looked at services for the elderly in Doncaster at the end of 1987, praised the good quality of care being given at Fullerton. I should like to echo what the health advisory service said and put on record the Government's appreciation of the tremendous efforts and dedication of the hospital's staff over many years.
I know, too, that there has been considerable uncertainty about the future of Fullerton hospital for some time now and that proposals to close the hospital were put forward two years ago, but later withdrawn. I am sure that it is in everyone's interest for that uncertainty to be ended quickly. The health advisory service advised Doncaster health authority to include Fullerton in its reconsideration of the disposition of beds for the elderly.
It would be quite wrong for me to comment further on the current proposal, because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is about to be referred to Ministers. I understand that it will reach the Ministry next week. It might, however, be helpful if I were to outline where matters stand at present on the health authority's proposal.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that there is an established procedure that must be followed before the closure or change of use of National Health Service facilities. Doncaster health authority issued a consultation document in October last year in which it proposed to transfer 35 beds for the elderly from Fullerton hospital to the Montagu hospital two miles away in Mexborough, with a view to the Fullerton closing later this year.
The local community health council objected to the proposal to transfer services to Mexborough Montagu hospital and to close Fullerton and so the matter was subsequently referred to the regional health authority, where it was considered by a members' panel. I know that that panel visited Fullerton hospital and the wards at Montagu hospital to which it is proposed that services should transfer and met representatives of staff and the local community.
At its meeting on 10 April, the regional health authority endorsed the recommendation of the members' panel and approved Doncaster health authority's proposal to close Fullerton, subject to a number of conditions being met. Doncaster district health authority has indicated that it will be able to comply with those conditions. Doncaster community health council still wishes to object in the light of the conditions the regional health authority has placed on implementation of the closure. The hon. Gentleman outlined some of those objections. The proposal will therefore come to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of state for Health for a final decision.
As I have said, I cannot comment further on the proposal at this stage, because I do not wish to prejudice that decision. I do, however, understand the concern that has been expressed today on the subject. I can promise the hon. Member for Don Valley that when the proposal does come to the Department we shall give the matter the very
634
careful consideration that it clearly deserves. In doing so, I can assure him that full account will be taken of the points which he has made so clearly this afternoon.
In addition, given the projections for the ageing population over the years up to 2000 in the Doncaster health authority area, and indeed South Yorkshire as a whole, in the hon. Gentleman's judgment as, indeed, in mine, there must be adequate provision in future for the care of the elderly. His point was that a decision now could prejudice the ability of the health authority to continue to meet that demand. I carefully noted his point and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we come to consider the representations in the case, we will bear that in mind.
I shall refer briefly to some of the services that Doncaster health authority provides and seek to answer the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that Doncaster health authority has benefited considerably from an expansion of resources. To take this year as an example, the health authority has an initial cash allocation of £61,589,000, which represents a real terms increase of 2·8 per cent. over last year—the third highest in the Trent region. That will bring Doncaster to a funding level of 96 per cent. of its RAWP target. I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point that, historically, Doncaster has been relatively under-funded. In recent years progress has been made, but the RAWP target has not yet been achieved.
Mr. Redmond: I believe that the RAWP has gone by the wayside. Doncaster has a cash problem and it is tearing at the services provided for its people. It is no good having new facilities if we do not have sufficient staff to maintain present levels of service. When considering the long-term needs of Doncaster it is important to consider the horrific figures I have given. I can substantiate those figures and if the Minister wants a meeting some time before he makes his decision I will provide the evidence.
Mr. Freeman: I would be glad to meet the hon. Gentleman at his convenience to go over the figures. He is right that, in two years' time, RAWP will disappear and that we shall move to a system of weighted capitation funding of the regions and in turn, the districts. That funding will reflect not only the total number of patients within a district health authority, but relative mobility and the relative cost of providing services. I will be glad to pursue this particular matter with the hon. Gentleman in due course.
The Doncaster health authority is using the injection of funds to develop and improve many of its services and facilities. The most notable recent example is the newly opened children's unit at the Doncaster royal infirmary. The unit is providing four new wards plus new out-patient and child assessment facilities at a total cost of about £31½ million. It means children's facilities at Doncaster have now been brought together on a single site.
The hon. Gentleman has said that three wards are open now, but one is not and that an appeal has been launched to raise sufficient funds to open it. The health authority had planned to open the fourth ward in 1991. Clearly if one is building facilities it is much easier to build four rather than three, even if the intention is to bring the fourth ward on stream in a number of years' time.
I understand that the health authority's formal plan was to bring the fourth ward on stream in two years' time. There is full revenue funding in the budget for that. The health authority then decided to launch an appeal to

635
accelerate the opening of the fourth ward. That appeal has been remarkably successful and that is a tribute to the great generosity of the people of Doncaster. I hope that the health authority will be able to open the fourth ward earlier than expected. That decision will enable the health authority to do other things that would not otherwise be possible as the commissioning costs for the fourth ward, which are funded at present from 1991, will no longer be needed. I have already said that the revenue implications of opening the fourth ward from 1991 have already been taken into account in the budget.
Mr. Redmond: Doncaster health authority launched a cash appeal to provide staff for the children's ward. That is the first time in its history that the health authority has gone out to ask for money to staff a hospital or a ward. Previous cash appeals have gone for the cream on the cake—to provide televisions or to ensure that other patient needs are met. Never before has an appeal been launched to meet staffing needs.
Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The purpose of the appeal is to bring forward the opening of the fourth ward by two years, and to provide the capital and commissioning costs and revenue costs for the staff for those two years, but not beyond 1991. I do not believe that there is any dispute between us about the facts.
Doncaster health authority decided on such action because it had seen the tremendous success of the Great
636
Ormond Street "Wishing Well" appeal. I am sorry that some people think that the appeal is for the entire unit, or that it is a reflection on the health authority's determination to provide good children's care. It was launched for the best of motives. Observing the nation's generosity in the "Wishing Well" appeal, the authority saw a chance to accelerate the opening of the fourth ward.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in complimenting the authority on the "Putting People First" initiative, launched in, I believe, 1984 as part of a regional campaign. I think that all parties in the House, whatever their disagreements about certain elements in our proposed NHS reforms, would agree with the excellent pamphlet provided by Doncaster health authority. I shall study the photographs with great interest. Patients in all hospitals, including Fullerton, should be treated as individuals. All members of staff, whether doctors, nurses or support staff, should treat people sympathetically and sensitively as individuals.
This has been a useful debate. I repeat the assurance that I gave the hon. Gentleman earlier: we shall give careful consideration to the proposal when it arrives next week following the objections of the Doncaster health council. I also assure him that I shall be happy to meet him to discuss the wider issue of resource funding for the Doncaster health authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Three o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Vehicle Registration Numbers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 595, if he will describe the circumstances in which he allows the police access to the vehicle registration numbers in his possession in order to trace the owner of a particular vehicle; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Regulation 15 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 1971 requires the Secretary of State to supply to the police, free of charge, such particulars as may be requested of any vehicle contained in the DV LC vehicle register. In practice the police national computer contains a register of vehicles and keepers including much of the information on the DVLC record, from which it is updated on a daily basis. Other vehicles information available to DVLC is provided to the police on request.

  Regulation 15, which permits the release of this information takes precedence over the Data Protection Act 1984 provisions. Section 34(1) of that Act exempts the data held by this Department which is required to be made available by other enactments. Notwithstanding this exemption the DVLC has registered its computer data under the the Data Protection Act 1984 and adheres closely to the data protection principles.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of Transport, pursuant to his answer of 22 March,Official Report, column 595, if he will describe the circumstances in which the police or security services could have access to the vehicle registration numbers collected by Autoguide or similar traffic systems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The operation of a driver information system which was licensed under the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill would have to comply with the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1984. Sections 27 and 28 of the Act are concerned with national security and with crime and taxation.

  Vehicles (East Sussex)
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many vehicles in each band of excise duty are registered at addresses in East Sussex.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  At the December 1988 census there were 313,279 licensed vehicles registered in East Sussex. These are analysed by tax class groups as follows:

  Number

  Private and Light Goods

  280,024

  Motorcycles, Scooters etc

  12,172

  Farmers Goods

  580

  306

  Number

  General Goods

  6,802

  Exempt Vehicles (Emergency services, specialist road construction etc)

  3,862

  Exempt Vehicles (limited mileage on public roads section 7(1) Vehicle Excise Act)

  260

  Electric Vehicles

  224

  Hackney (taxis, buses)

  1,560

  Others

  4,370

  Unlicensed (used on private roads)

  3,425

  TSG and Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he proposes to make any additional allocations for 1989–90 in respect of TSG and capital allocations.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The amount of transport supplementary grant payable to local highway authorities for 1989–90 was determined at the time of the annual settlement. It cannot be changed.

  Capital allocations for roads in 1989–90 have also been settled. However, supplementary capital allocations may be made if any of the resources earmarked for a highway project of national or regional importance, or for other local transport projects, are not in the event needed. It is too soon to say if there are likely to be such supplementary allocations this year.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the original forecast dates for improvements to trunk roads and local authority roads in connection with the Channel tunnel in Kent and East Sussex; and what is the latest revised forecast completion dates.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  It is not the Department's practice generally to give forecast completion dates for trunk road schemes in preparation since they are subject to the satisfactory completion of statutory procedures and detailed design. We have the Channel tunnel in mind in our planning and we aim to complete the major improvements in Kent and East Sussex as soon as possible.

  The Maidstone to Ashford section of the M20 motorway is under construction. It is due for completion by mid-1991.

  Local authority roads are the responsibility of Kent and East Sussex county councils.

  M25
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people have been killed and seriously injured on the M25 over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Too many.

  Provisional figures for the 12 months December 1987 to November 1988 show that there were 28 people killed and 130 seriously injured on the M25 motorway. More recent figures are not yet available.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
  307
  7 respectively, and overall in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department respectively, are (a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  The Attorney-General
  The table shows the number and percentage of women in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  1

  10

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  2

  7·1

  3

  7·7

  6

  14

  25·5

  16

  29·6

  7

  27

  21·3

  8

  20·0

  A total of 5·6 per cent. of respondents to a survey of ethnic origins carried out in the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1988 were members of ethnic minority groups; the number of respondents in grades 1 to 7 is insufficient to provide reliable figures.

  Two officers at grade 6, representing 3·7 per cent., and three officers at grade 7, representing 7·5 per cent. of staff at those grades in the Treasury Solicitor's Department are members of ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's 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.

  Solicitors' fees

  Counsels' fees

  Disbursements

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  593,773

  334,672

  151,142

  1,079,587

  1979–80

  863,589

  486,749

  219,822

  1,570,160

  1980–81

  1,209,249

  659,971

  284,143

  2,153,363

  1981–82

  1,091,013

  638,138

  283,910

  2,013,061

  1982–83

  1,606,005

  645,793

  389,173

  2,640,971

  1983–84

  2,603,707

  1,365,494

  646,844

  4,616,045

  1984–85

  2,221,995

  1,193,056

  608,699

  4,023,750

  1985–86

  2,494,360

  1,776,113

  772,643

  5,043,116

  1986–87

  2,450,505

  1,538,623

  756,001

  4,745,129

  1987–88

  2,907,512

  1,631,829

  799,600

  5,338,941

  Totals

  18,041,708

  10,270,438

  4,911,977

  33,224,123

  Legal aid in civil proceedings

  Solicitors' and Counsels' fees

  Disbursements

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  1978–79

  200,952

  49,296

  250,248

  1979–80

  247,740

  68,552

  316,292

  1980–81

  388,026

  51,338

  439,364

  1981–82

  343,472

  112,240

  455,712

  1982–83

  388,300

  150,842

  539,142

  1983–84

  468,294

  209,513

  677,807

  1984–85

  542,362

  228,372

  770,734

  1985–86

  951,040

  360,727

  1,311,767

  1986–87

  1,167,262

  435,749

  1,603,011

  1987–88

  1,217,467

  489,326

  1,706,793

  TOTALS

  5,914,915

  2,155,955

  8,070,870

  308
  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department completed the surveys of the ethnic origin of their employees in 1988, and continue to monitor the ethnic origin of all recruits to the Departments.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department.

  The Attorney-General
  The Civil Service Commission recruits by fair and open competition all staff graded executive officer and above. Thereafter, promotion is dependent upon performance in the grade and consideration of the officer's ability to perform the duties of the higher grade through Departmental procedures designed to test these criteria. The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer and the ethnic origin of the officer plays no part in recruitment or promotion procedures.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Attorney-General how much has been paid each year in Northern Ireland during the past 10 years from the legal aid fund; and how many Queen's counsel, junior counsel and solicitors have received such payments in each year.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for payments out of the legal aid fund for each of the financial years from 1978–79 to 1987–88 for each category of legal aid are as follows:

  Legal advice and assistance

  Total

  £

  1978–79

  30,640

  1979–80

  96,249

  1980–81

  170,097

  1981–82

  214,980

  1982–83

  312,025

  1983–84

  384,548

  1984–85

  477,251

  1985–86

  732,313

  1986–87

  806,432

  1987–88

  1,212,649

  TOTAL

  4,443,184

  309

  Assistance by way of representation

  Solicitors' fees £

  Counsels' Fees £

  Total £

  1980–811

  12,683

  2,690

  15,373

  1981–1982

  177,694

  37,692

  215,386

  1982–1983

  334,772

  70,829

  405,601

  1983–1984

  408,666

  89,921

  498,587

  1984–1985

  350,593

  82,961

  433,554

  1985–1986

  525,998

  119,056

  645,054

  1986–1987

  755,986

  162,634

  918,620

  1987–1988

  757,215

  161,247

  918,462

  Totals

  3,323,607

  727,030

  4,050,637

  1 This scheme commenced in November 1980.

  Total expenditure over the period = £49,788,814.

  Information on the number of Queen's counsel, junior counsel an solicitors who have received payments in each of the years is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Frederick Andrews
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to why the Official Solicitor in Northern Ireland refuses to make available copies of the financial records of Frederick Andrews, 1978 No. 516, to his family; and what information he has on the alleged mismanagement of the affairs of mental patient Frederick Andrews, 1978 No. 516, since he was placed under the Care and Protection Office.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my earlier replies to him about this case on 25 February 1988, at columns 257–59. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further on this case.

  Baby C
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to arrange for a full investigation into the public interest implications of the case heard recently by Mr. Justice Ward in the family division of the High Court in Leeds relating to the treatment of baby C; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor is having inquiries made into the background to these proceedings, including obtaining a copy of any judgment, and will consider what implications there may be.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will call for a report from the Official Solicitor into the public interest implications of the recent handling in the Leeds High Court of the case on behalf of baby C.

  The Attorney-General
  It is not part of the Official Solicitor's normal functions to report on the public interest implications of an individual case in which he is involved. The Lord Chancellor is, however, having inquiries made into the background of these proceedings, including obtaining a copy of any judgment, and will consider what implications there may be.

  Wards of Court
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions over the last 12 months for which figures are available the medical evidence submitted in proceedings in the High Court in Leeds in cases pertaining to the medical treatment of wards of court has been withheld from the public and the media.
  310
  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is not available but generally it is the practice for the courts hearing wardship cases to sit in private.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General on how many occasions over the last 12 months for which figures are available proceedings in the High Court in Leeds pertaining to the medical treatment of wards of court have been held in camera.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not available but the general practice of the courts is to hear wardship cases in private.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make it his policy to ensure that the Official Solicitor routinely seeks a second medical opinion when he is acting on behalf of minors who are wards of court in proceedings pertaining to their access to medical treatment.

  The Attorney-General
  Where an independent medical report is needed in relation to wardship proceedings in which the Official Solicitor is acting as the ward's guardian ad litem, subject to the court's permission he routinely obtains one.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General if he has any plans to request a report from Mr. Justice Ward of the family division of the Leeds High Court into the public interest implications of his reported decision to instruct doctors to treat a ward of court to die.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The exercise of the wardship jurisdiction is a judicial function and it would not therefore be appropriate for any member of the Government to ask a judge to report to him on any aspect of his decision in an individual case. The Lord Chancellor is, however, having inquiries made into the background to these proceedings, including obtaining a copy of any judgment, and will consider what implications there may be.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement setting out the reasons why he did not previously refer the House of Fraser report to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has indicated in another place, in his view there are no public interest grounds for such a reference.

ENERGY

  Public Service Broadcasts
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will assess the likely implications for the transmission by Channel 4 of public service broadcasts emanating from his Department of the White Paper, "Broadcasting in the 90s: Competition, Choice and Quality".
  311
  Mr. Parkinson
  There is no reason to suppose that the proposals in the White Paper will alter the present arrangements whereby public service messages are broadcast by Channel 4. The arrangements for paid Government advertising on television will not be affected by the proposals.

  Yorkshire Coal
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will take steps to ensure a long-term supply contract for Yorkshire coal between British Coal and the Central Electricity Generating Board for export and to other outlets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I have already made it clear that, while the new generating companies are likely to wish to buy a significant proportion of their coal needs on a contractual basis, the proportion of coal sold on contract and the length of the contracts is a matter for commercial negotiation, as in other sectors of the coal market.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq (Weapons)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government propose to change their current policy of prohibiting the export to Iraq of any weapon which could enhance its offensive capability, or will agree to granting export licences for the supply of weaponry to Iraq, to accommodate United Kingdom exhibitors at the first Baghdad international exhibition for military procurement; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have not changed their policy on defence sales to Iraq. Applications for export licences continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis, according to the guidelines as announced in the House by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 29 October 1985 at column 454, and in the light of developments in the peace negotiations with Iran.

  Engagements
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what are her criteria for deciding whether to give priority engagements at home or abroad over being present to answer questions in the House on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

  The Prime Minister
  I am present in the House to answer questions on Tuesdays and Thursdays as often as possible.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Sylvan High School
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he intends to take to consult the parents, pupils and staff of Sylvan high school about the proposal by the London borough of Croydon to close the school.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Any local authority wishing to close a school must follow the statutory procedures laid down by the Education Acts. Under section 12 of the Education Act 312
  1980, authorities must publish their proposals and submit a copy to my right hon. Friend. There follows a two-month period during which statutory objections can be submitted to the local education authority. Proposals concerning county schools fall to my right hon. Friend to decide if statutory objections have been submitted or if he exercises his power to call them in. In making his decision on proposals which fall to him to decide, my right hon. Friend weighs carefully the views expressed by those who support or oppose the proposals. My right hon. Friend expects the local education authority concerned—in this case, the London borough of Croydon—to have carried out appropriate consultation with those affected before publishing proposals.

  Qualifications (Statutory Approval)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his policy, in relation to the proposed circular on statutory approval of qualifications under the Education Reform Act, on approving the continuation for 1989–90 of existing two-year courses; whether he intends to approve all existing courses for 1989–90 in order to enable pupils to complete courses they have already started; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the arrangements made by his Department and the Schools Examination and Assessment Council to draw up a complete list of existing two-year courses for the purpose of enabling their completion by pupils before August 1990; what arrangements he proposes to make regarding (a) the statutory approval of any courses that prove to have been omitted from the first list to be approved and (b) enforcement of the relevant provisions of the Education Reform Act concerning unapproved courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I shall exercise my powers under section 5 of the Education Reform Act 1988 to approve qualifications on the advice of the School Examinations and Assessment Council (SEAC). I expect shortly to receive the council's advice about qualifications for certification in July 1990 and July 1991. In considering that advice, I shall naturally have careful regard to the implications for pupils and schools. I expect to reach decisions next month. Those decisions will be made public and my Department will simultaneously issue a circular describing the basis on which they were arrived at and the procedures for implementation.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the overall cost to his Department, the Schools Examination and Assessment Council, local education authorities and schools of the recent draft circular on statutory approval of qualifications; what proportion of this overall cost relates to the list A compilation of courses which are to be given temporary approval for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  A number of staff in my Department, the School Examinations and Assessment Council, local education authorities and schools have contributed to drawing up and responding to the draft circular on the approval of qualifications. That work in the great majority of cases represents a negligible addition to the duties of those at each level in the education system responsible for the administration of examinations. It would therefore not be meaningful to assess additional
  313
  costs associated with that work, still less with any particular aspect of it; and to seek to do so would itself involve the Department and others in disproportionate cost. The cost of printing the draft circular was £3,410.

  School Governors
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has received representations concerning the increase in responsibilities placed upon school governors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There have been some representations on this point. But the successful recruitment of thousands of new governors last year suggests that they are not daunted by their new responsibilities. The Government are working to ensure that school governors get the support and training that they need to carry out their role effectively.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes to review the method of assessing potential income from disposal of assets when making future capital allocations.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  From April 1990 the proposed new system of local authority capital finance, as outlined in the Local Government and Housing Bill, will allow Ministers, when determining annual capital guidelines and corresponding credit approvals, to take into account the ability of individual authorities to spend from their capital receipts.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Brazil
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish his response to the Amnesty International report entitled, "Brazil, Authorised Violence in Rural Areas"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth

  United Kingdom contributions to the United Nations regular budget and the specialised agencies from 1985–88

  (£ million)1

  Year

  United Nations regular budget

  United Nations agencies regular budgets

  United Nations separate peacekeeping forces (UNDOF, UNIFIL and UNFICYP)2

  United Nations agencies voluntary contributions

  Total

  1985

  24·63

  35·57

  31·49

  62·26

  153·95

  1986

  23·62

  27·11

  31·41

  60·34

  4142·49

  1987

  21·50

  29·23

  29·23

  81·57

  161·52

  1988

  19·36

  31·72

  332·26

  81·73

  165·07

  1 Because of different accounting periods of Her Majesty's Government and United Nations Bodies, exchange rate fluctuations and extraordinary items, such as donations to appeals following natural disasters, these figures, although a best estimate, should not be taken as definitive.

  2 United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), Syria/Israel.

  United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

  United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).

  3 Includes United Nations Iran-Iraq Military Observer Group (UNIIMOG) contribution. UNIIMOG commenced operation on 9 August 1988.

  4 Apparent decrease due to sharp decline in United States dollar.

  314
  Affairs discussed the allegations in the report with the former Brazilian Justice Minister when he visited Brazil in November 1988. The gist of this conversation was passed to Amnesty International last year. As we have told Amnesty International, we have no doubt that the case descriptions in the report are broadly accurate. But it is quite a different matter to assert that the fedeiral government in Brazilia connives at the killings. We believe that Amnesty International may have overstated its case on this.

  Economic Commission for Europe
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the names of the United Kingdom representatives attending the plenary session of the Economic Commission for Europe in 1989.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom representatives attending the annual session (including the plenary and sessional committee) of the Economic Commission for Europe in 1989 are:

  Mr. J. A. Sankey CMG, the United Kingdom permanent representative to the office of the United Nations at Geneva.

  Mr. G. W. Hewitt, deputy permanent representative to the office of the United Nations at Geneva.

  Mr. J. R. McCulloch, first secretary at the United Kingdom mission to the office of the United Nations at Geneva.

  Mr. S. Wall, second secretary at the United Kingdom mission to the office of the United Nations at Geneva.

  United Nations Organisation
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the United Kingdom's contributions to the United Nations Organisation, and to its agencies, in each of the years from 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Until 1987 no central record was kept of Her Majesty's Government's contributions through various Government Departments to the United Nations and its agencies. Since then the figures have been centrally collated and are set out in the table:

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the measures being taken to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will represent the Government at the 40th anniversary celebrations of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on 5 May 1989. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 14 February.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the Government are taking to help Hong Kong cope with the problem of Vietnamese refugees in the territory.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I am very conscious of the financial burden that has been imposed on the territory by Vietnamese boat people. I have, therefore, decided that the Government should make a contribution of up to £6 million in response to an international appeal which UNHCR will shortly launch for funds to meet the capital costs of Pillar Point, a new refugee centre which the Hong Kong Government are constructing in the territory for refugees awaiting resettlement. This underlines our firm intention to help Hong Kong deal with this immensely difficult humanitarian problem in every way we can.

  Table 1

  Appeals to county court

  Total

  Settled out of court

  Findings upheld

  Findings overturned

  Result unknown

  Withdrawn

  Appeals by respondent under section 28(2)

  37

  20

  6

  8

  3

  —

  Appeals by complainant under section 28(3)

  22

  3

  6

  1

  11

  1

  Table 2

  Appeals by respondents against FEA findings of discrimination under section 28(2) of The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976

  Date appeals lodged

  Organisation involved

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or overturned)

  November 1977

  Civil Service Commission

  Overturned

  December 1978

  Craigavon Borough Council

  1Overturned

  January 1979

  Newry and Mourne District Council

  Overturned

  May 1979

  Craigavon Borough Council

  Overturned

  September 1981

  Armagh District Council

  2Upheld

  November 1981

  Lisburn Borough Council

  Upheld

  December 1984

  Southern Health and Social Services

  Overturned

  April 1985

  Derry City Council

  Overturned

  April 1985

  Northern Ireland Electricity

  3Overturned

  February 1986

  Department of Environment (NI)

  Overturned

  August 1986

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Upheld

  November 1986

  The Village Inn

  Upheld

  May 1987

  Ministry of Defence

  Upheld

  1 Original FEA findings upheld by Court of Appeal.

  2 Original FEA findings overturned by Court of Appeal.

  3 FEA appeal pending at Court of Appeal.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the employers in Northern Ireland the Fair Employment Agency has(a) chosen or (b) had discussions with to revoke or modify directions previously given under subsection 2(i) or 2(ii) under part II, section 13(5)(a) or (b) of the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976 to date.

  Mr. Viggers
  Following is the information requested.

  Cookstown district council.

  Armagh district council.

  Lough Neagh fishermen's co-operative.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the number and type of cases referred under the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976 to the county court, the number and (b) type of findings upheld or overturned by the court and the employers concerned; and if he will place in the Library copies of the judgments in each case.

  Mr. Viggers
  The tables provide details of cases heard by the county court. It is not normal practice to place judgments in the Library but they may be obtained on request from the county court, Courthouse, Crumlin road, Belfast.

  Table 3

  Appeals by complainants against FEA findings of no discrimination under section 28(3) of The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976

  Date appeal lodged

  Respondent organisation

  Outcome of appeal (findings upheld or overturned)

  June 1979

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Upheld

  July 1984

  Department of the Environment

  Upheld

  October 1984

  F. A. Wellworth Co. Ltd.

  Upheld

  January 1985

  Anglo Irish Meats

  Overturned

  November 1985

  Short Brothers Pic

  Upheld

  April 1986

  NI Postal and Telecommunications Board

  Upheld

  June 1988

  Belfast City Council

  Upheld

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which employers have made a compensatory payment to a complainant under the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976; and what were the sums involved in each case, the original date of each settlement and the eventual date of payment, from 1976 to the present time.

  Mr. Viggers
  This is a matter for the chairman of the Fair Employment Agency. I understand that there have been 41 cases, the details of which are in the following
  317
  table. It would not be in the best interests of the work of the agency to release the names of parties involved in the cases under section 24 of the Act.

  Respondent

  Date of settlement

  Date of Payment

  Amount

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  22 September 1980

  7 October 1980

  780·00

  Textile and Clothing

  14 January 1982

  3 March 1982

  750·00

  Construction

  6 June 1981

  10 March 1982

  500·00

  Manufacturing

  11 June 1982

  18 July 1982

  5,500·00

  Local Authority

  6 August 1982

  26 August 1982

  1,000·00

  Other Employer

  14 September 1982

  16 September 1982

  550·00

  Health and Social Services Board

  27 August 1982

  22 September 1982

  4,350·00

  Local Authority

  30 November 1982

  22 December 1982

  3,000·00

  Other Public Body

  19 October 1983

  14 November 1983

  1,500·00

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  25 October 1983

  17 November 1983

  1,500·00

  Local Authority

  20 October 1983

  2 December 1983

  1,500·00

  Other Public Body

  24 October 1983

  22 December 1983

  2,500·00

  Health and Social Services Board

  25 January 1984

  9 March 1984

  1,400·00

  Vocational Organisation

  7 March 1984

  3 May 1984

  10,000·00

  Education and Library Board

  8 June 1984

  12 October 1984

  1,500·00

  Vocational Organisation

  26 October 1984

  15 November 1984

  250·00

  Vocational Organisation

  26 October 1984

  15 November 1984

  250·00

  Vocational Organisation

  26 October 1984

  15 November 1984

  250·00

  Distributive

  6 December 1984

  14 December 1984

  350·00

  Other Employer

  1 May 1985

  2 May 1985

  1,000·00

  Food, Drink and Tobacco

  8 November 1985

  20 December 1985

  2,100·00

  Education and Library Board

  not available

  11 April 1986

  2,000·00

  Engineering

  not available

  15 October 1986

  507·50

  Engineering

  not available

  15 October 1986

  510·00

  Other Employer

  not available

  30 October 1986

  4,900·00

  Education and Library Board

  not available

  18 November 1986

  4,7590·4

  Education and Library Board

  not available

  12 May 1987

  3,279·48

  Local Authority

  13 May 1987

  17 June 1987

  1,500·00

  Other Employer

  13 May 1987

  23 June 1987

  1,892·28

  Education and Library Board

  not available

  13 October 1987

  2,035·26

  Local Authority

  not available

  12 November 1987

  3,425·75

  Manufacturing

  16 November 1987

  19 November 1987

  2,350·00

  Manufacturing

  not available

  28 November 1987

  5,000·00

  Construction

  not available

  22 December 1987

  3,500·00

  Engineering

  5 January 1988

  5 January 1988

  2,000·00

  Health and Social Services Board

  not available

  3 February 1988

  1,673·80

  Health and Social Services Board

  not available

  29 March 1988

  4,000·00

  Other Employer

  not available

  8 April 1988

  1,000·00

  Education and Library Board

  not available

  14 April 1988

  3,541·09

  Education and Library Board

  not available

  17 October 1988

  2,397·29

  Local Authority

  not available

  3 April 1989

  19,319·57

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints under section 24 of the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976, of unlawful discrimination the Fair Employment Agency has declined to pursue; and what reasons have been given in each case.

  Mr. Viggers
  I understand from the chairman of the Fair Employment Agency that the agency has declined to pursue 137 complaints under section 24 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 for the reasons specified:

  Number

  (1) Adjudged Frivolous

  35

  (2) Outside the time limits

  71

  (3) Outside the Scope of the Legislation

  15

  (4) Considered by another Statutory Body

  1

  (5) Failure by Complainant to provide sufficient information

  15

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints under section 24 of the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976, have been made against(a) public bodies, and (b) private employers; and what has been the outcome in each case.
  318
  Mr. Viggers
  The position as at 31 March 1989 is shown in the following table:

  Private Sector

  Public Sector

  Trade Unions

  Total Number of Complaints

  391

  432

  3

  Unlawful Discrimination

  26

  32

  1

  No Discrimination

  190

  208

  2

  Section 42

  1

  26

  —

  Section 52

  —

  1

  —

  Withdrawn or not pursued

  103

  112

  —

  Outstanding

  71

  53

  —

  The agency's annual reports, which are available in the Library, contain an account of investigations under section 24 of the Act.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many complaints by year under the Fair Employment Act (Northern Ireland) 1976 have been discontinued by virtue of section 42 of the Act, listing the employing body in each case and the religious affiliation of the complainant.

  Mr. Viggers
  The recorded number of section 42 certificates signed by Northern Ireland Office Ministers in each year since 1976 is as follows:
  319

  Year

  Number

  1976

  0

  1977

  1

  1978

  3

  1979

  0

  1980

  1

  1981

  3

  1982

  1

  1983

  1

  1984

  3

  1985

  1

  1986

  1

  1987

  2

  1988

  5

  1989

  1

  Nine cases involved either the Northern Ireland Office or Northern Ireland Departments whilst the other 14 involved public bodies in Northern Ireland. It is understood that of the complainants involved, 20 were Roman Catholic and three were Protestants.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many subscribers there have been in Northern Ireland to the register for equal opportunity employers and organisations for each quarter since 30 April 1988; and how many of such subscribers have been removed from the register each quarter since since this date.

  Mr. Viggers
  The number of subscribers at the end of each quarter is as follows:

  Quarter ended

  Number of sub-scribers

  31 July 1988

  9,630

  31 October 1988

  9,817

  31 January 1989

  10,024

  31 March 1989 (two month period only)

  10,181

  No subscribers have been removed from the register in this period.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give the most recent unemployment rates by Belfast local government district wards in percentage and numerical terms.

  Mr. Viggers
  The numbers unemployed in each ward, within the Belfast district council area, at 9 March 1989, are as follows. Unemployment rates are available only for travel-to-work areas.

  Numbers unemployed in Belfast district council area, by ward, at 9 March 1989

  Ward

  Number

  Sydenham

  332

  Island

  507

  Ballymacarret

  648

  Bloomfield

  346

  Ballyhackamore

  317

  Belmont

  296

  Stormont

  136

  Cherryvalley

  238

  Knock

  248

  Orangefield

  206

  The Mount

  652

  320

  Ward

  Number

  Woodstock

  452

  Ravenhill

  277

  Ballynafeigh

  457

  Rosetta

  228

  Upper Malone

  200

  Finaghy

  225

  Blackstaff

  488

  Malone

  348

  Stranmillis

  229

  Windsor

  470

  Botanic

  1,250

  Shaftesbury

  679

  Ladybrook

  616

  Glencolin

  948

  Andersonstown

  559

  Glen Road

  796

  Falls Park

  709

  Upper Springfield

  1,097

  Whiterock

  988

  Beechmount

  636

  Highfield

  487

  Glencairn

  556

  Woodvale

  406

  Crumlin

  451

  Shankill

  497

  Clonard

  848

  Falls

  878

  St. Annes

  813

  New Lodge

  959

  Duncairn

  541

  Waterworks

  883

  Ardoyne

  983

  Ligoniel

  400

  Ballysillan

  381

  Cliftonville

  484

  Chichester Park

  513

  Fort william

  279

  Cavehill

  231

  Castleview

  353

  Bellevue

  310

  TOTAL

  26,831

  Investment
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of investment by(a) United States companies, (b) the European Economic Community and regional development agencies and (c) other public sector sources since 1980, indicating the numbers employed in each case.

  Mr. Viggers
  The level of investment and the numbers of jobs assisted since 1980 are:

  Investment

  Jobs assisted

  (a) United Stales companies£397·5 million

  21,253

  (b) European Economic Community and Regional Development Agencies EEC £55·60 million

  30,630

  Department of Commerce/IDB £723·9 million

  111,056

  LEDU £144·887 million

  33,256

  (c) Other Public Sector Sources DED Assistance to Harland & Wolff and Shorts£533·1 million

  12,371

  Government Aid
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by country of origin the firms in receipt of Government assistance that have opened or closed in Northern Ireland for the period for which details are available and the date of their opening and closure.

  Mr. Viggers
  The following list shows firms by country of origin which have opened since 1972 with assistance from the Industrial Development Board or its predecessor, the Department of Commerce. Those marked by ' subsequently closed. The dates of opening and closure are not readily available and to identify them would involve disproportionate cost.

  In addition, since 1979, the local enterprise development unit has assisted 4,011 small firms to begin operating. These were almost exclusively of Northern Ireland origin, and in many cases one-man businesses. Identification of these firms individually would entail disproportionate cost. Information on LEDU-assisted firms which closed in the period is not available.

  COMPANIES WHICH HAVE OPENED IN NORTHERN IRELAND SINCE 1972 SHOWING COUNTRY OF ORIGIN

  Northern Ireland

  Texmotif Ltd.

  Maydown Precision Engineering Ltd.

  Tirnanog Ltd.1

  Wilson Double-Deck Trailers Ltd.

  Sandown Private Nursing Homes Ltd.

  Sefco Engineering Ltd. Samson Yarns Ltd.

  Euro-Shellfish Ltd.

  Tri-sum Snacks Ltd. Flax Fibres Ltd.1

  Pla shapes Ltd.

  North Star Plastics Ltd.

  Cookstown Meats Ltd.

  Ivex Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Merm Ltd.

  Tamnaharry Developments Ltd.

  Lenticle Ltd.1

  John Cleland and Sons (Labels) Ltd.

  John Finlay (Site Handlers) Ltd.

  Glenbrook Foods Ltd.

  St. Brendans Irish Cream Liquer Co. Ltd.

  Munton (Antrim) Ltd.1

  Desmond and Sons (Enniskillen) Ltd.

  Finlay (Block Machinery) Ltd.

  Quaterfoil Ltd.1

  Phoenix Picture Frames Ltd.

  InchProcessors Ltd.

  Irlandus Prototypes Ltd.1

  Cookstown Clothing Ltd.1

  Springtown Engineering Ltd. Four M (NI) Ltd.1

  Munton Textiles Ltd.

  Power Automation Products Ltd.1

  Concrete Systems Ltd.

  Portaferry Pumps and Equipment Ltd.

  TBF Thompson Ltd.

  Parkgate Spinners Ltd.1

  Taste Rite Foods Ltd.

  Flying Horse Sports Ltd.1

  Dunluce Knitwear Ltd.1

  B. H. McCleery and Co. Ltd.

  Altona Wood Craft Ltd.1

  Cor Van Heughten Ltd.

  McNeill Assemblers Ltd.1

  Millbrook Engineering Ltd.1

  SMS Locks Ltd.1

  Sugna Ltd.

  Co-Tern-Co. Ltd.

  Viking Manufacturing Co. Ltd.1

  322

  Green Point Appliances Ltd.

  Electronic Patentees Ltd.1

  MHM International Ltd.

  G. A. General Works (Ards Holdings)1

  Textile Recycling Ltd.1

  Foyle Meats Ltd.

  Shergrim Ltd.

  Fleming Poultry Ltd.

  Castledawson Shirt Co. Ltd.

  McQuillan Bros. Ltd.

  Acquaculture Ltd.1

  Textile Engineering Co. Ltd.1

  Ulster Crystal Ltd.1

  Regna International Ltd.1

  Tyrone Scientific Ltd.1

  B. and J. Jupiter Crusiers1

  Enniskillen Meat Packers (Fermanagh Meats)

  Featherlite Plastics Ltd.1

  Moy Central Manufacturing Co. Ltd.

  Masstock Systems Ltd.1

  Denroy Plastics Ltd. Cyntex Ltd1

  John Mackle (T/A Collegeland Farms)

  BIS Beecom (Int) Ltd

  Armagh Designs Ltd1

  Copeland Clothes Ltd

  Ballyrashane Foods Ltd

  Brookhaven Ltd

  Textflow Services Ltd

  Acheson and Glover Chemicals Ltd

  Strangford Brick Ltd

  Powerscreen Manufacturing Ltd

  Sandstock Brick Ltd

  W. J. Farrell Exports Ltd

  Tobermore Paving Products Ltd

  Linfield Group Ltd (Castlewellan Division)

  Great Britain

  ISA Poultry Services Ltd

  McCourquodale plc

  Airport Catering Services Ltd

  Rumenco Ltd

  Cooper Technical Components Ltd

  Lynjoy Ltd

  Winner Shoes Ltd1

  Thermomax Ltd

  C. P. Trim Ltd1

  Software Ireland Ltd

  Pharmaceutex (IV Fluids) Ltd1

  Walmsleys Games Components1

  Nocobond Ltd

  Ulcon Ltd

  Oakland Foods Ltd1

  Pactgreen Ltd1

  Fairfax Jersey Ltd1

  Moss Lane Spinning Ltd1

  Glenbank Finishing Ltd1

  Maine Spinning Co Ltd1

  Perry Heating (Supermatic Ltd)1

  Abacus Engineering Ltd1

  Groadawick (NI) Ltd.1

  Swaddlers (Europe) Ltd.1

  United Meat Packers (NI) Ltd.

  McDonnell Douglas Information Systems Ltd.

  Stern Fenster UPVC Ltd.

  Group Publishing Co. Ltd.

  Capita (NI) Ltd.

  Liam Williams Knitwear Ltd.

  Kalon Group plc

  Tensator (NI) Ltd.

  United States of America

  Quad Signs (NI) Ltd.

  Falconette Ltd.1

  Heritage Crystal Ltd.1

  O'Brien Machinery Ltd.1

  Lear Fan Ltd.1

  Oaks Development Ltd.1

  Chesapeake Cutters Ltd.1

  DPP Shreiber Cheese Co. Ltd.

  323

  AVX Ltd.

  De Lorean Motor Co.1

  Coronary Care Systems Ltd.1

  Fisher Body Ltd.

  Hyster (NI) Ltd.

  National Supply Co. Ltd.1

  LFE International BV

  American Monitor International Ltd.1

  Sam Fox (Synthetic Industries Ltd.)

  Fastigium Ltd.

  Neotech Industries Europe Ltd.

  Canada

  Universal Sections (Yardmaster)1

  Denmark

  Thrige-Scott Ltd.

  Bulrush Peat Co. Ltd.

  Tyrone Shoes (1975) Ltd.1

  Scan Candles Ltd.1

  Netherlands

  Multi-Food Machinery Ltd.

  NI Paper Mill Co. Ltd.

  Tufted Carpet Tiles Ltd.

  Van Oerle Alberton (NI) Ltd.

  Switzerland

  Smart (UK) Ltd.

  Scandanavian Hosiery Ltd.1

  Japan

  IWAX (UK) Ltd.1

  Canyon Europe Ltd.

  Pakistan

  Down Linen Yarns Ltd.

  Hong Kong

  Texlin Yarns Ltd.1

  Sweden

  Tilgman Keramik Ltd.1

  Regal Foods Ltd.

  Cyprus

  Quality Dairies Ltd.1

  West Germany

  Elastic Berger Ltd.

  Keese Label Presses1

  Rusi Cosmetics Ltd.1

  Andus Electronics Ltd.

  Gerd Ney Ltd.1

  Tools and Cans Ltd.

  France

  Montupet (UK) Ltd./Willace (UK) Ltd.

  B S Toolings Ltd.

  Republic of Korea

  Daewoo Electronics (UK) Ltd.

  Republic of Ireland

  Mastercut Meat Packers Ltd.

  Norish (NI) Ltd.

  UAP Ltd.

  Powercrusher Ltd.1

  Associated Polymers Ltd.1

  Container Refurbishing Ltd.1

  MCL Plastics Ltd.1

  Glen Electric Ltd.

  De La Rue Smurfitt (NI) Ltd.

  Camella Foods Ltd.

  Mastercut Foods Ltd.

  Henry Denny and Sons (NI) Ltd.

  ETI Ltd.

  Crosspharma Ltd.

  324

  Grassland Fertilisers Ltd.

  Atlantic Leathers Ltd.

  1Denotes closure.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list and identify the medium, large and small companies who received Government assistance and which have defaulted on their loans; and how much in each case has had to be written off as bad debts for the period for which data is available, identifying in each case whether the company was supported by LEDU, the Industrial Development Board or its predecessor the Department of Commerce.

  Mr. Viggers
  Information about individual companies which have defaulted on loans from Government agencies is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The cumulative value of Government loans written off as irrecoverable by the agencies concerned is as follows. The local enterprise development unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency, has written off £2·5 million since it was formed in 1971. A total of approximately £37·5 million owed to the former Northern Ireland development agency and its predecessor, the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, was written off between 1972 and 1982, comprising both share capital and loan investments. Since 1966, loans issued by the former Department of Commerce totalling £16,482,572 have been written off, as has £207,660 relating to loans issued by its successor, the Industrial Development Board.

  Harland and Wolff and Short Bros.
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the average cost per job in Short Bros. and Harland and Wolff by year for the period for which data is available; and what will be the average cost per job to transfer these companies into the private sector over keeping them in the public domain.

  Mr. Viggers
  Government support for Harland and Wolff and Short Bros. takes various forms, some of which cannot be quantified in cost per job terms.

  However, based on the external funding requirement (loans and Government grants) for both companies the average cost per job figures in each of the last five years has been:

  Harland and Wolff

  Short Bros.

  £

  £

  1983–84

  7,286

  3,000

  1984–85

  7,360

  1,000

  1985–86

  7,494

  4,100

  1986–87

  13,063

  5,500

  1987–88

  14,342

  16,300

  Transferring both companies to the private sector will result in a decrease and not an increase in the level of future Government support to Harland and Wolff and Short Bros.

  It is anticipated that there will be a cost to Government on a one-off basis in transferring each company to the private sector; thereafter each company will be regarded as eligible for Government support in line with other private sector companies in Northern Ireland.

  Criminal Injuries (Compensation)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report a table giving the amounts in the fiscal years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 of payments made to (a) civilians under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, (b) members of the security forces (Royal Ulster Constabulary, Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, British Army and Ulster Defence Regiment) under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, (c) compensation payments made under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and (d) compensation payments under the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and subsequent legislation.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  For the years 1985–88, I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 4 November 1988 at column.826. The corresponding figures for 1988–89 are as follows:

  1998–89 £

  Compensation payments to civilians under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977

  111,632,823

  Compensation payments to members of the security forces under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977

  23,298,305

  Compensation payments under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978

  1,258,294

  Compensation payments under the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977 and earlier legislation3

  20,606,264

  1 Includes £7,770 paid under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1988.

  October 1988

  November 1988

  December 1988

  January 1989

  February 1989

  Number of searches

  Total number of searches carried out

  20

  32

  36

  22

  28

  Total number of inmates searched

  14

  22

  23

  19

  23

  Number of prisoners searched once

  8

  14

  14

  16

  19

  Number of prisoners searched twice

  6

  7

  7

  3

  3

  Number of prisoners searched more than twice

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  (4 times)

  (4 times)

  (3 times)

  Reasons for search

  First admission on remand/awaiting trial

  4

  10

  6

  11

  9

  First' admission on sentence/final discharge

  12

  16

  13

  7

  17

  Attending remand court

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Attending trial

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inter-prison visits

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Pre-release home leave

  2

  6

  16

  4

  —

  Visits to outside hospital

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Returning from bail application

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  No prohibited article was found during these searches. On one occasion a prisoner refused to co-operate in a full reception search or talk to any member of staff. A full search was then carried out by two officers; the prisoner did not assist or resist as it was taking place.

  Post-Chernobyl Restrictions
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of farms, number of sheep and number of acres subject to post-Chernobyl restrictions as at February; and if he will make a statement.
  326

  2 Includes £850 paid under the Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (NI) Order 1988.

  3 The current criminal damage legislation is the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (NI) Order 1977.

  Notes:

  1. It is regretted that due to a computational error an incorrect figure (£686,242) was previously shown—column 826, 4 November 1988—under Compensation Payments under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 for 1987–88—the correct figure should read £578,699.

  2. The amounts shown for 1988–89 may be subject to slight variation on completion of the appropriation account.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many strip searches were made on female prisoners in Her Majesty's prison, Maghaberry, in each month from October 1988 to February 1989; if he will give the number of persons involved and the number of times each person was searched; whether any prison contraband, smuggled item or illegal correspondence was discovered in any search, indicating which items; in how many cases prisoners refused to be searched and had to be restrained while the search was being conducted; and if he will indicate the reasons for the search, namely, making a remand appearance at court, attending trial, inter-prison visit or other reasons.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Viggers
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: The following is the information:

  Number of farms—123

  Number of sheep—21,000

  Area of land—21,612 acres

SCOTLAND

  National Health Service Land and Site Values
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a list of the land and site values referred to in paragraph 2·7 of the health White Paper.
  327
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I understand that the hon. Member is referring to paragraph 2.7 of Scottish working paper 5 "Capital Charging", rather than to the White Paper Cm. 555. As indicated in paragraph 4.1 of that working paper, health boards are expected to record their capital assets and to value them on a provisional basis during 1989–90 and to refine these values during 1990–91. There are no plans to publish details of individual landholdings and site values of health board properites.

NATIONAL FINANCE

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

  Mr. Lawson
  The ECOFIN Council met in Luxembourg on 17 April. I represented the United Kingdom.

  The council reached agreement with a delegation of the European Parliament, under the conciliation procedure, on the regulations required to implement the new own resources decision of June 1989 which include measures to tighten controls against fraud.

  The council had a further discussion of the Commission's proposals on taxation of savings, of direct tax measures to encourage cross-border co-operation between enterprises, and of the proposed 18th VAT directive.

  The council discussed indirect tax approximation, stressing the need to consider alternative approaches for the abolition of fiscal frontiers.

  The council heard a presentation from the Commission on the revised proposal for a second banking co-ordination directive.

  The council adopted a common position on the proposed directive on own funds of credit institutions.

  The President of the Commission outlined the main features of the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Union which is to be discussed further by the council. I made it clear that, while supporting practical steps within the framework of the existing treaty designed to improve economic and monetary co-operation, the United Kingdom cannot accept the transfer of sovereignty implied by the proposals for full economic and monetary union contained in the Delors report.

  Internal Market
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the total value at the latest available full year of public sector contracts in each of the European Community countries other than the United Kingdom of a character which will make them open to Community-wide bidding as part of the creation of the internal market.

  Mr. Brooke
  None. The cost would not be justified. Information is available from European Commission studies on the size of the procurement market in various industrial sectors in other member states but the value of the contracts to be opened to Community-wide bidding will depend on the coverage of the proposed directives and 328
  the threshold above which they will apply. The Commission is investigating the effect of setting the threshold at various levels.

  EC (Payments)
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)Official Report, 8 November 1988, column 112, what was the net payment made to the European Community by the United Kingdom for each year since 1979; and what was in each case the net payment to European Economic Community institutions as a percentage of gross domestic product.

  Mr. Brooke
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Total net payments to European Community institutions'

  £ million

  Percentage of money GDP

  1979–80

  841

  0·4

  1980–81

  168

  0·1

  1981–82

  117

  0·1

  1982–83

  589

  0·2

  1983–84

  836

  0·3

  1984–85

  974

  0·3

  1985–86

  822

  0·2

  1986–87

  1,079

  0·3

  1987–88

  1,664

  0·4

  1988–89

  950

  0·2

  1 Excluding overseas aid: for domestic public expenditure planning purposes, part of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget is attributed to the overseas aid programme.

  Treasury Stock
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number of persons holding 21/2 per cent. Treasury stock 1975 issued in 1946–47; and what is the size of the average holding.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are approximately 12,300 registered holders of 21 per cent. Treasury stock 1975 or after with an average size holding of £38,700. It is impossible without undue cost to distinguish between personal and corporate holdings.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of redemption of 21/2 per cent Treasury stock 1975.

  Mr. Lilley
  The cost of redemption of 2± per cent Treasury stock 1975 or after would be £475 million.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to redeem 21/2 per cent Treasury stock 1975.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Personal Imports
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any plans to increase the duty free limit on personal imports of gifts into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The travellers' allowances for goods purchased duty free for importation as personal gifts are
  329
  provided for under European Community legislation. The Government has long supported the Commission's proposals to increase substantially the £32 allowance for goods other than tobacco, spirits, wines and so on, but it has not so far been possible to obtain the necessary agreement of all member states.

  Reverse Auctioning
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the practice of reverse auctioning of Government debt began; and how it is regulated.

  Mr. Lilley
  The first reverse auction was held in January 1989, and was carried out by the Bank of England.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which financial institutions or sectors have participated in buying Government debt through reverse auctioning.

  Mr. Lilley
  Only the Bank of England buys Government debt through reverse auctions. Figures are not available for the institutions or sectors selling stock, because many of the offers will be channelled through gilt edged market makers.

  Figures showing transactions in Government stock by various sectors in 1989 Q I (the quarter in which the first reverse auction took place) will be published in the May Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much Government debt has been reverse auctioned over each of the last 30 years for which records are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  Only one reverse auction has been held so far and this took place in January 1989. This reverse auction was for £500 million nominal of stock.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of properties owned by Her Majesty's

  Net Public Sector Debt (End Year)

  Current prices

  1988–89 prices

  £ billion

  Change on previous year

  £ billion

  Change on previous year

  1974–75

  59·5

  —

  234·0

  —

  1975–76

  71·8

  12·3

  224·9

  -90

  1976–77

  81·3

  9·4

  224·6

  -0·3

  1977–78

  87·9

  6·6

  213·5

  -11·1

  1978–79

  95·3

  7·4

  208·8

  -4·7

  1979–80

  102·1

  6·8

  191·7

  -17·1

  1980–81

  116·5

  14·4

  184·6

  -7·2

  1981–82

  127·2

  10·7

  183·7

  -0·9

  1982–83

  135·0

  7·8

  182·0

  -1·6

  1983–84

  147·3

  12·3

  189·8

  7·8

  1984–85

  160·7

  13·4

  197·4

  7·6

  1985–86

  166·8

  6·1

  194·2

  -3·2

  1986–87

  171·1

  4·3

  192·7

  -1·5

  1987–88

  171·3

  0·2

  183·7

  -9·0

  1988–89 (forecast)

  157·0

  -14·3

  157·0

  -26·7

  330
  Treasury and suitable for residential accommodation have been empty for (i) up to a year and (ii) over a year; and where these properties are located, by region of the United Kingdom or local authority area.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: (i ) Nil; (ii) Nil.

  Village Halls
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the consequences on village halls of the extension of value added tax on the construction of new buildings, fuel and power, water and sewerage supplies.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: Where village halls are engaged in business activities, VAT will he due on supplies to them of construction services and fuel and power. Water and sewerage services will, however, remain zero-rated. The imposition of tax on supplies of construction services and fuel and power is a consequence of the unwelcome European Court of Justice ruling published on 21 June last year. Business is defined widely in EC VAT law and could include the hiring out of village halls to local groups and other users.

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state for each year from 1970–71 to 1987–88, and estimate for 1988–89 (i) the public sector net debt outstanding at current and 1988 prices, (ii) the net change from the previous year at current and 1988 prices and (iii) the components of the public sector net debt including assets such as foreign exchange reserves for each year both at current and 1988 prices.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: The available information is as follows:
  331

  Components of net public sector debt (£ billion)

  Current prices

  Net public sector debt1

  Gross public sector debt

  Total

  Public Sector liquid assets of which

  Other

  Gold and foreign exchange

  Commercial Bills

  1974–75

  59·5

  63·0

  3·4

  2·5

  0·0

  0·9

  1975–76

  71·8

  75·8

  4·1

  3·1

  0·1

  0·9

  1976–77

  81·3

  88·6

  7·3

  5·6

  0·1

  1·6

  1977–78

  87·9

  100·2

  12·3

  10·9

  0·0

  1·4

  1978–79

  95·3

  108·5

  13·2

  10·6

  0·3

  2·3

  1979–80

  102·1

  117·3

  15·2

  12·5

  0·8

  2·0

  1980–81

  116·5

  135·3

  18·9

  12·6

  2·8

  3·5

  1981–82

  127·2

  147·2

  20·0

  10·6

  7·0

  2·3

  1982–83

  135·0

  156·5

  21·5

  11·7

  6·3

  3·6

  1983–84

  147·3

  172·2

  24·9

  11·6

  9·8

  3·4

  1984–85

  160·7

  189·7

  29·0

  11·0

  7·2

  10·8

  1985–86

  166·8

  197·9

  31·1

  12·7

  8·7

  9·7

  1986–87

  171·1

  204·6

  33·5

  16·9

  7·0

  9·7

  1987–88

  171·3

  213·4

  42·1

  25·2

  8·3

  8·6

  1988–89 (forecast)

  157·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89 prices

  1974–75

  234·0

  247·5

  13·4

  9·8

  0·0

  3·5

  1975–76

  224·9

  237·3

  12·8

  9·7

  0·3

  2·8

  1976–77

  224·6

  244·8

  20·2

  15·5

  0·3

  4·4

  1977–78

  213·5

  243·5

  29·9

  26·5

  0·0

  3·4

  1978–79

  208·8

  237·7

  28·9

  23·2

  0·7

  5·0

  1979–80

  191·7

  220·3

  28·6

  23·4

  1·5

  3·7

  1980–81

  184·6

  214·5

  29·9

  19·9

  4·4

  5·5

  1981–82

  183·7

  212·5

  28·8

  15·4

  10·2

  3·3

  1982–83

  182·0

  211·0

  29·0

  15·8

  8·4

  4·8

  1983–84

  189·8

  221·9

  32·1

  15·0

  12·7

  4·4

  1984–85

  197·4

  233·0

  35·6

  13·5

  8·8

  13·3

  1985–86

  194·2

  230·4

  36·2

  14·8

  10·1

  11·3

  1986–87

  192·7

  230·4

  37·8

  19·0

  7·9

  10·9

  1987–88

  183·7

  228·9

  45·2

  27·0

  8·9

  9·2

  1988–89 (forecast)

  157·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Net public sector debt = Gross public sector debt minus public sector liquid assets.

  No net public sector debt figures are published for the years prior to 1974–75.

DEFENCE

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Sainsbury
  The numbers and percentages of women in senior posts are as follows:

  Grade

  Number

  Percentage

  1–4

  2·0

  1·8

  5

  13·0

  3·7

  6

  10·0

  1·2

  7

  111·5

  3·6

  Total 1–7

  136·5

  3·1

  There are 41 (1 per cent.) staff at grades 1 to 7 who are from ethnic minorities all at grades 5 to 7.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence has recently completed a survey in which all staff were asked to state their ethnic origin. Over 76 per cent. of staff responded. Information on ethnic origin is now sought as a matter of routine from all those who join the Department.
  332
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Posts in senior grades in the Department are generally filled through promotion from within. Members of ethnic minorities who have the appropriate qualifications are considered for promotion to such posts on the same basis as other staff. As I said in my reply of 24 June 1988 at column 740–41, a programme of positive action is now in hand which includes special steps to recruit staff from ethnic minorities. It is hoped that these steps will in time lead to a greater number of such staff being considered for senior posts.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 23 March,Official Report column 756, in which form central records hold information regarding low-flying sorties; and how the information requested in the questions can be obtained.

  Mr. Neubert
  For management purposes, central records of low-flying sorties are held as monthly and annual totals for the whole of the United Kingdom low flying system. The records neither show where the sorties originated or terminated nor which counties were overflown during the sortie. The information requested in the hon. Member's questions in the Official Report, column 756, of 23 March is not therefore available.

  Brigade of Gurkhas
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the Brigade of Gurkhas.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  We have made it clear that we intend that there shall be a continuing role for the Gurkhas in the British Army following the withdrawal from Hong Kong in 1997. We hope to be in a position to make a further statement soon.

  United States Exercises
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the exercises involving United States forces personnel at RAF Nocton Hall in September 1988.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  From 25 September to 4 October 1988 the United States Air Force wartime contingency hospital at RAF Nocton hall was activated for the reception of simulated United States casualties evacuated from Germany, via RAF Coningsby, as part of the aeromedical element of exercise Reforger 88.

  Aircraft Shelters
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give the number of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation standard hardened aircraft shelters completed at RAF bases in the United Kingdom in each year since 1979 for which numbers are available in the following categories; (i) shelters paid for directly by his Department, (ii) shelters paid for out of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation infrastructure programme funds that are for use by RAF aircraft, (iii) shelters paid for out of United States Government funds and (iv) shelters paid for out of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation infrastructure programme funds that are for use by United States aircraft;

  (2) if he will give the number of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation standard hardened aircraft shelters at each Royal Air Force base in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to publish this information.

  Service Schools
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he makes for out of school

  1979

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Direct employees

  Professional grades

  185

  165

  165

  161

  160

  148

  Administrative grades

  133

  113

  120

  128

  125

  117

  Industrial grades

  1,177

  723

  689

  646

  599

  522

  Contractors1

  717

  587

  648

  673

  679

  713

  Total

  2,212

  1,588

  1,622

  1,608

  1563

  1,500

  1 Contractors include people working for timber merchants in Forestry Commission woodland.

  Home Improvement Grants (Rhondda)
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount given to Rhondda borough council for home improvement grants in each of the financial years from 1978–79 to the present at 1988 prices; and how many individual grants were given by Rhondda borough council in each year.
  334
  in-service training for (a) primary and (b) secondary teachers in each country where service schools are situated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The Service Children's education authority arranges a wide range of out of school in-service training for primary and secondary teachers on a regular basis, both in the United Kingdom and in countries where service children's schools are situated. These are provided by LEA advisers retained by SCEA, Her Majesty's inspectorate and independent consultants, according to the subject matter.

  In addition SCEA organises support visits to service children's schools over and above the normal in-service training, throughout the academic year.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the pupil teacher ratio, the total pupil roll, the total number of teachers employed and the annual pupil turnover for each service secondary school.

  Mr. Neubert
  I will write to the hon. Member.

WALES

  Internal Market
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the total value to the latest available full year of public sector contracts in Wales of a character which will make them open to Community-wide bidding as part of the creation of the internal market.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None. The assessment could he made only at disproportionate cost.

  Forestry Commission Staff
  Mr. Allan Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people were(a) working for and (b) working in the different occupational categories for the Forestry Commission in Wales in 1979, 1985 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The numbers of people working for the Forestry Commission in Wales in the different occupational categories are given in the following table:

  Mr. Grist
  Provision for capital expenditure on home improvement grants forms part of an authority's overall housing capital allocation. It is for local authorities to decide how their resources are best used to meet the needs of their particular area. Rhondda's total housing allocations since 1978–79 at 1988–89 prices are given in the following table, along with the number of completed grants given by Rhondda district council in each of those years.
  335

  Housing Capital Allocation (at 1988–89 Prices)1£000

  Number of completed grant given

  1978–79

  12,961

  343

  1979–80

  12,962

  397

  1980–81

  9,793

  417

  1981–82

  6,223

  523

  1982–83

  7,478

  940

  1983–84

  15,503

  3,095

  1984–85

  9,171

  2,999

  1985–86

  6,953

  2,004

  1986–87

  10,383

  1,993

  1987–88

  11,598

  1,498

  1988–892

  14,463

  1,293

  1 Expressed at 1988–89 prices using GDP deflators. Allocations prior to 1981–82 are not comparable with 1981–82 and subsequent years as a new system of local authority finance was introduced in 1981–82.

  2 Housing capital allocations figure is provisional. Number of completed grants given is for April-December 1988.

  Valleys Initiative
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what are the estimates of(a) deadweight and (b) displacement with respect to the valleys initiative estimate of 25,000 to 30,000 jobs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many of the new jobs created in the valleys initiative area have been forthcoming from grants made since the initiative was launched;

  (3) what proportion of the estimated 25,000 to 30,000 jobs to be created by the valleys initiative will be (i) full-time and (ii) part-time;

  (4) what is the estimated full-time equivalent number of jobs to be created by the valleys initiative.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I indicated in the document "The Valleys: A Programme for the People" that on past experience Government commitments of regional development grant and regional selective assistance on the scale anticipated for the three years of the valleys programme would be likely to create between 25,000 and 30,000 full-time equivalent jobs. This would involve a large number of projects spread over a wide area and it is not practicable to provide estimates of deadweight and displacement. However, it is not anticipated that the deadweight and displacement elements would be very great.

  During the nine months to 31g March 1989 offers of RDG and RSA assistance have been made to 310 projects in the valleys involving the forecast creation of over 7,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

  New jobs will also be created with the aid of grants and investment under other headings.

  NHS Land and Site Valuations
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of the land and site valuations mentioned in paragraph 2.7 of the health White Paper.

  Mr. Grist
  Some 888 NHS properties in Wales were valued in 1987 by the office of the chief valuer of the Inland Revenue. The current use value of these properties was estimated at approximately £285 million and the open market value at £219 million.

  Economic Policy (Speech)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has had on the proposals on general economic policy contained in his speech on 10 April to the Tory Reform Group.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  None.

  Untreated Milk
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many milk producers in(a) Pembrokeshire and (b) Wales produce untreated milk.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) 46

  (b) 267

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) males and (b) females were in full-time employment in May 1979 in Wales; how many people are in full-time employment in Wales in the current year; how many part-time (i) males and (ii) females were employed in May 1979 and are in full-time employment in the current year; and how many apprentices there were in May 1979 and how many apprentices there are in the current year.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  [holding answer 10 April 1989]: The only figures available are those derived from quarterly returns to the Department of Employment and from the annual labour force survey of a sample of households in Great Britain, 3,000 of which are in Wales, carried out on behalf of the Department of Employment.

  The hon. Gentleman will find estimates of the number of male and female employees in employment, the self-employed and the civilian work force in employment in June 1979 (the closest date to May 1979 for which information is available) in table 9 of the supplement to Welsh Economic Trends, Volume 11.

  The breakdown of the estimated number of male and female self-employed in June 1979 is published on page 22 of the Employment Gazette, October 1987, historical supplement No. 2. The latest comparable figures for June 1988 of male and female employees in employment, self-employed, those engaged in work-related Government training schemes and in the civilian work force are published in the Employment Gazette April 1989 page 205.

  No information for June 1979 and June 1988 is available on the breakdown between full-time and part-time male employees in employment, but table 9 of the supplement to Welsh Economic Trends volume 11 provides estimates of full and part-time female employees in employment for June 1979. Comparable figures for June 1988 may be obtained from table 1.5 of the Employment Gazette, February 1989—but revised figures are available from the Department of Employment and will be published in table 1.5 of the May 1989 Employment Gazette.

  Information from the labour force surveys during the spring of 1979 and 1988 show the number of apprentices in Wales to be 17,000 and 16,000 respectively.

  Copies of all the above publications are in the House of Commons Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Poverty
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report a copy of his letter to the director of social work of the National Children's Home concerning poverty.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The text of the letter is as follows:"Thank you for sending me your Factfile on children. The document as a whole covers an enormous amount of ground, but I was particularly interested in the point highlighted in your front page on 'dividing the cake'.
  In essence, your Factfile invites the unwary reader to freely associate 'poverty' with the pattern of household income distribution. Any suggestion that 'poverty' can be measured by the distribution of the cake without regard for the changing size of that cake must be questioned. Between 1975 and 1985—a period almost identical to the one you quote —average household real incomes and the incomes of the lowest fifth of households both grew by 14 per cent. Indeed, real household incomes grew throughout the distribution. Those who purport to claim that people are getting poorer —when in fact people are getting better off—cannot have got it right.
  It is also more than a little fanciful to invite the reader to use the value of Child Benefit as an indication of 'poverty'. Some 70 per cent. of families who stand to gain from an increase in Child Benefit have incomes above average male earnings and what matters to them and most other working families is the real value of take-home pay. It is therefore worth noting that since 1978–79, at all multiples of full-time adult male earnings, real take-home pay has increased by well over a fifth.
  I am releasing a copy of this letter to the press tomorrow."

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) why Mrs. Marion Ing of 1 Chilton close, Acklam, Middlesbrough, receives £16·07 per week by way of a widow's pension; and if he will make a statement about Government policy relating to pensions for widows in this position;

  (2) why a letter to him dated 3 March about Mrs. Marion trig of 1 Chilton close, Middlesbrough, has not yet received a reply.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  A letter has been sent to my hon. Friend today which explains how Mrs. Ing's widow's pension has been calculated.

  Entitlement to widows' benefit for women widowed after 10 April 1988 is determined by the changes introduced at that time. These changes reflected the changing employment patterns amongst widows and have resulted in a scheme which is better targeted and overall more equitable.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 10 November,Official Report, column 294, what was the total number of lone parents and their dependants in November 1979 and November 1988 (a) dependent on receipt of income support or family income, and (b) the total number of lone parents and their dependants on the same dates, showing in each case, the percentage change since 1979.
  338
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The latest date for which all the information requested is available is 1986 and this is reflected in the table. The reference to family income has been understood to mean family income supplement.

  1979

  1986

  Percentage increase

  Supplementary benefit (now Income Support)1

  Lone parents

  318.000

  602,000

  89

  Dependants

  558,000

  996.000

  78

  Family income supplement (now Family Credit)2

  Lone parents

  42,000

  91.000

  117

  Dependants

  73,000

  142,000

  95

  Total of lone parent families3

  Lone parents

  840,000

  1,010,000

  20

  Dependants

  1.400,000

  1,600,000

  14

  1 Annual Statistical Enquiries—November 1979 and February 1986.

  2 10 per cent, sample of Family Income Supplement load.

  3 Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys—"Population Trends 45" (Autumn 1986) and "Population Trends 55" (Spring 1989).

  Eviction
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North on 17 April, what arrangements he proposes to recommend to(a) landlords and (b) claimants to avoid the possibility of eviction resulting from benefit changes introduced on 10 April.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government believe that landlords will adapt to the new situation by adjusting their charges for board and lodging accommodation so that they are in line with the rest of the market. Claimants will be able to select accommodation in this market, and will no longer have their options constrained by anomalous benefit provisions for people staying in board and lodging accommodation. We have no plans to provide information to claimants beyond that already available from the Department.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have applied for admission to the United Kingdom as refugees or otherwise seeking asylum, by national origin, in each of the two years subsequent to and prior to the coming into force of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act) 1987; how many and what percentage of applicants were granted admission to the United Kingdom during each such period; and what was their national origin.

  Mr. Renton
  The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act) 1987 came into force in March 1987. Information on applications for refugee status, and on grants and other decisions in the years 1985 to 1987, by nationality, is published in the 1986 and 1987 volumes of the annual Home Office statistical bulletin "Refugee Statistics, United Kingdom" (table 6 of bulletin issue 13/87 and tables 6 and 7 of bulletin issue 16/88), copies of which are in the Library. These figures include applications for refugee status made by persons after their admission to the United
  339
  Kingdom in another capacity, as well as those seeking admission as a refugee. Corresponding information for 1988 is not yet available but will be published in the 1988 volume of this bulletin in the summer of 1989.

  These figures do not include South-East Asian refugees who are dealt with under separate arrangements and are granted settlement on their arrival in the United Kingdom. The number granted settlement in the years 1985 to 1988 is published in table 18 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1987" (Cm 415) and table 3 of Home Office statistical bulletin, issue 10/89 "Control of Immigration: Statistics—Fourth Quarter and Year 1988", copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time taken to reach a decision on an application for admission to the United Kingdom as a refugee or otherwise by way of asylum excluding time accounted for by appeals against his decisions in each of the two years prior to and subsequent to the coming into force of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information is given in the following table. Information for 1988 is not yet available.

  Estimated average length of time1 taken to reach a decision on an application for refugee status in the United Kingdom, for cases decided during the year.

  Average time in months

  Months 12

  1985

  12

  1986

  14

  1987

  14

  1 Excluding the time accounted for by an appeal where practicable, although this cannot be done in all cases.

  Remand Prisoners
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he has not yet introduced into

  Prisoner A

  Prisoner B

  Prisoner C

  Prisoner D

  September

  2

  7

  4

  —

  October

  3

  6

  2

  1

  November

  4

  5

  4

  4

  December

  4

  6

  3

  4

  January

  1

  —

  1

  1

  February

  5

  2

  1

  2

  March

  3

  2

  2

  3

  Passport Applications
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average waiting time for passport applications to be processed at each of the United Kingdom issuing offices.

  Mr. Renton
  The current processing times for straight-forward non-urgent postal applications at the six United Kingdom passport offices are shown in the table. Urgent applications are given priority, and are not normally subject to delay.
  340
  East Anglia the same time limits as he has applied in other regions on the length of time defendants may be held in custody while awaiting trial; when he expects to do so; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Custody time limits will be extended on 1 June this year to a further 22 English counties including Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.

  Category A Prisoners (Searches)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of body searches, cell searches and cell changes and strip searches carried out on category A prisoners being held at Winchester police station during September and October 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No category A prisoners were held at Winchester police station during the period in question.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give details of the number of body searches, cell searches and cell changes and strip searches carried out on each of the category A prisoners being held at Her Majesty's Prison, Durham, monthly since Septembr 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As the hon. Member knows, records are not kept of the occasions when rub down seaching or "frisking" is carried out in prisons and it is not the practice to disclose detailed information about security arrangements such as that requested about the frequency of cell searches and cell changes.

  Comprehensive records of strip searches are available only in respect of category A women prisoners, of whom there were three in Durham prison between 1 September and 30 October, and four between 31 October and 31 March. The number of occasions on which each was strip searched in each month from September to March is shown in the following table.

  Average time between receipt of application and issue of passport (working days) 16 April 1989

  Passport Office

  Working days

  London

  20

  Glasgow

  37

  Peterborough

  27

  Newport

  33

  Liverpool

  46

  Belfast

  4

  Poppewell Report
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the actions taken by Her Majesty's Government in respect of each of the recommendations of the Popplewell report.
  341
  Mr. John Patten
  The action taken relating to the recommendations of the final report of the Popplewell inquiry has been as follows.

  Designation under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 has been extended to all sports grounds used for either association football, rugby union, rugby league or cricket and identified as having accommodation for over 10,000 spectators (recommendation 2).

  As from 1 January 1988 parts I and II of the Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Act 1987 abolished the distinction in the 1975 Act between "sports grounds" and "sports stadia" (recommendation 1), introduced a power for local authorities and fire authorities to issue prohibition notes or restriction notices (recommendations 7 and 8), and required local authorities to arrange annual inspections of designated sports grounds (recommendation 9(ii)).

  As from 1 January 1989 part III of the 1987 Act introduced a system of safety certification for stands able to accommodate at least 500 spectators under cover at undesignated sports grounds and for their periodical inspection by local authorities (recommendations 3 and 4).

  As from 1 June 1988 part IV of the 1987 Act extended entertainment licensing to indoor sports entertainments to which the public are invited as spectators (recommendations 5 and 6).

  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which came into force on 1 January 1986 had already extended the police powers of search and arrest in ways which help them to deal with troublemakers at football grounds (recommendations 11 and 13). The Public Order Act 1986 created a new offence of disorderly conduct to cover hooliganism in football grounds as elsewhere (recommendation 12).

  Following a review (recommendation 14) a relaxation of the controls over the sale and possession of alcohol in executive boxes was introduced in the Public Order Act 1986.

  The Government's existing proposals for a membership scheme are contained in the Football Spectators Bill [Lords]. This follows previous efforts to encourage the football authorities to introduce membership schemes on a voluntary basis (recommendation 15).

  The question of structural fire precautions and means of escape in buildings (including covered sports stands) (recommendation 10) is under review as part of the Government's comprehensive overhaul of the building regulations. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to issue a consultative paper by the end of this year seeking comment on a package of proposals dealing with these issues.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government in pursuit of recommendations 34 and 35 of the report from the working group on the green guide on football grounds, published as an adjunct to the Popplewell report.

  Mr. John Patten
  The guide to safety at sports grounds was revised in 1986. It provides guidance on the function of pitch perimeter fences including the importance of providing gates or access points to allow full access to the playing area (or perimeter track) where it is likely to be used as a place of safety in an emergency.

  Hillsborough (Public Order)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received showing the number of people who were(a) arrested and (b) charged inside or outside the Sheffield Wednesday football ground on Saturday 15 April for (a) drink-related offences, (b) obstruction or assault on police officers, (c) robbery, (d) looting, (e) pilfering and (f) urinating in a public place.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The chief constable of South Yorkshire police has informed us that 43 persons were arrested of whom 10 were charged, 10 ejected from the ground and 23 were cautioned and released. Of the 43 arrests 19 were for drink-related offences, one for obstructing or assaulting the police, none for robbery, looting or pilfering, and one for urinating in a public place.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has received about how many(a) police officers and (b) emergency service personnel on duty at Hillsborough on Saturday. 15 April required medical treatment because of injuries sustained during their duties on that day.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am informed by the chief constable that 19 police officers have so far been recorded as having received medical treatment for physical injuries. The chief fire officer informs me that so far none of his staff have reported a need for such treatment and I am informed by the chief ambulance officer that he is still engaged in debriefing his staff and that this information is not yet available. A number of members of the different services are suffering from stress and other problems relating to their experiences at Hillsborough.

  Broadcasting White Paper
  Mr. Wheeler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which organisations have responded to his White Paper "Broadcasting in the '90s: Competition, Choice and Quality" November 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  I have today placed in the Library a list of the main organisations which have submitted comments on the broadcasting White Paper. We have received over 3,000 responses altogether. Further details may be obtained from the Home Office broadcasting department, room 669, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT.

HEALTH

  Operations (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations within the Trent regional health authority were contracted out to private hospitals, and at what cost, for the year in which he has the latest figures; what was the position five and 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 4 April at columns 88–89. The 816 deaths and discharges quoted break down into 21 surgical, 353 convalescent, 441 terminal care and 1 unspecified.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most recently available figures for admission rate(a) for mental illness generally and (b) schizophrenia to mental hospitals, broken down by country of birth.

  Mr. Freeman
  The figures in the table show the proportion of all such admissions for all mental illness and for schizophrenia only, broken down by place of birth. The information relates to admissions, and not to individual patients, since the same patient may be admitted more than once during the year.

  All admissions to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units, England during 1986, by place of birth

  Percentage of all admissions

  Place of birth

  AH mental illness per cent.

  Schizophrenia only per cent.

  England

  51·1

  54·0

  Ireland1

  2·4

  2·2

  Scotland

  1·6

  1·2

  Wales

  0·6

  0·4

  Europe

  1·2

  1·8

  Africa

  0·7

  1·4

  Central South Asia2

  1·0

  1·8

  Rest of Asia

  0·4

  0·7

  Australasia

  0·1

  0·1

  Americas

  0·3

  0·4

  Caribbean

  0·7

  2·5

  Not known

  39·9

  33·5

  1 Including Northern Ireland.

  2 Central South Asia comprises Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

  Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment of the research and development of a monitoring alarm into the prevention of sudden infant death syndrome by Clifton Towers Products Ltd. has been carried out by his Department; and whether Her Majesty's Government will financially support further research and development of this invention.

  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the work done by Clifton Towers Products Ltd. at Port Talbot into cot deaths; what requests have been made to his Department for the funding of research and development; and what parallel or similar research and development is being carried out with the support of his Department.

  Mr. Freeman
  Clifton Tower Products Ltd. contacted this Department in April 1988 to say that it had developed a monitor which would help save many babies' lives by triggering an alarm when the baby's temperature rose or fell by 2' from the normal. In subsequent correspondence they said that the alarm would prevent a significant proportion of sudden infant deaths. The evidence for this claim was requested. In September, material on the association between sudden infant death syndrome and temperature was submitted together with a request for unspecified financial support for the development of the alarm. (A subsequent letter requested £120,000 for further research.)

  I understand that prior to, and during, this correspondence Clifton Towers was also in discussion with the Welsh Office. The results of these discussions were that,
  344
  while no assistance was provided for research and development work, assistance was given by the Welsh Office for market research and associated activities under the business improvement services scheme (BIS), and the establishment of a manufacturing facility has been aided under the regional development scheme (RDG).

  Officials have taken expert medical advice. The conclusion is that while, as we already knew, there is an association between some sudden infant deaths and temperature, the nature of the relationship is unknown. We are discussing further with the Medical Research Council what is known about the relationship between temperature and infant mortality and morbidity. On the basis of the conclusions of those discussions we will be able to consider the merits of a scientific evaluation of the usefulness and effectiveness of temperature monitors/ alarms.

  Hospital Trusts
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Calderdale health authority and others on setting up National Health Service hospital trusts.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have not received any representations from Calderdale health authority. Duncan Nichol, the chief executive of the National Health Service, has asked for initial expressions of interest in the proposals to be sent to my Department through regional health authorities, by 31 May.

  Elderly People (Provision)
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his Department's guidelines for(a) the provision of geriatric beds, (b) homes for the elderly and (c) home help staff per head of population.

  Mr. Mellor
  The level of service provision is a matter for the local health authority or local social services authority respectively to decide. Authorities should take into account local needs and where appropriate, the potential contribution of voluntary, private and informal care.

  The Department's planning guidelines to health authorities (circular HC (88) 43) state that they should provide an integrated range of services for elderly people, comprising community health services, acute geriatrics/ geriatric assessment, rehabilitation and continuing care.

  Hearing Therapy Service
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what stage has been reached in the review being undertaken by the National Health Service Training Agency into the hearing therapy service; when he expects the report to be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Provision of hearing therapy and employment of hearing therapists in the National Health Service are the responsibility of health authorities. The National Health Service training authority is concerned with the training required for health authorities to achieve the supply of skills they require. In this connection the authority has been reviewing future training provision for hearing therapists and the development of standards-based vocational qualifications. Proposals have been made
  345
  to the care sector consortium and the Training Agency, and the British Society of Hearing Therapists has been invited to comment.

  Capitation Fees
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the possibility of the new standard capitation fees for general practitioners, proposed in "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract", leading to general practitioners screening out patients before taking them on in their practice; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Our intention to increase standard capitation fees is an important part of our proposals for a new contract for GPs. By increasing capitation payments as a proportion of a GP's income we will encourage GPs to recognise the importance of providing full services that will attract patients to their lists and keep them with the practice. In the case of patients aged 75 and over, we will be paying a much higher capitation fee than before. These measures will introduce a degree of competition in general practice which has not existed before and will, we believe, reduce rather than increase the likelihood that GPs will refuse to accept patients onto their lists. If any patient has difficulty in being accepted onto a GP's list the family practitioner committee has and will continue to have the power to assign the patient to a particular GP.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what assumptions on future numbers of(a) surgery sessions, (b) doctors' clinics and (c) general practitioners, his proposals for the introduction of capitation arrangements in "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract" are based.

  Mr. Mellor
  The examples at appendix F of "General Practice in the National Health Service: A New Contract" are intended to illustrate in broad terms the effect of the proposed new contract on the remuneration of the average GP with a list size of a specified level. The notes on each example explain the assumptions made about the number of minor surgery sessions and health promotion clinics which the average GP with the list size specified in each case might undertake. No assumption has been made about the number of GPs as this does not affect the figures.

  General Practice (Targets)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the attainability of the assumptions of 80 per cent. screening of eligible women and 90 per cent. of childhood immunisation set out in "General Practice in the National Health Service—A New Contract" and what account was paid to patient resistance in setting these targets;

  (2) what estimate he has made of the potential disincentive effect on general practitioners undertaking screening and childhood immunisation of the levels at which the target take-up rates have been set.

  Mr. Mellor
  GPs will be required under their terms of service to provide health promotion and illness prevention services. These services will include advising patients on the wisdom of attending for screening and of immunising children. It is Departmental policy to achieve 80 per cent. coverage of women aged 20–65 for cervical cancer 346
  screening, and 90 per cent. coverage for immunisation of children under five. These target coverage levels provide a sufficient margin to allow for cases where screening or immunisation would not be appropriate.

  We believe that these levels are attainable. In 1987–88 in England childhood immunisation coverage levels were 87 per cent. for polio (with diphtheria and tetanus), 76 per cent. for measles and 71 per cent. for whooping cough with uptake rates for the last two accelerating. Recent initiatives such as the introduction of the MMR vaccine will lead to further improvements. By replacing item of service payments for these services with payments related to achievement of the target coverage levels we will reward the good GPs who already reach those levels and introduce a powerful incentive for those who do not.

  GP Contracts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the transitional arrangements to the introduction of the new general practitioner contracts.

  Mr. Mellor
  No decisions have been made on this matter. Officials are in consultation with the General Medical Services Committee on what transitional arrangements if any will he needed when the new GPs' contract is introduced.

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how antenatal care will be costed under the new financial arrangements for general practitioners and National Health Service services; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) whether patients readmitted to hospital will be accounted as new patients in every individual instance for the purposes of financial monitoring under the White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  The detailed implementation of our proposals for funding hospital services through contracts between health authorities, or general practitioners, and hospitals is currently being considered and discussed with those most closely involved. We plan to issue guidance and model forms of contract by April 1990 as made clear in the second of the working papers published on 20 February.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish(a) a list of those commenting and (b) a summary of the comments of the relevant professional bodies, on the Government's National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients."

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 17 April at column 53.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what expressions of public support he has received for his proposals on the National Health Service White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received many expressions of public support, both at local and national levels, for our proposals for an NHS able to provide more choice and better care for all patients.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the ethnic data for youth training scheme trainees as at March and October 1988 separately for each youth training scheme, both local and large company unit, operating in the Birmingham and Solihull, and Coventry and Warwickshire areas.

  Mr. Cope
  Because of the exceptional length of the reply, I am sending the hon. Member the information requested, a copy of which has also been placed in the Library.

  1979–80

  1987–88

  Scheme

  Number (000s)

  £ million

  Number (000s)

  £ million

  Youth Opportunities Programme

  216

  123

  —

  —

  Training Opportunites Programme

  91

  229

  —

  —

  Special Temporary Employment Programme

  22

  51

  —

  —

  Community Industry

  9

  17

  9

  26

  Youth Training Scheme

  —

  —

  398

  1,066

  Old Job Training Scheme

  —

  —

  49

  157

  New Job Training Scheme

  —

  —

  99

  67

  Training For Enterprise

  —

  —

  108

  23

  Access to Information Technology

  —

  —

  22

  1

  Local Grants to Employers

  —

  —

  124

  131

  Self Standing Work Preparation

  —

  —

  46

  —

  Training Linked to Community Programme

  —

  —

  41

  31

  Community Programme

  —

  —

  269

  1,110

  Voluntary Projects Programme

  —

  —

  106

  15

  Total

  338

  420

  1,271

  2,527

  1 Does not include local consultancy grants.

  Industrial Injuries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he has any plans to change the system of reporting and recording of industrial injuries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 came into force on 1 April 1986. They changed and augmented the previous reporting requirements, in particular by extending definition of major injuries and introducing an obligation to report injuries resulting from accidents at work which cause incapacity for more than three days. Although there are no immediate plans for any further change to the reporting and recording system, the operation of the new regulations is being kept under close scrutiny.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he now anticipates that unemployment levels will fall to 1979 levels.

  Mr. Lee
  The Department does not forecast future levels of unemployment.

  Training and Work Experience
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) of 7 November,Official Report, column 51, if he will tabulate the total number of people on each Government training and work experience scheme in (i) 1979 and (ii) the latest date for which figures are available, giving the total of all such persons in each case and the overall cost.

  Mr. Cope
  The table shows the number of people in Great Britain who started a training or work experience scheme in the years 1979–80 and 1987–88 and the total cost to the Training Agency (formerly Training Commission, formerly Manpower Services Commission). The figures include those who started for a second or subsequent time. Average numbers of trainees in training as quoted in my reply of 7 November are not available for every scheme.

  Wages (Underpayment)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he will take to reduce the underpayment of wages by employers which are attributed to ignorance or inadvertence.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Measures designed to inform employers about statutory obligations on minimum pay include the provision of information in employer and business guides, talks and advice given by the wages inspectorate to individuals and groups, and the maintenance of a register of employers in scope of wages councils and to whom wages orders need to be sent. Given the very high level of compliance with wages orders these measures are considered adequate. However, particular efforts have recently been made to ensure that the inspectorate's register is kept up-to-date and there has been increased contact between the inspectorate and organisations which advise the public.

  Sherrards Training Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in view of Manpower Services Commission funding what discussions his Department had with the Spastics Society regarding Sherrards training centre, Welwyn Garden City, prior to its closure; and what reasons were given for the closure of this centre.
  349
  Mr. Lee
  The Training Agency, formerly the Manpower Services Commission, has had a number of detailed discussions over the last 18 months with the Spastics Society covering both funding and the need to improve and modernise the assessment and employer rehabilitation services at Sherrards training centre.

  Detailed funding proposals were put to the society in November 1988 offering a continued level of support up to 31 March 1990.

  Subsequently in a letter to the Training Agency the society stated that a review of the society's services had been carried out to ensure that the organisation was using its resources in the most effective and efficient means for the benefit of its clients. As a result of the review, the society has decided to close the Sherrards training centre.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is prepared to meet part of the funding of residential costs for training disabled people at Sherrards training centre.

  Mr. Lee
  The Sherrards training centre closed on 31 March.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will discuss with the relevant local authorities the possibility of joint funding for Sherrards training centre.

  Mr. Lee
  No. The Training Agency paid up to 90 per cent. of the running costs of the Sherrards centre. The society, however, made it clear that even with a high level of funding it wished to close the centre.

  The centre closed on 31 March 1989.

  Jobcentres
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to publish his responses to his Department's management report concerning evaluation of the integration pilot schemes between jobcentres and unemployment benefit offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fowler
  [holding answer 20 March 1989]: Work to test a number of different approaches to integrate employment service local offices and the services they provide began in March 1989. I am currently considering the results of this exercise.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the ethnic monitoring details of YTS trainees for each individual large company unit scheme in the United Kingdom as at October 1989 or the most recent date.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 17 April 1989]: Because of the length of the reply, I am sending the hon. Member the available information, copies of which have also been placed in the Library.

  EC Employment Council
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with the Spanish Employment Minister, president of the Employment Council of Ministers, at Seville.
  350
  Mr. Fowler
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: I attended the informal meeting of Labour and Social Affairs Ministers in Seville on 7 March 1989. We had wide-ranging discussions on the social dimension of the single European market.

ENVIRONMENT

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will reimburse in full to Lambeth council the estimated cost of £3 million for preparations for the collection of poll tax to be incurred in the financial year 1989–90.

  Mr. Gummer
  No. The Government's grants and capital allocations towards the cost of preparing for the community charge will not necessarily reimburse in full the cost of implementation in each particular authority in view of the freedom available to charging authorities and community charges registration officers to decide what resources to deploy to implement part I of the Local Government Finance Act 1989 in their areas.

  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why the decision not to allow the sale of the extract of the community charge register was taken; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I am sending the hon. Member an extract from a speech giving the reasons by my noble Friend the Earl of Caithness in another place on 29 June 1988. during the passage of the Local Government Finance Bill,Official Report, columns 1689–90.

  Mr. Aspinwall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the responses to the 1989 consultation document on the transition of non-domestic rating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department is evaluating the results of the consultation. Responses to our proposals are still being received. We shall announce our conclusions as soon as possible.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that following the introduction of the community charge, private landlords reduce the rents charged to tenants in respect of that element of their rents presently charged on account of the rates.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department intends to publish a factsheet on community charge and rents inclusive of rates. This factsheet will be made widely available to landlords and tenants from a variety of sources.

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider legislation on other steps to encourage local authorities to request poll tax registration officers to help to improve the level of electoral registration throughout Britain as they contact members of the public; and if he will make a statement.
  351
  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Section 29 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 empowers electoral registration officers to inspect community charges registers. This provision will ensure that the activities of community charges registration officers are of assistance to electoral registration officers in compiling electoral registers.

  Quality of Life
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report details of those policies introduced by him since 1983 with the intention of improving the quality of life for the rural community.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Rural communities are benefiting along with urban communities from a wide range of policies introduced by the Department.

  The farming and rural enterprise package launched in 1987 set out the Government's aims of protecting and enhancing the countryside while also enabling the development of a viable rural economy. These aims are achieved to a large extent through the activities of statutory bodies sponsored by the Department: the Countryside Commission, Nature Conservancy Council and Rural Development Commission.

  In the planning field, the Department has given new guidance to encourage diversification of the rural economy, including advice on development involving agricultural land and the need for better standards of layout and landscaping for new housing in rural areas. The General Development Order that came into effect on 5 December 1988 extended specific planning control to proposed new livestock units and related structures such as slurry tanks within 400m of residential and other property.

  A number of initiatives have also been taken to help increase the supply of low cost housing in rural areas for all sections of the community. These include:
  —enabling the Housing Corporation to establish a special rural programme with a target of 1,100 units a year by 1991–92;
  —increased funding for the National Agricultural Centre Rural Trust's work in providing start-up support for rural housing associations in smaller villages;
  —changes to the planning rules to enable local authorities exceptionally to release small pockets of land, not previously designated for housing, for low cost schemes to meet the needs of local people;
  —changes to the rules governing publicly-funded shared ownership which give housing associations a pre-emption right to repurchase the property at market price once the shared owner has moved on.

  Certification Officers (Educational Establishments)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress made on the designation of certification officers in educational establishments in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  Regulations 4(1) of the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (SI No. 443) provides that the certification officer as regards an educational establishment shall be the individual having responsibility for registering the enrolment of students to courses of education provided by that establishment. There is no provision and no need for certification officers to be designated.

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he proposes to ensure that local planning authorities encourage an adequate supply of low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend's reply of 3 February to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) explained the circumstances in which planning authorities may exceptionally wish to release sites not allocated for development in order to secure the provision of low cost housing in rural areas. That statement made clear that the case for releasing additional land for this purpose will be essentially a matter for local judgment. We have also announced a four-fold expansion in the Housing Corporation's funding programme for rural housing association schemes; and tax changes announced in the Budget have removed uncertainties about the position of landowners who wish to make land available for such schemes. Taken together, these changes will, I believe, provide a real stimulus to the supply of low cost housing in rural areas.

  Rate Precepts
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a league table of the 10 counties in England with the highest rate precepts from 1989–90.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is available on page 9 of the report on rates and expenditure of local authorities in England 1989–90, which was placed in the Library of the House earlier this month.

  Dogs (Registration)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in the current year on the matter of dog registration schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In the current year a number of letters have been received from hon. Members and others. The RSPCA also arranged for postcards to be sent to us.

  Greater Manchester Residuary Body
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Minister for Local Government will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford dated 19 January concerning his response to inquiries concerning the Greater Manchester residuary body.

  Mr. Gummer
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which accommodation occupied by the Crown Suppliers will be available for sale, distinguishing between freehold and leasehold when invitations to purchase the Crown Suppliers are issued; what is the latest assessment of their market value; and which accommodation he intends to insist must be bought as a condition of sale;

  (2) what furniture and furnishing designs owned by the Crown Suppliers will be available for sale when invitations

  353
  to purchase the Crown Suppliers are issued; and what the total sales of goods manufactured to these designs amounted to in each of the last two years.

  Mr. Chope
  The detailed contents of the invitation to purchase are being considered.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether Wellington house, the headquarters of the Crown Suppliers, is suffering from sick building syndrome.

  Mr. Chope
  Wellington house is one of a number of buildings which have been the subject of a study by the occupational chest unit of Wythenshawe hospital, Manchester, into the incidence of sickness among staff working in office buildings of different types. The final report and conclusions are awaited.

  Battersea Power Station
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when listed-building consent was given to the development of Battersea power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Listed building consent for the main scheme was given by Wandsworth borough council in June 1986. Listed building consents for minor works have been given subsequently.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Plants and Seeds
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusions the Government have reached about the recommendations in the report on the plant variety testing and seed certification systems in the United Kingdom issued in April 1988.

  By grade and grade equivalent

  Total staff

  Total respondents

  Ethnic minority respondents

  Ethnic minority respondents as percentage of total respondents

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  5

  5

  —

  —

  3

  24

  20

  —

  —

  4

  16

  14

  —

  —

  5

  111

  96

  1

  1·04

  6

  103

  88

  1

  1·13

  7

  942

  776

  7

  0·90

  All staff

  10,331

  7,786

  295

  3·78

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Ministry 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. Ryder
  My Department carried out ethnic origin surveys of all permanent staff-in-post during 1983–87 and all new entrants to my Department are asked to complete ethnic origin questionnaires when they apply for vacancies. We are also doing a follow-up survey of staff who have not provided information on their ethnic origin. For the latest available figures from the surveys I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him today in reply to another question.
  354
  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friends and I have examined the recommendations in the light of the views expressed by individuals and organisations. We have decided that work on implementing the majority of the recommendations should now proceed and that a few should be deferred.1 am placing a document in the Library of the House giving details of what the Government have decided on each recommendation.

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many and what percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, respectively, and overall in his Ministry are(a) women and (b) members of ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information on women follows. Ethnic minority figures are based on replies from staff who have completed an ethnic origin questionnaire.

  By Grade and Grade Equivalent

  Number of Women

  Women as percentage of total staff

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  3

  1

  4

  4

  —

  —

  5

  9

  8

  6

  8

  8

  7

  104

  11

  All staff

  4,445

  43

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to recruit members of ethnic minorities in top grades of employment at his Ministry.

  Mr. Ryder
  Recruitment of executive officers, equivalent grades, and above in my Department is normally done by the Civil Service Commission. My Department has assisted in the past with the Commission's campaigns to attract black and Asian applicants at the higher levels, and will continue to do so.

  Pig Herds
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average size of pig herd and the total number of herds for the years(a) 1960, (h) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1985, (e) 1986, (f) 1987 and (g)
  355
  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is given in the table. The data covers England and Wales and is taken from the annual agricultural census.

  Number of holdings with pigs

  Number of pigs

  Average num-ber per hold-ing

  1960

  110,664

  4,336,669

  39

  1970

  59,853

  6,408,391

  107

  1980

  22,973

  6,607,619

  288

  1985

  17,961

  6,792,121

  378

  1986

  17,446

  6,868,512

  394

  1987

  16,865

  6,871,733

  407

  1988

  15,960

  6,857,451

  430

  Note:

  The comparison between the 1970 and 1980 figures has been slightly affected by changes in the size threshold which excluded very small holdings from the annual census from 1980 onwards.

  Dairy Herds
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average size of dairy herd and the total number of herds for the years(a) 1960, (b) 1970, (c) 1980, (d) 1985, (e) 1986, (f) 1987 and (g)

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested is given in the table. The data cover England and Wales and are taken from the annual agricultural census.

  Number of holdings with dairy cows

  Number of dairy cows

  Average number per holding

  1960

  140,109

  2,594,809

  19

  1970

  84,891

  2,714,463

  32

  1980

  49,118

  2,672,019

  54

  356

  Number of holdings with dairy cows

  Number of dairy cows

  Average number per holding

  1985

  42,351

  2,580,098

  61

  1986

  41,055

  2,573,222

  63

  1987

  39,188

  2,486,404

  63

  1988

  37,524

  2,378,862

  63

  Note:

  The comparison between the 1970 and 1980 figures has been slightly affected by changes in the size threshold which excluded very small holdings from the annual census from 1980 onwards.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of the total land area designated as environmentally sensitive areas.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total area of land designated as environmentally sensitive areas in the United Kingdom is approximately 790,000 hectares of which 333,000 hectares are in England.

  Horses
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to introduce the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommended code of practice for horse markets and sales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave him on 12 January at column 724.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AMPTHILL) on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.

Trade: UK and Soviet Union
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the prospects for increasing trade between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, in the light of Mr. Gorbachev's recent visit I deem the prospects to be fairly good, particularly in light industry, including food processing and packaging, electrical and electronic products, and the construction of hotels. It will be up to our companies as well as their Soviet customers to convert these prospects into actual business, but your Lordships may be sure that the Government will give our businessmen every possible support.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, which is encouraging. The present low level of trade seems surprising in view of the improving relations in general. Could not British consumer goods help to relieve the queues and drabness of shopping in the Soviet Union, and is there not a demand in this country for Soviet products in addition to fur hats and real vodka?
Noble Lords: And caviar!
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, our appetite for vodka must be such that we have an adverse trade balance with the Soviet Union! Our imports from there considerably exceed our exports to them. The real difficulty in trading with the Soviet Union is simply their lack of hard currency. That will tend to rule out consumer products. In the main, our endeavours in the Soviet Union are confined to capital projects, particularly concerning power generation, food, and the like. That is where we shall have the furthest and best advances.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the new change of heart in Russia is entirely due to Mr. Gorbachev. There is a realisation that armaments are out and that the economy of their nation is all-important. Therefore this is a chance for us to prove whether Mr. Gorbachev is genuine by removing every barrier possible to enable the Soviet Union to trade with us.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I may convert what the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, said into a question. It is true that we should endeavour to
982
encourage trade as far as we can with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the overwhelming preponderance of land forces in Europe is on the Soviet side. We should follow the two courses together; namely, to keep up our guard and endeavour to increase our trade.
Lord Bottomley:My Lords, is the Minister aware that I was the Minister responsible for trade with the Russians between 1947 and 1951? I had an expert trade adviser who worked in the Foreign Office and who is now a Member of this House. He is responsible for this Question today. At that time trade with the Eastern European countries was quite high. Have the Government considered using the services of the Minister's noble friend?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, this seems a slightly unusual alliance and I must obviously pay considerable attention to it. I shall speak to my noble friend.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he is not called upon to exceed the call of duty when answering questions?
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, while bearing in mind and agreeing with the Minister's remarks as regards consumer items, is it not a fact that one of the main features of perestroika now is the need to produce consumer items in Soviet shops? Their shopping list is absolutely enormous. Is there not some way in which we can encourage British firms to enter into joint ventures to produce consumer items? The future for trade with the Soviet Union is very profitable indeed if we get in now.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, yes. Among a number of agreements that I signed when Mr. Kamentsev, the trade Minister, was here with Mr. Gorbachev was one which involved a British company going into the Soviet Union and working with a producer of washing machines. The company will be redesigning them and then enabling those products not only to be sold in the Soviet Union but exported. Another company is involved there in the redesigning of jeans and their manufacture, and in other clothing apparel. A number of these projects are going ahead, but the difficulty is that they require hard currency and therefore there must be an element of export involved as well.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House how many British firms took stands at the recent Moscow fair?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is a piece of information that I do not have with me. I shall write to the noble Lord and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the real danger to glasnost and perestroika, which are in our favour, is the lack of consumer products which may cause the Russian people to reject those concepts? Therefore it is very much in our interests to promote every form of

983
export to the Russian empire which would help Mr. Gorbachev and those concepts.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, my responsibilities lie within the United Kingdom and not with other countries. It is very much a matter for the Soviet authorities. I am sure that they are aware of these matters and they figured very much in the talks that we had a few weeks ago. I have no doubt that they will figure again in the talks when I go to the Soviet Union in June this year.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is the case that we have a problem in trading with the Soviet Union because of a lack of facility with the Russian language? Is he aware that one cause of that is the considerable shortage of Russian language teachers in our schools?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that we are not blessed with too many speakers of the Russian language. Increasingly the commercial language of the world is English and many of these transactions take place in our language.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the press reports are correct that my noble friend is to lead a trade mission to Moscow in June this year? Whether the reports are correct or not, I am sure that he has the best wishes of the Members of the House in that mission. Is the Minister aware that a recent manifestation of perestroika which has helped good relations was the tour of a Soviet rugby team in Scotland where its excellent play, sportsmanship and success was admired and appreciated?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is true that I am going to the Soviet Union and I will be taking a team of businessmen with me. I shall in fact be holding my third series of meetings this year with their trade Ministers. That shows that the tempo of our talks is certainly rising. As regards sporting activities in Scotland, I hear what my noble friend says.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the level of the rouble is one of the reasons impeding trade between this country and the Soviet Union? Some people have found the level to be unreasonably high.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I suspect that there are many impediments to trade, one of which is the shortage of currency. I suspect that that is more important than the rate of exchange.

Water Supplies Standards: Compliance
11.14 a.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to respond to the European Commission's reasoned opinion that
984
the water supply of the United Kingdom must be cleaned up by the end of this year.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the European Commission reasoned opinion refers to the absence of UK legislation directly applying the EC drinking water directive and the fact that some supplies do not yet comply with the nitrate standard in England and the lead standard in Scotland. The Commission should know that the Water Bill and regulations to be made under it, as soon as it is enacted, will fully meet the first point. On the other two points, discussions are being held with the Commission about the timescale of compliance programmes and the technical difficulties involved. However, I can assure noble Lords that public water supplies in the United Kingdom are already of a very high standard.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have two further questions for the Minister. First, is it not the case that the British Government agreed to the convention of 1980 which provided for legislation to be introduced by 1982 and for the clean-up process to be complete by 1985? If that is the case, why have they not fulfilled their obligations under that convention?
Secondly, is the Minister aware that today about 7.5 million people in Scotland are drinking water with a lead content above the EC standard, which is particularly dangerous to the brains of children? Is the Minister further aware that 5 million people in England and Wales are drinking water in which the nitrate content is above the EC level?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, will be aware from the previous occasion when I answered a Question concerning water, for the first five years averaging was accepted as being the method which would be used; it was only then that the Commission changed the method and required individual sampling.
As regards Scotland, steps are in hand to improve the supplies which do not presently meet the directive's standards on lead. In most cases such steps will be completed by the end of the year. Of the remaining 17 supplies, all in the Strathclyde and Lothian regions, seven are expected to comply by March of 1990 and a further eight during 1991. Of the two major schemes which need remedial work, only part will need to be finished by 1992.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are not 7·5 million people in Scotland?
Noble Lords: Oh dear! Save him!
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, if my noble friend is not going to reply to that question, perhaps I may put another to him. While we are deeply touched by the concern of the European Commission for the purity of our water supply, can he say whether it is showing equal interest in the perfectly appalling water supplies which exist in parts of France, Spain and Italy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I think it is correct to say that the United Kingdom has the highest rate of connection to water supplies of any country in the European Community. I shall certainly draw my noble friend's remarks as regards compliance in other countries to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to indicate whether it is correct, as reported in The Times yesterday, that the release of data about water quality standards complying with EC regulations has been suspended pending the privatisation of the water companies? If it is correct, this raises serious problems of non-disclosure of essential information to the public.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have that information with me at present. However, I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, some of us—including, clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie—thought that we heard the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, state during his supplementary question that there are 7.5 million people in Scotland. Is my noble friend aware that the total population of Scotland is about 5.5 million?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for pointing out a fact which I failed to understand when the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, was trying to draw it to my attention.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that 250 years of environmental indifference since the industrial revolution cannot be rectified overnight? Will he further agree that these EC standards are counsels of perfection which we can take as targets and that we cannot abrade problems at the snap of a finger?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Earl is absolutely right in what he says. The reasoned opinion refers to a period of only two months. As most noble Lords will be aware, civil engineering cannot happen in the space of eight weeks.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that that Commission's opinion is but an opinion; that Her Majesty's Government are not in breach of any relevant directive; that the only enforceable procedure would be before the Court of Justice; and that there is no machinery on the basis of an opinion, reasoned or unreasoned, upon which that process could be invoked?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am given to understand that the United Kingdom has never been before the European Court on an environmental directive. Perhaps I may draw to your Lordships' attention the fact that we wrote to the Commission. We expected to discuss the material that we sent it. We find it extremely discourteous that it did not bother to come back to us before proceeding with a reasoned
986
opinion, without any consideration of the technical difficulties inherent in achieving earlier compliance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that such a reasoned opinion will have to be disclosed in the prospectuses for water privatisation? If the Government do not give better answers than those of the Minister this morning, will not privatisation be seriously in jeopardy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, all potential costs will be included in the prospectuses.
Lord Monson: My Lords, important though the quality of our water supply undoubtedly is, is it not a purely domestic matter which has nothing to do with creating a level playing field in advance of 1992? Does the Minister agree that our domestic water supply is no more a legitimate concern of the Common Market than our National Health Service, the schools curriculum, restaurant hygiene or speed limits on motorways?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, begins to move rather away from the reasoned opinion.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that instead of being so obsessed with the purity of our water supply, those countries would be better employed seeking to improve the quality of their wine supply?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, my noble friend Lord St. John has placed his finger upon the core of the problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Welsh water is outstanding in every way and that we do not want touched by the Commission or anyone else? More specifically, will he say what the position is under the new dispensation about adding fluoride to the water?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not believe that the point about fluoridation made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is part of the Question on the Order Paper; but I agree with him entirely about the quality of Welsh water. As a consumer of it I can say that I am extremely satisfied.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the Minister's answer to my first supplementary question. Is it the case that the British Government agreed to the convention of 1980? If so, that puts out of order many of the supplementary questions that have been asked. Why have the British Government not kept to their obligations under a convention which involved their participation and to which they agreed? If the present considered opinion is not adhered to by the British Government, may not the Government be taken to the European Court by the European Commission?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, may have slightly misunderstood what I said. I tried to make it clear that for the first

987
five-year period both parties continued with average sampling. Because of that, for five years there was no difficulty. As the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out, having changed the system, which results in a different standard, one cannot expect all the civil engineering involved thereafter to be achieved overnight.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of my question? Are we going to be taken to the European Court if that order is not complied with?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, that is a matter for the European Commission.

NATO Anniversary
11.24 a.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the results of their efforts to publicise the achievements of NATO on the occasion of its fortieth anniversary.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we are very satisfied with the publicity that is being given to NATO's fortieth anniversary and we hope the importance of NATO in securing peace, security and democracy will be further emphasised at the time of the NATO summit next month. Among the other measures, my noble friend may have seen the postal slogan which appeared on no fewer than 46 million items of mail.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. Does he agree that it is a pity that the postal slogan made no reference to the achievements of NATO, especially in securing peace in Europe for 40 years?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we should have preferred to put on the postal slogan a reference to the peace that has reigned in Europe since the end of the Second World War. Unfortunately, the Post Office decided that that was a contentious and controversial proposition and would not authorise it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, has peace become a contentious subject? Surely it is the opposite.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, like my noble friend, I am mystified at the Post Office's view; but the Post Office, not Ministers, made the decision in this matter.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, some of us may not be surprised that at least some people believe the statement to be contentious. Would it not be a more appropriate way to recognise the anniversary
988
if the Government were to end their preoccupation with increasing our nuclear forces, either by Trident or free-fall bombs from aircraft, and to engage in deeper and new thinking on defence and disarmament and encourage and help NATO to bring forward more initiatives in response to those made by Mr. Gorbachev over the past two years?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that if we had followed the policies proposed by noble Lords opposite, or even by Mr. Gorbachev, those 40 years of peace would not have prevailed.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, as a recognition of the improved atmosphere in international relations, will the Government consider asking the Soviet fleet to pay us an official visit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that that question arises from the Question on the Order Paper; but it is fair to say that the 40 years of peace which have been of so much benefit to the members of NATO have been of equal benefit to the people of the Soviet Union.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
11.27 a.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. — (Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 128 [Listed money market institutions] (continued):
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(64):
Page 125, line 40, leave out from ("contracts") to ("as") in line 42 and insert ("of any specified description in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided—

(a) by a person for the time being included in a list maintained by the Bank of England for the purposes of this section (a "listed institution"), or

(b) by the Bank of England itself,").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 148M(64) does two things. First, it makes it clearer that the clause is concerned with contracts where settlement arrangements are provided by a person on a list kept by the bank. That was not immediately apparent from the earlier wording, which made no reference to settlement arrangements. Secondly, it extends the scope of the clause to contracts in relation to which settlement arrangements are provided by the Bank of England itself. The arrangements for the Central Money Markets Office, currently under development, will be of that kind. The amendment is therefore necessary to ensure that it will be possible to make regulations under the clause in connection with the Central Money Market

989
Office and any other arrangements which the bank might operate in the future, if that is thought appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will answer the questions that he was unable to answer yesterday evening? Who will be on that list? What are the criteria for getting on the list? Will the Government bring forward amendments spelling out the criteria?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I was unaware that I had not answered a question yesterday. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a more specific answer now. He asked whether the Government intended to bring forward a new amendment in respect of the criteria for admitting settlement arrangements to the list. The clause provides for the Bank of England to draw up those criteria, subject to approval by the Treasury. That approach is similar to that in Section 43 of the Financial Services Act, which concerns the wholesale money markets. Those are the markets with which the clause is primarily concerned. They are supervised by the bank. We do not propose to amend that approach to set any criteria. However, the clause will apply only if the Secretary of State exercises his discretion to make regulations. We are contemplating an amendment on how he might exercise his discretion so that he would have regard to whether it was appropriate that the bank would supervise settlement arrrangements in the market concerned.
As for who will be on the list, the only system currently under development will be operated by the bank itself. So we have no specific person in mind to be put on the list. However, in the future a system operator may come forward with suitable proposals and we wish to provide for that possibility.
11.30 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us whether the same criteria as are in the Financial Services Act, which stipulates a cut-off in terms of size for a listed institution, will operate here?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, first perhaps I may say why the criteria cannot in fact be specified in the Bill. It is because the clause is concerned with systems which do not yet exist. I think it is important to get this point across. We do not know what systems may be devised in the future and it is therefore not possible to specify at this stage what criteria will be appropriate. However, the grey book, the regulation of the wholesale markets in sterling foreign exchange and bullion, sets out the criteria for admitting institutions to the list kept under Section 43 of the Financial Services Act. To the extent that a system is concerned with the wholesale money markets, the grey book gives some indication of the ground the system would cover.
When it comes to the criterion itself, it has not yet been decided which criterion will apply. The Section 35 criterion might be relevant but we cannot yet say for certain.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(65) to 148M(67):
Page 125, line 43, after ("or") insert ("recognised").
Page 126, line 18, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) provide that the provisions of this Part apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.").
Page 126, line 21, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 148M(65) to 148M(67) en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed. to.
Clause 129 [Market charges]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(68):
Page 126, line 25, leave out ("to 132") and insert ("and 131").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148M(70), 148M(83), 148M(93) and 148M(95). The key amendment in the group is Amendment No. 148M(93), which substitutes for the old Clause 132 (which is deleted by Amendment No. 148M(83)) a new clause dealing with proceedings against market property by unsecured creditors. Amendments Nos. 148M(68), 148M(70) and 148M(95) make consequential changes to cross-references.
The new clause is an amended version of the old Clause 132 concerning property subject to a market charge. The main differences are, first, that its application has been extended to property put up as cover for margin. Secondly, the wording has been clarified to make it plainer that the proceedings restricted by the clause are those relating to the enforcement of a judgment or order. This was not entirely clear from the wording of the original clause. Thirdly, the clause provides that injunctions or other remedies granted in connection with such a judgment or order do not apply to property protected by the clause.
The purpose of the clause is to ensure that the effective enforcement of a market charge and the prompt and effective realisation of property provided as cover for margin are not disrupted by proceedings by a third party seeking to enforce a judgment or order against the person granting the charge or providing the property in question as cover for margin. The Insolvency Act contains provisions with similar effect in respect of proceedings against the property of an insolvent person without the prior leave of the court. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(69):
Page 126, line 37, leave out ("with the payments") and insert ("therewith").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in speaking to this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 148M(71), 148M(72), 148M(73), 148M(74), 148M(76), 148M(77), 148M(78), 148M(79), 148M(80), 148M(84), 148M(85), 148M(86), 148M(87),

991
148M(89), 148M(90), 148M(104), 148M(106) and 148M(108). This group of amendments makes mostly minor technical and drafting amendments to Clauses 129, 130 and 133 which deal with market charges. In particular, we have sought to make it clearer than it was before how the regulation-making powers in these three clauses interact. Noble Lords may recall my explaining at Committee stage that it was proposed to use the regulation-making powers in these clauses to define more closely than it is possible to do on the face of the Bill just which assets may be subject to a market charge and just what obligations may be secured by such a charge. I hope the amendments make it easier to see how this will work. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the amendments make it easier to understand what the Government's intentions are. I am afraid that they do nothing to allay our worry about market charges as a concept. The problem of what a market charge really is—because it is a new kind of instrument—still remains. I very much hope that as the Bill goes through further stages and through another place the Government will think hard about the clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(70) to 148M(75):
Page 126. line 41, leave out ("to 132) and insert ("and 131").
Page 126, line 44, leave out from ("In") to end of line 46 and insert ("subsection (1)(c)").
Page 127, line 3, at end insert ("; and
"transfer", in relation to any such securities or right, means a transfer of the beneficial interest.").
Page 127, line 5, leave out from ("charges") to ("and") and insert ("granted in favour of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) which are to be treated as "market charges" for the purposes of sections 130 and 131").
Page 127, line 7, at end insert—
("(4A) Regulations under this section in relation to charges granted in favour of a body within subsection (1)(c) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Bank of England; and before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury.").
Page 127, line 8, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130 [Modifications of the law of insolvency]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(76) to 148M(80):
Page 127, line 12, leave out ("following provisions of this Part") and insert ("provisions of section 131").
Page 127, line 15, leave out from ("insolvency") to end of line.
Page 127, line 17, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 20 and insert ("provisions mentioned in subsection (1), and any other provision of this Part as it applies for the purposes of those provisions or provide that those provisions have effect with such exceptions, additions or adaptations as are specified in the regulations.").
Page 127, line 21, leave out from ("may") to end of line 27 and insert ("make different provision for cases defined by reference to the nature of the charge, the nature of the property subject to it, the circumstances, nature or extent of the obligations secured by it or any other relevant factor.").
Page 127, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section in relation to charges granted in favour of a body within section 129(1)(c) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Bank of England; and before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131 [Administration orders, &c]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(81) and 148M(82):
Page 128, line 4, leave out ("has the same") and insert ("ranks for").
Page 128, leave out line 6 and insert ("immediately before preferential debts").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 132 [Proceedings against property subject to a market charge]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(83):
Leave out Clause 132.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133 [Power to make provision about certain other charges]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(84) to 148M(90):
Page 128, line 27, leave out from ("specified") to end of line 28 and insert ("are those granted in favour of—").
Page 128, leave out line 29.
Page 128, line 35, at end insert ("for the purpose of securing debts or liabilities arising in connection with or as a result of the settlement of contracts or the transfer of any asset, right or interest on any financial market.
Where a charge is granted partly for that purpose and partly for other purposes, the power conferred by this section is exercisable in relation to the charge so far as it has effect for that purpose.").
Page 128, line 38, leave out ("this Part") and insert ("sections 130 and 131").
Page 128, line 40, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) apply any of those provisions with such exceptions, additions or adaptations as are specified in the regulations.").
Page 129, line 1, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Regulations under this section relating to charges in favour of a body falling within subsection (2)(c) shall not be made without the concurrence of the Bank of England; and before making any such regulations the Secretary of State shall consult the Treasury.").
Page 129, line 7, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—
("( ) Regulations under this section may make different provision for cases defined by reference to the nature of the charge, the nature of the property subject to it, the circumstances, nature or extent of the obligations secured by it or any other relevant factor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 148M(81) to 148M(90) also en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(91):
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
"Application of margin not affected by subsequent interest.
Where property has been provided in accordance with the rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house as cover for margin in relation to market contracts, no right or remedy arising by virtue of any subsequent act of the person so providing it may be enforced so as to prevent or interfere with the application of the property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house, and any person to whom the exchange or clearing house disposes of the property in accordance with its rules shall take free of any such right or remedy."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 148M(91) introduces a new clause designed to ensure that an exchange or clearing house's ability to realise property provided as cover for margin in relation to market contracts cannot be frustrated in the event that the person who has provided the property as cover for margin subsequently acts in such a way as to confer a right over, or remedy against, the property on another person. The clause provides that such a right or remedy may not be enforced so as to prevent or interfere with the application of the property in accordance with the rules of the exchange or clearing house. It also provides that any person to whom the exchange or clearing house disposes of the property in accordance with its rules shall take the property free of any such right or remedy.
The margin system is designed to operate so that once property has been handed to an exchange or clearing house as margin, it should be available to protect that body. The body has in effect taken over the liabilities of the member to his counterparty in the market. The system cannot operate effectively if there is uncertainty about the body's right to use the property. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(92):
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Priority of market charge over unpaid vendor's liens
. Where property subject to an unpaid vendor's lien becomes subject to a market charge, the charge has priority over the lien unless the chargee had actual notice of the lien at the time the property became subject to the charge.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, some concern has been expressed that the effectiveness of some market charges may be threatened by the possibility of action to enforce an unpaid vendor's lien over property subject to the charge in circumstances in which the taker of the charge was not aware of the lien. The issue which has arisen in connection with the Central Gilts Office System is rather complicated, though I can expand on it if noble Lords wish me to. It relates essentially to the possibility that an unpaid vendor's lien over stock bought from a non-member and introduced into the system might remain enforceable against a subsequent purchaser without notice of the lien until the subsequent purchase was reflected on the gilts register several days later. In the meantime the subsequent purchaser's settlement bank's security over the stock in respect of its assured payment with the system might be at risk.
The precise position in law is slightly uncertain, but the Government accept that there is sufficient doubt to warrant a provision to remove the uncertainty altogether. The clause accordingly provides that where property subject to an unpaid vendor's lien becomes subject to a market charge, the charge has priority over the lien unless the chargee had actual notice of the lien at the time this property became subject to the charge. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(93) and 148M(94):
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Proceedings against market property by unsecured creditors
.—Where property has been provided as cover for margin in relation to market contracts or is subject to a market charge, no execution or other legal process for the enforcement of a judgement or order may be commenced or continued, and no distress may be levied, against the properly by a person not seeking to enforce any interest in or security over the property, except with the consent of—

(a) in the case of property provided as cover for margin, the investment exchange or clearing house in question, or

(b) in the case of property subject to a market charge, the person in whose favour the charge was granted.

(2) Where consent is given the proceedings may be commenced or continued notwithstanding any provision of the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.

(3) Where by virtue of this section a person would not be entitled to enforce a judgement or order against any property, any injunction or other remedy granted with a view to facilitating the enforcement of any such judgement or order shall not extend to that property.

(4) In the application of this section to Scotland, the reference to execution being commenced or continued includes a reference to diligence being carried out or continued, and the reference to distress being levied shall be omitted.").

After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Power to apply provisions to other cases
.—(1) The power of the Secretary of State to make provision by regulations under—

(a) section 127 or 128 (contracts connected with certain overseas exchanges and clearing houses or listed institutions), or

(b) section 133 (charges given in favour of certain institutions in connection with operation of financial market),

includes power to apply sections (Application of margin not affected by subsequent interests), (Priority of market charge over unpaid vendor's lien) and (Proceedings against market property by unsecured creditor) to any description of property provided as cover for margin in relation to contracts in relation to which the power is exercised or, as the case may be, property subject to charges in relation to which the power is exercised.
(2) The regulations may provide that these sections apply with such exceptions, additions and adaptations as may be specified in the regulations.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 134 [Powers of court in relation to certain proceedings begun before commencement]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(95):
Page 130, leave out line 22 and insert—
(section 131,
section (Proceedings against market property by unsecured creditor), so far as it relates to property subject to a market charge,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(96):
After Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
("Insolvency proceedings in other jurisdictions
.—(1) The references to insolvency law in section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (co-operation with courts exercising insolvency jurisdiction in other jurisdictions) include, in relation to a part of the United Kingdom, the provisions made by or under this Part and, in relation to a relevant country or territory within the meaning of that section, so much of the law of that country or territory as corresponds to any provisions made by or under this Part.
(2) A court shall not, in pursuance of that section or any other enactment or rule of law, recognise or give effect to—

(a) any order of a court exercising jurisdiction in relation to insolvency law in a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, or

(b) any act of a person appointed in such a country or territory to discharge any functions under insolvency law,

which in the case of a court in the United Kingdom or a relevant office holder would be prohibited by provisions made by or under this Part.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is no United Kingdom-wide code of insolvency law itself: different provisions exist as between England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 therefore provides for a court exercising insolvency jurisdiction in one part of the United Kingdom to be able to enforce an order made in another part of the United Kingdom. It also provides for courts exercising insolvency jurisdiction in the United Kingdom to assist certain foreign courts in exercising their own insolvency legislation, and vice versa. This clause ensures that such co-operation both in the United Kingdom and in relation to certain foreign jurisdictions shall extend to orders made under the special provisions made in Part VII in relation to the financial markets by ensuring that proceedings under Part VII of the Bill are included within the scope of Section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986.
However, the purpose of Part VII is to achieve certainty in the settlement of contracts. Given the international nature of financial markets and their operations, we do not want to allow Part VII to be ignored by a United Kingdom court where it is asked to assist in the enforcement of foreign insolvency proceedings. Subsection (2) of the new clause therefore specifically prevents this from occurring.
This new clause is desirable to ensure the successful operation of Part VII, and to take account of the United Kingdom-wide and international aspects of insolvency law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Indemnity for certain acts, &c]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(97) and 148M(98):
Page 131, line 11, after ("or") insert ("recognised").
Page 131, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—
('5) No person exercising any functions by virtue of arrangements made pursuant to paragraph 5 or 14 of Schedule 16 (delegation of functions in connection with default procedures), nor any officer or servant of such a person, shall be liable in damages for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of those functions unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(99):
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
("Supplementary provisions as to regulations.
(1) Regulations under this Part may make different provision for different cases and; may contain such incidental, transitional and other supplementary provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient.
(2) Regulations under this Part shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 136 [Meaning of "default rules" and related expressions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(100):
Page 131, line 37, leave out from ("means") to end of line 41 and insert ("rules of a recognised investment exchange or recognised clearing house which provide procedures for dealing with the consequences of a person being unable, or likely to become unable, to meet his obligations in respect of one or more market contracts connected with the exchange or clearing house").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 137 [Meaning of "relevant office-holder"]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(101) to 148M(103):
Page 132, line 7, leave out ("a deceased debtor") and insert ("any debtor within the meaning of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985").
Page 132, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
Page 132, line 20, leave out ("a company") and insert ("any entity").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 138 [Minor definitions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(104) and 148M(105):
Page 132, line 25, at end insert—
(" "charge" means any form of security, including a mortgage and, in Scotland, a heritable security,").
Page 132, line 42, at end insert—
("(4) References in this Part to the law of insolvency include references to every provision made by or under the Insolvency Act 1986 or the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 139 [Index of defined expressions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 148M(106) to 148M(108):
Page 133, line 1, column 2, leave out ("129(3)") and insert ("138(1)").
Page 133, line 5, at end insert—
("insolvency law (and section 138(4)") similar expressions).
Page 133, leave out line 15.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 148M(109):
After Clause 140, insert the following new clause:
("Directions to secure compliance with international obligations
In the Financial Services Act 1986, for section 192 (international obligations) substitute—
"International obligations.
192.— (1) If it appears to the Secretary of State—

(a) that such action proposed to be taken by an authority or body to which this section applies would be incompatible with Community obligations or any other international obligations of the United Kingdom, or

(b) that any action which that authority or body has power to take is required for the purpose of implementing any such obligation,

he may direct the authority or body not to take or, as the case may be, to take the action in question.
(2) The authorities and bodies to which this section applies are the following—

(a) a recognised self-regulating organisation,

(b) a recognised investment exchange (other than an overseas investment exchange),

(c) a recognised clearing house (other than an overseas clearing house),

(d) a designated agency,

(e) a transferee body,

(f) a competent authority.

(3) this section also applies to an approved exchange within the meaning of Part V of this Act in respect of any action which it proposes to take or has power to take in respect of rules applying to a prospectus by virtue of a direction under section 162(3) above.
(4) A direction under this section may include such supplementary or incidental requirements as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient.
(5) Where the function of making or revoking a recognition order in respect of an authority or body to which this section applies is exercisable by a designated agency, any direction in respect of that authority or body shall be a direction requiring the agency to give the authority or body such a direction as is specified in the direction given by the Secretary of State.
(6) A direction under this section is enforceable, on the application of the person who gave it, by injunction or, in Scotland, by an order under section 45 of the Court of Sessions Act 1988".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is, if I may say so, rather less to government Amendment No. 148M(109) than meets the eye. Although it deletes and replaces a complete section of the Financial Services Act, its substantive effect is rather limited.
Section 192 of the Financial Services Act permits the Secretary of State to give a direction to any of the bodies listed when it appears to him that, in order to comply with the UK's international obligations, it is necessary for that body either to take, or to desist from taking, any action which the body has the power to take.
Part VII of this Bill gives new functions to RIEs and RCHs, some of which might, in certain circumstances, have implications for international obligations.
11.45 a.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he also speaking to Amendment No. 148M(110)?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Amendment No. 148M(110) is grouped with Amendment No. 148M(109), so, yes, I am speaking to it.
It is thought necessary that the Secretary of State should only be able to give directions in this connection. The only substantive effect of the amendment is to add RIEs and RCHs to the list already in Section 192. However, the opportunity has also been taken to re-order the section so as to avoid an excessively long list in subsection (1).
Amendment No. 148M(110) in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, would put an obligation on the Secretary of State to give a direction in the circumstances specified. Now I do not think that there is any difference of substance between us and the noble Lord on the importance of ensuring that action by the regulatory authorities does not cut across the UK's international oblibations. But, in the main, we would expect to be able to secure this without having to give formal enforceable directions. The power to give such a direction should, in our view, be one to be kept in reserve, only to be used if persuasion fails. For that reason we think it preferable that it should be a discretionary power, as in the Government amendment, rather than a mandatory power, as the noble Lord proposes. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able, with that explanation, not to move his amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Tordoff Lord Tordoff moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 148M(109), Amendment No. 148M(110):
In the proposed new section 192(1), line 10, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. In the unusual circumstances of last night with the House collapsing beneath our feet—I see that today the electricity is collapsing over our heads—he was unable to re-order his programme to be here and move the amendment.
I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said in relation to this amendment. However, although I cannot move it with the eloquence or the experience which my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran would bring to it, it seems to me that if one is saying that in certain circumtances it is possible for the Secretary of State to direct an authority or body not to take, or, as the case may be, to take, action there is no alternative between those two options. The Secretary of State cannot take action, and therefore it seems to me quite clear, in terms of simple English apart from anything else, that in these circumstances he either has to direct the body to take action., or not to take action. Therefore, the word should be "shall" and not "may". I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I support the amendment for two reasons, first, because it shows to the outside world, if it is accepted, that we are absolutely clear that we are going, to meet our international obligations. It is not a question of the Secretary of State "may" do this, he shall do this, and Parliament has decided that is what he is to do.

999
Secondly, I do not quite understand the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that there may be virtue in persuasion. If regulatory bodies are going to do things, they will do them as a result of the powers that Parliament has given them, either directly or indirectly. Therefore, persuading them not to use those powers seems to me a rather odd concept. I support the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I, too, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not here. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, explained his intentions admirably. I hope that he did not misunderstand what I said. I think I made it clear that the point is that it is preferable that we should have a discretionary power. In much of this part of the Bill flexibility is required. That is why we have created the amendment in this way.
The power is to direct the body and to take action if it is necessary that action be taken. It is also to desist if action would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations. The objection, as I understand it, to "shall" is simply to avoid the implication that direction is necessary in every single case.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I listened to that explanation with some astonishment because it seems to me that if there is to be persuasion, it will take place before we get to the point at which direction would be necessary, unless, presumably, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, there comes a point where our international obligations are not being met. At that stage, the Secretary of State surely must make his mind up whether he wants to direct or does not want to direct a certain action to be taken or not to be taken.
I am quite staggered that the word "may" is still being left in. Frankly, it would be of no great help to divide the House on this occasion. I shall ask my noble friend to read what has been said and perhaps come back at a later stage on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 148M(109) agreed to.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 149:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
("Offers of securities on admission to approved exchange
In section 159 of the Financial Services Act 1986 (offers of securities on admission to approved exchange), after subsection (2) insert—
"(3) Subsection (1) above does not apply to an advertisement issued or caused to be issued in connection with a bona fide invitation to a person to enter into an underwriting agreement with respect to the securities." ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Morton of Shuna, many other noble Lords as well as myself, did our best to offer guidance to the Government and to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who seems to have suddenly left the Chamber, on the drafting of the
1000
provisions of the Financial Services Bill. One of the areas of the Bill where the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, myself and other noble Lords did our best to offer guidance to the Government, concerned Part V. Although it is now nearly three years since this guidance was offered to the Government, the provisions of Part V have not been brought into force. I understand the present plan is that they are not to be brought into force any earlier than January of next year. The purpose of this amendment is, therefore, to offer further guidance and help to the Government before those provisions have been brought into force and tested in the market place.
Part V of the Financial Services Act, as it now is, deals with offers of unlisted securities and in particular with the circumstances in which prospectuses are required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies. The equivalent provisions are currently contained in Sections 64 onwards of the Companies Act 1985. In Section 56(3) of the Companies Act there is an exemption concerning underwriters. That exemption is not contained in Part V of the Financial Services Act. The purpose of the amendment is to bring in that exemption under Section 159.
Let me try to explain the problem. The usual procedure in relation to an issue of securities is that shortly before the issue is offered to the general public (or in the case of a rights issue to the company's shareholders) the issue is underwritten. In those circumstances the underwriters agree to take up the issue if members of the public (or in the case of a rights issue the shareholders) do not do so. The underwriters are sent an "underwriting proof" of the prospectus which will have been almost finalised but which may contain blanks relating to such questions as the price at which the securities are to be offered.
Because of the exemption in the Companies Act, to which I have referred, it is not necessary to file the "underwriting proof" of the prospectus before the offer is made to the underwriters. The prospectus is required to be filed only in its final form before the offer is made to the public. The result of not having in Section 159 the exemption to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention is that invitations cannot be made to underwriters to participate in the underwriting without a prospectus first being filed. A further prospectus then has to be filed before the offer is made to the public.
This creates a number of practical difficulties. I therefore ask the Government if they would be kind enough to accept the amendment. If they cannot accept the terms of the amendment perhaps they would accept the purport of the amendment in principle. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, this seems to us to be a perfectly sensible amendment. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and I and my noble friend—as he then was—Lord Morton of Shuna dwelling on the point three years ago when we considered the Financial Services Bill.
In answering, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will take the opportunity to tell the

1001
House how far the Government have got with their general amendments to the Financial Services Act as a result of the consultation that has taken place.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I have here a long brief on the matter but I shall not read it. I shall merely apologise for not being in my place at the right time this morning after last night's debacle. I had anticipated having a day off and I heard nothing about this debate until half past ten this morning. I was going to make some complaints about the usual channels, but I understand that I was wholly in the wrong. I ought to have known that it is constitutional procedure that when anything curious happens, such as happened last night, and the House is adjourned the business continues immediately the next time the House meets. I was not aware of that and I apologise for not being in my place.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is very nice to see the noble lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, in his place. I hope that he will not regret missing a day off, but I am sure there will be plenty of other opportunities.
Turning to the amendment, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for the clarity with which he spoke to the amendment, I can be brief. If Section 159(1) of the Financial Services Act—which I might remind your Lordships is not yet in force—has the effect implied by the noble Lord's amendment, those acting for a company over a new issue would be unable to solicit potential underwriters, or obtain binding commitments from them, before a prospectus had been prepared, approved and delivered to a registrar of companies. This would be intolerable, for, in the normal course, the preparation of a prospectus would not even be set in hand without firm underwriting commitments. Section 159(1) was not intended to have that effect, and one can argue that it does not. But I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but that the matter is best put beyond doubt to the effect envisaged by the noble Lord.
Accordingly, I can accept the noble Lord's amendment, but only in principle because I shall need to consider the actual drafting more closely. The problem identified by the noble Lord may go wider than underwriting and a wider exemption may be desirable in order to cover existing marketing techniques and to allow for new developments. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will be satisfied with an assurance that the Government will bring forward an amendment at a later stage to deal with his point and will not press his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, asked me about the other amendments to the Financial Services Act. I cannot at the moment say any more than has already been said at other stages of the Bill. The replies to the consultation process are being actively considered. In any case, the question does not arise in relation to this amendment. However, I hope that that sets the scene as to where we are in relation to the other Financial Services Act amendments.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether that means that the amendments will not come to this House but will be tabled in another place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, consultation is still taking place. We shall have to wait and see whether or not we are able to bring forward any amendments at Third Reading, but it appears unlikely that we shall be able to do so. However, we shall make every effort, as we have done with so many other amendments, to bring them forward to your Lordships' House.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I have heard what the Minister has said. In the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12 noon
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 149A:
After Clause 142, insert the following new clause:
("Proprietary interest and debt
(". A person ("the first person") may create in favour of another ("the second person") a proprietary interest by way of security over all or part of the property of the first person in a debt of other thing in action claimable by him from the second person and such creation shall not have the effect that the proprietary interest so created merges with the debt or thing in action or that the debt or thing in action is extinguished or released.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to the amendment I wish to bring good cheer to your Lordships, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. The thesis behind the amendment is that bankers are good people. Bankers lend us money for buying nice chattels like our houses. Bankers lend us money (and I am referring to professional men) when clients do not pay our professional fees. Bankers support our industry on a massive scale. In my submission to your Lordships, it is therefore not unreasonable that bankers should have the opportunity to have security over chattels and credit balances in return for the massive help which they give us personally, professionally and commercially.
It has always been understood by bankers that it was wholly appropriate and right to take a charge over a customer's credit balance with them. That form of security was easy and inexpensive to arrange. It also had a number of advantages, like the advantages associated with charges over land. First, the deposit was not available to a liquidator until the liabilities had been charged; secondly, the asset charge, if in the currency of the liability, would not fluctuate in value and was under the control of the bank; thirdly, it was unimpeachable against subsequent assignees of the debt or judgment creditors seeking to garnish it; fourthly, the deposit could be used as security where there was no covenant to pay. That type of transaction is everyday business and provides everyday support to industry in particular.
All was well until upon that tranquil and sensible scene the voice of a learned judge broke. The voice of the learned judge was heard in 1986 in the Charge Card Services case, and the voice was that of Mr.

1003
Justice Millett. In that case, the learned judge said—and I should point out obiter dicta—that a charge taken by a bank over a customer's credit balance was "conceptionally impossible". Since then, there has been considerable uncertainty over the right of banks to place a charge over a customer's credit balance. As I have indicated, that practice is widely used and there are omnibus letters of set-off to enable—when, for example, a company wishes to obtain a large overdraft facility from the bank on a group basis—arrangements to be made so that the individual credit balances of the individual companies can have a charge over them and the company can therefore benefit—that is the word to emphasise—from the large support that the bank gives the company.
The purpose of the amendment is therefore to clarify the law following the decision of the Charge Card Services case. The transaction of a creditor creating a security over a debt owed to him back in favour of the debtor is, as I have explained, extremely common in commercial and financial affairs. A typical example is where a policy holder mortgages the benefit of his policy back to the insurance company in order to secure a loan. Moreover, this transaction is widely used in order to give a party security in circumstances where there would be no set-off.
Even in England, where the mandatory set-off under English insolvency law is one of the widest in the world, there are cases where set-off is not available or is hazardous; for example, where a customer places a deposit with a bank as cover for a reimbursement liability of the customer to the bank in circumstances where the bank has issued a guarantee, performance bond or letter of credit on behalf of the customer. Because of the technicalities of the rule against double proof—I shall not explain that now; I have the learned textbook here and, if any noble Lords wish to borrow it, it will explain the problems about double proof—I am told that the bank's right of set-off on the insolvency of a customer could be defeated. I am also told, as I have already indicated, that large sums of money are tied up in these arrangements.
Further, this transaction—the charge back—can be used to prove the priority of the security against assignees, attaching creditors and the like. Another significant aspect is that voluntary arrangements newly introduced by the Insolvency Act can prejudice legitimate set-offs, but not valid security. More importantly, insolvency set-off is highly restricted in a significant bloc of commercial jurisdictions, such as France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Spain and certain other states whose law is based upon the Napoleonic Code. Because of the international nature of many commercial and financial transactions centred in London, it was considered helpful that an alternative to set-off should be available. English law, of all systems, is not an island.
Prior to the 1986 decision in the Charge Card Services case, there were a number of English decisions which tended to support the availability of that transaction and, in other senior common law,
1004
Napoleonic and Germanic jurisdictions, there is no objection to the creation of security by that method. There can be no policy objections to the creation of a security over an asset of a party in order to secure his liability. It would therefore seem a pity that one of the most mature and important legal systems of the world should fall behind in that respect.
I am told that charge-backs are used in a variety of transactions. At retail level, it has been used for tenants' caution money and, as I have already indicated, insurance policies. It has also been of important use to banking transactions, in the reinsurance industry and in relation to the financial securities, commodities and money markets where it may be desired to create security over margin deposits.
I cannot overemphasise the importance of the efficacy of the security in order to maintain the integrity of the financial system. As explained earlier, the tabled amendment, which has been settled by leading counsel, is intended to clarify the law and to confirm that there is no objection to a creditor creating security over his debt back to the debtor. As such, the amendment is not intended to define how the security should be created but merely to confirm its availability and to leave it to case law to develop the consequences of the security. There is considerable support for the amendment, for example, in the report of the review committee under the chairmanship of Professor Jack. Having identified the problem and its various aspects, the committee concluded:
"Our conclusion, then, is that, as the issues raised are important and the problems are in need of urgent resolution, the Government should be invited to institute a process of consultation canvassing possible solutions to the problems mentioned, with a view to initiating (possibly in the Companies Bill which has just been presented to Parliament) any necessary amending legislation".
I understand that the consultation period for the Jack Committee's proposals is due to expire at the end of the month, so we are close to the end of the consultation period. I therefore assume that the Government have now had an opportunity to undertake sufficient consultation to deal with this difficult matter.
The amendment also has the support of the Law Society in its memorandum of January 1989, copies of which several noble Lords have received and know to be carefully and closely argued document. In this regard, the memorandum states:
"We request that urgent consideration be given to legislation to permit such changes".
I would have had support this morning from noble Lords who are members of the Judicial Committee. I have had letters from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Templeman, indicating their support. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton and Lord Goff of Chieveley, would have been present in the House last night but for a Grand Night Dinner at Lincoln's Inn. As far as I know, that Grand Night Dinner has now been completed, but the noble and learned Lords have judicial business this morning which prevents them from attending the House. I hope that the Government will accept that the amendment has

1005
their support and that they would have been in the House to support it.
Therefore, within my theme that bankers are good people who deserve this support, I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I suppose that I should respond on behalf of the banking community to thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. There is undoubtedly a problem here. There is some confusion in the law and the thrust of the amendment certainly has the support of bankers, and certainly makes sense. I believe that the Government would do well to pay attention to the words of Professor Jack and adopt the amendment.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, it is my knowledge that bankers, both in Scotland and in England, very strongly support what has been said.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment which was moved so comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. It may be of interest to noble Lords to know that the amendment has the support of the Committee of London and Scottish Bankers. I have before me an indication from Mr. Whittle of the TSB group supporting this amendment most strongly. I believe that it would be useful to put on record the fact that the amendment has been drafted by leading counsel, Mr. Richard Sykes, QC.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, Professor Robert Jack's report, to which reference has been made, contains 83 recommendations covering a broad range of issues concerning banking law and practice. One of the recommendations addressed the question of set-off, with the review committee recommending that:
"the Government should institute a process of consultation with a view to introducing legislation to clarify the right of set-off, and the validity of a charge over a credit balance in favour of the person with whom the balance is held".
My honourable friend in another place, in announcing the publication of the review committee's report, said:
"the Government welcome the committee's report. In considering their response to the recommendations, they will wish to take account of the views of those who will be affected by the proposals, and will consider carefully the implications for bankers, their customers and the general public interest".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/2/89; col. 784.]
The Treasury has asked for comments on the recommendations contained in the review committee's report by the end of April.
The amendment today seeks to pre-empt that consultation period and offer a solution to the uncertainties highlighted by one part of the Charge Card Services case before all interested parties have had an opportunity to make representations to the Treasury on these uncertainties and what, if any, remedy they favour.
The case for amending legislation on this particular point has yet to be proved. Full consultation with interested parties has not yet taken place and they should be given the opportunity to offer
1006
a detailed response on the issue. As the review committee's report pointed out, any consideration of this question needs to be,
"in the context of the overall scheme of priorities between secured and unsecured creditors".
Although this amendment is permissive, if made use of it would undoubtedly affect the interests of persons other than the lenders concerned. For that reason the Government believe that more widespread and considered consultation is required. I should also mention that, although the judgment was handed down in 1986, we are not aware of any specific measurable damage that it has subsequently caused to the banking community.
Furthermore, this is not a new issue. There has been for many years considerable academic discussion about whether it is or is not possible to take a charge over a credit balance. Since the judgement of Mr. Justice Millett, the debate has persisted, with articles appearing in legal journals supporting both points of view. That is why we believe that it would be premature to accept the amendment until further consideration has been given to whether or not amending legislation is required, and if so what it should say.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will recognise these difficulties and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hacking:My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he can help me on a few matters. The noble Lord said that what was required was "more widespread and considered consultation" and he also spoke of "interested parties". Will he indicate the interested parties that the Government need to consult and say how widespread those consultation processes should be? Will he further indicate whether it is proposed to have an extension to the consultation period of the Jack Committee? There are only nine days to go before the end of this consultation period. It would be most helpful if the noble Lord could assist on those points.
Lord Strathclyde:Certainly, my Lords. First, perhaps I should say what we intend to do after consultation. If it becomes clear that legislation is desirable we would seek the earliest opportunity to introduce such measures. In a more general sense I believe that it would be quite wrong to reach conclusions on an issue on which consultation has taken place before the consultation period has finished. I know that noble Lords are aware that the issue goes far wider than Professor Jack's review.
As to an extension of the consultation period, at the moment there is no question of extending it further than the date already mentioned. The Government believe that that is sufficient for as full a consultation process as possible to take place.
Lord Hacking:My Lords, I hope that I am not straining the patience of the House too much. However, the noble Lord said that the Government would take the earliest opportunity after consultation to do something about this problem if they judged that action needed to be taken. Is he able to say whether the Government would be prepared to

1007
use this Bill as a vehicle during its progress through another place?
Lord Strathclyde: Very briefly, my Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, will understand that it is not possible to give any particular commitment that action would be taken in the context of the Companies Bill.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I am not wholly happy, but in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.15 p.m.
Clause 144 [Building societies: miscellaneous amendments]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 149B:
Leave out Clause 144.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 149C and 152B. The existing Clause 144 applies to building societies and their directors and officers, the restrictions on unqualified persons acting as liquidators etc., and the provisions on disqualification of directors contained in insolvency legislation.
Clause 144(2) as it stands excludes shadow directors of building societies from the provisions of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Certain provisions of the companies winding-up legislation are applied to building societies by virtue of Schedule 15 to the Building Societies Act 1986 but not in so far as they relate to shadow directors.
It is desirable that building societies and companies legislation should be consistent on this point. Clause 144 has therefore been redrafted so that, in addition to the provisions in the existing clause, it applies the relevant provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 to shadow directors of building societies.
Amendment No. 152B is a consequential amendment which makes a minor addition to the extent of the repeals of the Building Societies Act 1986 in Schedule 17. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 149C:
After Clause 144, insert the following new clause:
("Building Societies: Miscellaneous amendments.
.—(1) In Schedule 15 to the Building Societies Act 1986 (application of companies winding-up legislation)—

(a) in paragraph 1(a) (provisions of Insolvency Act 1986 applied) for "and XII" substitute ", XII and XIII";

(b) in paragraph 3(2)(b) (adaptations: references to be omitted), omit ", a shadow director".

(2) In the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, after section 22 insert:
"Application of Act to building societies.
22A.—(1) This Act applies to building societies as it applies to companies.
(2) References in this Act to a company, or to a director or an officer of a company include, respectively, references to a building society within the meaning of the Building Societies Act 1986 or to a director or officer, within the meaning of that Act, of a building society.
(3) In relation to a building society the definition of "shadow director" in section 22(5) applies with the substitution of "building society" for "company".
(4) In the application of Schedule 1 to the directors of a building society, references to provisions of the Insolvency Act or the Companies Act include references to the corresponding provisions of the Building Societies Act 1986.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 147 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 149D:
Page 137, line 15, leave out from ("(1)") to ("provisions") in line 17 and insert ("The").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as presently drafted Clause 147 provides for Part VII to come into force on Royal Assent. The amendment provides for the part to be brought into force by a commencement order in the same way as the other parts of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Repeals]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 149E:
Page 214, line 41, marked as line 33, column 3, at beginning insert—

("Section 36(4) In section 41, the words from "and need not" to the end.".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment makes a small consequential change to Section 41 of the Companies Act 1985 on company seals. I spoke to the substantive changes on Amendment No. C55 to Part V of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 215, leave out line 33.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 215, line 46, column 3, at end insert ("In section 460(1), the words "(inspection of company's books and papers)" and "under section 440".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 153. These are minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 151A:
Page 215, line 55, column 3, at end insert ("In section 651(1), the words "at any time within 2 years of the date of the dissolution".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments arise and are consequential upon the Amendment No. C73 to Section 651 of the Companies Act 1985 which was debated in Committee on recommittal of

1009
Part V and was accepted by this Chamber. The new Amendment No. C73 to Section 651 achieves in a better way the aim of the earlier provision and these amendments arise and are consequential upon that new amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 153:
Page 215, line 55, column 3, at end insert ('In section 733(3), the words from "then" to "216(3)".").
Page 216. line 29. at end insert—
("1985 c. 65. Insolvency Act 1985. In Schedule 6, paragraph 45.").
Page 216, line 21, column 3, at beginning insert ("In Schedule 15, in paragraph 3(2)(b), the words ", a shadow director".").
Page 216, line 47, column 3, at end insert ("In section 199(9), the words from "and, in relation" to the end.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.

Agricultural and Food Research: Select Committee Reports
12.20 p.m.
Lord Butterworth Lord Butterworth rose to move, That this House takes note of the Reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Agricultural and Food Research (1st Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 13 and 4th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 104).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce this debate on the Reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology into the future of agricultural and food research, including its links with other biological sciences. In October last year the committee published an interim report on the possible reorganisation of the research councils concerned with the biological sciences. That report becomes of course an integral part of the main report. The investigation was carried out by Sub-Committee I, and I should like to express my thanks to its hard-working members, its specialist advisers—Professor Harley and Dr. Anthony James—and the committee's excellent clerk, Mary De Groose. I should also like to thank all witnesses, who were extremely helpful and made this report possible.
The reference to the biological sciences in our terms of reference proved to be timely, for biology and biotechnology could well introduce changes in many fields so great as to amount to a scientific revolution, in particular in medicine, food and agriculture. Scientific revolutions take time to develop and we may not be able to gauge the extent of this revolution, depending as it does on genetic engineering, until the end of this century, or even the first decades of the next century. However, so great is the potential, especially in agriculture and food research, that the committee is convinced that after the severe reduction in funding that has recently taken place it would be dangerous to allow the research base to be further eroded. A period of at least level funding in real terms is now badly needed.
In the shadow of this scientific revolution, research is essential if we are to maintain our competitive position and efficiency. Agricultural surpluses are
1010
irrelevant for they are not a consequence of research but of economic and structural policies.
Before turning to particular issues, perhaps I may mention one general trend which lies behind so much of the evidence that we heard. At whatever point in time one investigates the total amount being spent on food, the cost of products coming from the farm is always a decreasing proportion, whereas the contribution of industry in the preparation, processing and presentation of food and indeed its manufacture is a constantly increasing one. The substitution of margarine for butter is, I suppose, one of the first major examples. But now the consumers' choice is increasingly decisive in the food market, and consumers' concern about so many of the products that come through the farm gate—not merely sensitivity about eggs, or a preference of margarine for butter, but a decline in the popularity of red meat, and a wariness of too much farinaceous material—is all part of a trend which may have increasingly important consequences.
The continuous increase in the contribution made by industry to our food is not likely to stop with myco protein pies. Those elements in our diet which come from the farm cannot now be kept separate from the contribution of industry. For these reasons the so-called food chain from farmer to processor, to retailer to consumer, must be seen as continuous. This has extremely important consequences in the management of research. It may incidentally also be a reason for keeping agriculture and food under the same ministry.
After the massive reduction recently in agricultural and food research, one might have expected that the agencies for such research would be rationalised and simplified. They are a forbidding list. First, MAFF spends over £100 million a year on research and development. Then there is the AFRC. Your committee was impressed with the council's operation. Firmly and uncompromisingly based upon fundamental long-term research, the council has responded courageously and well to the difficult circumstances which have confronted it in recent years.
Then there is NERC, and the biotechnology directorate of the SERC which since its inception has earned for itself the respect of industry. Again, the DTI operates increasingly in this field. It has created a close relationship with the directorate and brought together industry, university departments and research institutes in remarkable and productive operations. In addition to the biotechnology directorate the SERC has two further functions in our field of interests. First, it is primarily responsible for the training of scientists, although your committee was pleased to see that both the AFRC and NERC have recently increased the number of their training awards. Secondly, SERC is the only research council responsible for the basic health of all sciences, as all the other research councils are mission oriented.
The committee was pressed to commend the creation of a new research council for biology and for the research missions to which biology would make an important contribution. However, one of

1011
the strongest reasons for charging one research council, such as SERC, with the basic health of all our sciences is that no one can foretell where in the whole spectrum of science the next important development may occur.
Returning in this field of research, we next have ADAS, a part of MAFF, offering an advisory service with its own laboratories and research. When the subject matter is forestry, a prime responsibility for research rests upon the Forestry Commission; and when the subject is nutrition the Medical Research Council has an especial concern for the influences of nutrition upon disease.
In Scotland, there is a wholly separate range of institutions—the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland (DAFS), the Scottish agricultural colleges, and the Scottish agricultural research institutes—which some witnesses consider to be more efficient with better co-ordinated research funding and management than their English counter-parts.
The universities, and to a lesser extent the polytechnics, play an increasing role in agricultural and food research. Research councils, such as AFRC, as a matter of policy are increasing their relationship with university departments.
Industry also undertakes research. Agrochemical industries spend about £200 million a year. In 1986 the food and drink industry spent about £104 million. However, as that was out of a turnover of £56 billion, it represents an outlay of only 2 per cent. It is therefore not surprising that the food and drink industry should be expected to fund more near-market research.
So much for the agencies undertaking agricultural and food research. I must now briefly draw attention to some of our recommendations. Returning to MAFF, the committee re-endorsed the Rothschild principle that government departments should be able to commission research on the customer-contractor basis both to influence the formation of policy and in support of public good. But the committee was not satisfied with the way in which MAFF has carried out its role in commissioning research. It considered that most of the funds spent by MAFF on research could be more productively spent as part of the AFRC budget. The research funds originally handed over to MAFF under the Rothschild principle were at that time about £10 million. Now, because of inflation, the fund must be of the order of £36 million. The committee therefore recommend that about £27 million, or about 75 per cent. of the fund, should be returned to the research council for basic and strategic research, so important in the run-up to the biological revolution.
Although the relationship between AFRC and MAFF is close, we consider that the return of this money should be coupled with an obligation on the research council to consult the agricultural departments and, most important, we recommend an annual stocktaking of research programmes on the lines of the stocktaking of health research. MAFF will be left with approximately £10 million to apply in accordance with Rothschild.
The committee also re-endorsed the second part of the Rothschild principle that customer departments should add to their commissions a surcharge of an average of about 10 per cent. to enable contractor laboratories on their own initiative to undertake work not immediately related to any of their specific programmes.
The committee approved the general principle enunciated by government that more near-market research should be undertaken by industry. It is beyond dispute that agriculture and the food industry should increase its financial commitment to research. The committee was, however, disturbed at the speed with which the transition is proposed. To prevent valuable work being lost, it would be preferable to see the transition spread over five years instead of three. The committee was troubled that the Government's definition of what was meant by near-market has never been published. We considered the lists which government has drawn up of research to be classified as near-market and thought that there were too many items which contained elements of public good and some items which are of such public interest that if the Government were wholly to withdraw, leaving the research to interested industrial parties, public confidence would evaporate.
Our interim report recommended an important rationalisation; namely, that AFRC and NERC should be amalgamated to form a Natural Resources Research Council. These two research councils frequently consider different aspects of the same subject matter. One will be considering domesticated animals, the other wild animals. One will be concerned with cultivated land, the other with set aside. AFRC will be considering trees as a product of the farm and NERC the environmental aspects of trees. If our recommendation is accepted, different aspects of the same subject matter will successfully be brought together. However, a single council for the whole of biology would in some respects go too far and in other respects be doomed to failure. Everyone seems to be agreed that biology under the Medical Research Council should continue its separate existence and therefore the unity of the biological sciences is not presently attainable.
Changes in near-market funding make inevitable a review of the relationship between AFRC and ADAS. Do we need two parallel research networks in the public sector, especially if much of the work of ADAS will be hit by the new policy for funding near-market research?
Moreover, the character of ADAS may well change because it is now charging for so many of its advisory services and could easily become more of an independent agency. A changed relationship between ADAS and AFRC is inevitable. The new excellent joint research programmes in horticulture between these two agencies should be commended as a possible precedent for other areas of research. Such moves may well precede a gradual move towards a single research-based service based on the AFRC or, we hope, the new Natural Resources Research Council, while recognising all the time that the interests of the extension work of ADAS can

1013
only flourish if it maintains the closest connection with research.
I shall briefly mention two other matters of importance. The first concerns nutrition. Nutrition has fallen between the AFRC and the MRC. The public has become increasingly interested in diet and nutrition and needs sound, sensible, disinterested information. But little information based upon research is being produced. This is an excellent example of research needing to be publicly funded; if funded solely by commerce, it may be open to accusations of bias. The committee therefore recommends that existing centres where good nutritional research is being undertaken must be adequately funded and encouraged to increase the application of new biological techniques. In this field we should like to see the Health Education Authority being accorded an enhanced role.
Finally, set aside. Potentially, set aside is one of the most politically explosive issues of the future. The department of land economy at Cambridge estimates that approximately 6 million acres of agricultural land may be taken out of production by the end of this century. By 2015 it could have risen to 12 million acres, or one-quarter of the total land at present under cultivation. There could not be a subject more in need of research.
In considering the alternatives to set aside, it was your committee's view that trees are a prime candidate. At present we produce £500 million worth of wood products per year but import £4.5 billion worth of wood. We know that our consumption of wood will rise dramatically—some say by 92 per cent. by 2025—and we know that there will be a world shortage of timber. More research on trees is desperately needed, especially on broad leaved varieties, making them capable of being planted profitably on good quality land. It is a firm challenge for biological research. The formation of a Natural Resources Research Council, bringing together the two research councils responsible for trees, will provide a new focus for research. The committee wishes to see the appointment of a chief scientist for forestry. Success cannot be achieved until trees are recognised unreservedly as being an important product of the farm.
I hope that the debate will be informative and further illuminate our report. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Reports of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Agricultural and Food Research (1st Report, 1988–89, HL Paper 13 and 4th Report, 1987–88, HL Paper 104). — (Lord Butterworth.)
12.40 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, it is not often that a noble Lord begins a speech by complaining that he has been listed too early in the debate. However, I do so and I blame the Government. I and other speakers have important engagements and I share strongly the official view that it is discourteous to the House to leave before the end of the debate. However, on this occasion I have no option. I had asked to be listed late so that, if necessary, I could remove my name from the list. As it is, I shall make
1014
a short speech but I must complain about the way in which the Government handle their business.
It is intolerable that we have not received a public apology from the Leader of the House or the Chief Whip for their failure to keep a House last night. It is unfortunate that this has happened. It is bad enough that a debate on such an important subject has been set for a Friday, but it is really too much to have it mutilated by a debate which was extended from the previous day. It confirms my early belief that the sooner the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, becomes Leader of the House the better. I have made that suggestion on other occasions because I believe that she would make a delightful but firm leader. I shall not stay to the end of the debate so she need not comment on my remarks, as is the custom.
I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, not only on his speech but on the report. I believe that noble Lords who have never served on Select Committees are unaware of the enormous quantity of printed paper which members must read. I speak as chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. The real work is done by the chairmen of the sub-committees. A large amount of paperwork must be read by the chairmen, aided by the some very able clerks.
Much of the reputation of your Lordships' House, particularly in Europe, depends on the work of the Select Committees. Only two days ago I was in Paris for the 25th anniversary of the founding of the European Space Agency. The director general, who understandably failed to compliment Her Majesty's Government, singled out for appreciation the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I believe that, instead of being irritated by criticisms, the Government should recognise the fact that the work is well worthwhile.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has covered all the main points. I had intended to discuss forestry but I shall now strike that subject from my notes. However, I should like to make one comment. The forests in tropical areas, particularly in Brazil and Borneo, are being destroyed. There is a further duty for us to increase our efforts in forestry, and that is well brought out in the report. There is need for more research, as there is on the question of set aside. I shall spend no more time en the subject because I am sure that the Government will note the points that have been made. I hope that action will be taken on the recommendations.
I have a few criticisms to make. The report was rightly critical about several issues which have been delicately referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. We on Select Committees do not seek to criticise government. In party political terms we seek to be as non-partisan as possible. However, when we are faced with criticisms as serious as those given in evidence, we have no option but to criticise. There has been a serious and heavy degree of criticism in relation to the handling of customer/ contractor relationships.
Sir Ralph Riley is well known to everyone involved in agriculture. He is a distinguished and intelligent man and I should like to quote from his written

1015
evidence. He stated that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries had failed to give broad guidance for R&D:
"because commissioning was overwhelmingly of small, short-term and relatively pedestrian projects. The Council did not receive from its customer" —
which is what is supposed to happen—
"any guidance about the prospects for agriculture, so work was rarely commissioned that could prepare farming for its future".
The consequence of the Rothschild principle has been disastrous for the AFRC. Similar comments were made by other witnesses. I do not wish to comment further but should like to point out that the Natural Environmental Research Council was also unhappy with the system of departmental commissioning. We have recommended that a large proportion of the government funds should be transferred to that council. We welcome the extra funds which have been made available.
I should like to comment briefly on a number of other criticisms concerning the Civil Service. It was argued in the report that the AFRC had 30 staff on short-term appointments; that was 1 per cent. of the total complement. By 1988–89 the number had risen to 561. The projection is for 850 staff on period appointments; that is 20 per cent. of the total complement. While the AFRC welcomes the increased use of short-term appointments as introducing new blood into the research team, it does not necessarily welcome it as a general principle. Other reasons it gives in favour of the trend beg many questions. It says that the increase in short-term appointments has offset the loss of permanent posts. That loss is damning, dangerous and bad for morale.
I fear that that is a consequence of the shortage of funds now available and the general cutting down of the public service, particularly of scientists. It is depressing to see the rigid way in which government departments feel compelled to lower the status and pay of scientists. That is most noticeable in respect of chief scientists. We have always complained that there have been three chief scientists. The Government have claimed that three chief scientists are better than one, but we should like one at a high level. However, the same is beginning to happen in other departments.
I shall not go into the further comments and criticisms. Others will speak about the damaging consequences of the adoption of the so-called near-market research. However, I support the strong recommendations of the interim report that the Natural Environment Research Council and the Agricultural and Food Research Council should integrate. That was well argued in the previous report which we published earlier in the year.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred to the difficulties with regard to biology. I believe that he is right when he says that as regards merging that is as far as we can go for the moment. I make the point that simply transferring all biology into one department would lead to a very dangerous cutting into well integrated activities. I can give many examples in which biologists and other scientists have worked together.
1016
I have recently seen one example in Australia, in the Kimberleys, where a joint Royal Geographical Society and a Linnean Society worked together and one finds the geomorphologists and the biologists looking at the same rocks and working together. In the marine field the oceanographers need the same ships as the marine biologists. Therefore, one argument is that any change which is going to be made in order to strengthen the position by having a biological research council means a complete reorganization of the whole of our system of scientific support.
I am not criticising the Government on this. As well I know, that is a problem which afflicts every country as to how it is to be organised. However, I hope that the Government will take this recommendation seriously. We may hear a different solution from the AFRC. However, I believe that my noble friend Lord Butterworth is quite right to let this appear as a major recommendation.
12.52 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the committee and the chairman on the production of an excellent report which draws together the deep unease felt in the industry generally about the position of research and development. I should particularly like to congratulate the chairman on his exposition of the report, which came forth with a clarity that I trust was felt on the Front Bench opposite.
Of course, throughout its length the report deplores the cuts, and I must congratulate the author on the mildness of his language when he says:
"The Committee therefore recommend that the research base in agriculture and food should not be further reduced".
As I say, that is putting it extremely mildly because enormous damage has been done already. I searched the evidence to see whether a favourable view was taken by any of the witnesses. Apart from the slightly different expression of approval from MAFF, the witnesses were solidly critical of the state of R&D in the industry.
When one sets the total value of the product at £5,436 million against research costs of £180 million, which is the total with everything considered, I believe that that is not a great deal and is certainly not too much. So far as one can obtain accurate figures—because the way in which they are kept on the Continent varies—it appears that while the proportion is falling in this country a number of countries on the Continent are putting more money into research, particularly France. However, the comparison is extremely difficult.
I should like to take up one or two points, particularly that concerning set aside and the devastating figures given by the Cambridge economist of 6 million acres by the end of the century and 12 million acres 15 years later. I do not know that I altogether agree that there will be an automatic increase all the time, because one certainly hits snags and different factors will combine against an automatic increase. It appears to me as a farmer that there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Nevertheless, at the moment we have 3 or 4 million acres of land considered to be surplus to requirements for the

1017
production of food as it is today. That is extremely serious socially and in other respects and is an area in which research is absolutely vital.
One can look at past systems and one can see how the land could be utilised by extensification. I believe that there is a strong case for that because, although the industry is geared to the production of cheap food for the mass of people—and the noble Lord referred to a contribution from industry, although I should prefer to say that it is a contribution to industry—that contribution is two-thirds of the cost as against one-third to agriculture. The supply of cheap food produced by modern methods is there and is almost guaranteed. However, an enormous proportion of people in Europe would rather buy much better food, natural food and food with flavour. There is a strong demand for that expressed every day, and it is rising. In that sphere there must be room for a great deal of research and there is a great need for it.
Furthermore, research is very much needed into the question of additives, pesticides and so on to satisfy the constant complaints and fears expressed by the public with regard to the use of pesticides of all sorts in agriculture.
The other sphere—and again that was touched on by the chairman of the sub-committee—is that of industrial products from agriculture, particularly in the form of wood. One of the biggest consumers of wood is the paper industry. We use enormous and increasing amounts of paper. I should have thought that the case for seeing whether one can grow the cellulose more quickly and more cheaply as a different form of crop on the surplus land is very strong. During the war paper makers used straw to make paper. They did not like that and said that it made bad paper but surely, if it can be done at all, then an improved form of crop should be looked for and that would be a reasonable subject for research.
The whole question of extensification by using more surplus land with less input is surely a sensible one to look at. However, again, it needs a great deal of research. There is the old system of ley farming practised in Scotland for many generations as a basis, but it needs bringing up to date and much work needs to be done on the subject.
Areas for research are legion and are all mentioned in the report. However, I believe that the Government really must take account of the plea in the report that cuts should be stopped. Morale has been very badly hit and I should like to hear the noble Baroness reiterate her pledge, which is mentioned in the report, that all funds withdrawn from near-market agricultural R&D will be used to provide increased support for the basic and strategic sciences. That is a very important point and I hope that she can reiterate that promise, because much harm is being done in the universities and colleges. Certainly, I was rather pleased, though shocked to find it necessary, that Dundee University is working extremely hard to replace the grants which it had for research by obtaining research funds direct from industry and is being very successful in that. On the other hand, of course, the university has had to appoint a fund raiser with a department in order to raise the money and it does appear to me that that
1018
money would have been far better spent on actual research.
The Scots colleges have also been mentioned by the chairman in his speech. They are an example of an absolutely first class method of obtaining information, doing the research and getting it over to industry. The advisory services were run by the colleges in the different areas of Scotland, which meant that the contact was close both with the research being done and with the dissemination of knowledge. I should think that morale in the Scots colleges is at rock bottom at present because a great many of the best people have left and those who remain are now concerned with sending out bills and trying to collect money for the work that they do.
Due to the low level of income in agriculture, the amount of information available for the industry has gone down. It is a serious situation and I hope that the Minister can tell the House that the cuts have ended, that we have a base and that the people remaining can look forward to a career in their chosen field. If the Minister can give those assurances, the report will have done a great deal of good. I look forward to hearing her do so.
1.1 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I must first apologise if I am not in my place for some of the debate because I have a commitment in Cambridge in the late afternoon.
I am sure that I speak for us all when I say that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, for the report we are debating and for the lucid speech he made in introducing it. It was a pleasure to be a member of the Select Committee which he so ably chaired. As the noble Lord said, the committee's remit was a broad one, touching, as it did, on the organisation of biological sciences in this country. However, while our deliberations seem to stimulate others also to look at this very wide issue, our initial recommendation was relatively modest and we resisted the temptation of suggesting sweeping changes. I believe that a single research council for biology would be a sweeping change and it is not a proposal which I support.
To join the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council into a body responsible for research in the field of natural resources is surely a sensible move at a time when government and the public are becoming more and more aware of environmental issues. Such a large part of the environment of this country is subject to the operations of agriculturalists that it is only logical that there should be one body to promote work on what now appears to be two aspects of virtually the same issue.
However, there is another question dealt with in the report in sections 4.23 to 4.26 and 5.16 to 5.20. I believe that it is a problem that will become of increasing importance and urgency. It has an importance that is wider than just the biological sciences. I refer, as did the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Mackie of Benshie, to manpower and training. Noble Lords have already mentioned the research that needs to be done, but who in the future will be able to do it? The ABRC

1019
in its report A Strategy for the Science Base which was published about 18 months ago said that it would like to see the research councils developing policies for the management of research manpower in the universities. The report pointed out that in 1984 there were over 10,000 research scientists on temporary appointments—an increase of 70 per cent. in the decade since 1974. That decade was one of more or less level funding for science as a whole in real terms. The increase in junior scientists in temporary appointments funded in universities by the research councils has continued.
In 1985, in Cambridge, the number was 800. Today it is 1,000 in round figures, and that compares to established faculty posts in the universities in all subjects, science and arts, of about 1,600. The same change is happening in the AFRC staff. As has already been mentioned, in 1984 there were 30 staff on period appointments and today there are 560. Of course, that is not without some benefits, but basically short-term appointments have offset the loss of permanent posts which are due to cuts in funding. The replacement of senior and, therefore, relatively expensive scientists—though, Heaven knows, scientists are not expensive when one compares their salaries with almost any other comparably qualified professionals—by temporary juniors simply cannot go on indefinitely, because if the temporarily employed juniors can see no prospect of continuing a career in biological science, or for that matter in any other science, they are going to look to greener fields, and they do not have to look very far.
The committee received evidence that shortages in some biological staffs are already developing. If we are not careful we shall make a career in science so unattractive and ill-rewarded that the brightest and best of our science graduates will no longer be around to fill the more senior posts in their turn. Who will then train the next generation of scientists? Scientists do not grow on trees; they learn their craft from experienced seniors and, if they are lucky, in a laboratory which has an established tradition. This can happen only if funding is relatively stable. If the ABRC, in recommending management of research manpower, inadvertently encourages the movement to temporary junior staff I believe that it will have made a bad situation worse. If it meant, as I believe it did, to warn of the situation now facing us I should have hoped to see a greater sense of urgency in the research councils' responses.
However, one must recognise that the AFRC is not unaware of this problem. It is doing its best in difficult circumstances. Nevertheless, I think there is perhaps confusion in its aims. It both welcomes the increased use of short-term appointments and states that it is giving active consideration to improving the career development of staff. Such dual aims will need careful balancing, especially since it accepts that compulsory redundancies are unavoidable.
I do not underestimate the constraints under which the AFRC labours and the difficulties imposed by the uncertainties inherent in commissioned research. I have seen some of them at first hand as
1020
chairman of the governing body of one of its institutes. I know that the financial stringency of the past years has been compelling. My concern is that it has compelled policies in manpower for short-term reasons which have already sown the seeds of long-term damage.
1.9 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I have had the privilege of being a member of a great many of your Lordships' Select Committees and sub-committees but I can say with complete honesty that my membership of this particular sub-committee has been by far the most stimulating and invigorating experience that I have had in this field. The quality of the witnesses who came before us, of my fellow members of the committee and of the professional and expert advisers, in addition to that of the chairman, was outstanding. Not only was it a pleasure and a privilege to sit on that committee but I believe that the results of its work are of considerable significance. It would not be right to touch on all the points that have been raised because the chairman has already dealt with many of them in a most admirable way.
I shall confine myself to a relatively small number. I wish to take up the point that the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised with so much force: that is, the future prospects for good agricultural and basic research scientists in this country. Deservedly we have a very high reputation throughout the whole world. Our scientists are absolutely first class and the work that they do is magnificent. But if we continue as we are at present it is a wasting asset. Many witnesses pointed that out to the committee. For example, at page 20 of the report, paragraph 3.24, we are told that:
"AFRC has lost about 2,000 staff in the last three or four years, 600 of these have been by compulsory redundancies. We have a workforce who know that more cuts are probably on the way. They do not know when they are going to hit, they do not know where they are going to hit. So how do you keep up the morale of scientists in our institutes under these circumstances?
Sir Hans Kornberg said that the potential shortage of biologists, because students were not attracted to biological studies, could only be rectified by 'providing hope that somebody who has had training in research work can come back here to pursue his subject through research in the context of academic or industrial life. At the moment that hope is lacking' ".
Much other evidence that came before us supported that view. That is a stupendously important matter where we are in danger of frittering away, through neglect and parsimony, the magnificent heritage which has been built up over decades and even centuries.
Having dealt very shortly with that subject, because of time but not because of its importance, I turn to a matter which the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, also mentioned—the need for more nutritional research. It is all very well for us to make sure that our food is produced efficiently and hygienically and that it is of good quality. We need to know far more about nutrition than we do at present, particularly with the increasing public awareness—in some cases over-awareness—of the dangers of eating certain kinds of food. We need authoritative guidance on these matters and it should not be left to near market research or the large food

1021
processing and distributing organisations. Admirable though they are, they cannot be regarded by the public as completely unbiased in their views.
Between the wars when I was a very young scientist at Cambridge, there was a fine nutritional research laboratory there under the direction of L. J. Harris. But today we are not leaders in the world of nutrition. We have some good places and good work, but we have nothing like enough of those things. We should expand and devote more money to this very important aspect of research. I refer to page 24 of the report, paragraph 3.55:
"The British Nutrition Foundation said that insufficient funds and organisation had been devoted to human nutrition research, so that there were only 'very unsatisfactory data on which to base public health policies on diet and disease'. The 'lack of basic research in food and nutrition probably means that the strategic and applied research is wrongly directed'. There is 'a shortage of high quality research scientists in nutrition science and this deficit is likely to get worse' ".
That is another aspect where I hope that the Government will take to heart what has been said and will devote more funds to this very important part of research.
There is another lack that appeared to us in the planning of agricultural research; that is the absence of any long-term planning. By that I mean looking ahead 10 or 15 years. There should be a small group somewhere whose job it is to look ahead to see what the situation is likely to be by the end of this century. It should try to ascertain what the needs of the country, agriculture and nutrition will be and to help guide research into those areas. With the benefit of hindsight, if 10 or 15 years ago there had been official realisation of the results of the overproduction of food—there was among some people—how much better placed we should be to cope with the problems that now confront us.
What would have happened if set aside had come in, as the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, mentioned, and should forestry have been encouraged, and so on. What a difference there would be in our research today. That lack of long-term vision was demonstrated by several witnesses. The British Veterinary Association said:
"without a clear understanding of government policy for agriculture, and the rural economy generally, it is very difficult to set realistic policies for agricultural research and development".
Sir Ralph Riley criticised MAFF's failure to plan future policy in the light of scientific and technological developments. Paragraph 3.67 states:
"The Royal Society considered that insufficient research had been done on how to set aside land and what the effects would be. Sir Ralph Riley said that current knowledge in relation to set-aside was 'inadequate to inform the farmer as to what are appropriate options to take in the totally new circumstances' ".
Paragraph 3.68 says:
"The Minister of Agriculture described set-aside as 'a very recent policy of development' and admitted that 'there has not been adequate research into all the applications of the set-aside scheme' ".
It is good to get that admission but it would be better still to get an undertaking that in future the Government, the industry and the country will not be caught unawares by the kind of developments that are likely to take place.
There is no need for me to remind your Lordships that research of all kinds is a very long-term process.
1022
If one decides today to begin working on a particular problem it is very unlikely that the results of that research, even with the greatest degree of skill and luck, will actually be shown in the fields or factories within 10 years; it is far more likely to be 15 to 20 years.
In that context, although it is not dealt with very specifically in the report, I urge the Government to think again about the future of the veterinary industry and that of veterinary education. Of course, we are not officially discussing the Riley Report on the future of veterinary colleges. However, many of us view with the greatest apprehension the suggestion —I hope it is no more than that—that the veterinary colleges in Cambridge and Glasgow are under threat. We are already short of many veterinary officers and even today we have to recruit some of them from overseas. I have no objection to that. But how much better it would be, when we already have people who wish to learn to become vets and when we have good and established colleges with great reputations, if we were able to go on training those willing volunteers. I say that because we shall undoubtedly need them in the years ahead.
My final point concerns an argument which has been put forward by many people. When we have these food mountains and so much extra food which we do not know what to do with, what is the point of spending money on research in order to produce still more? The report deals with that aspect in its early paragraphs in a very wise and sensible manner. Research into food and agriculture does not solely result in increased production; it results in more efficient production and a production of healthier and more desirable types of food. But, quite apart from that fact, I remind noble Lords—if indeed they need reminding—that we are today, and have been for some time and will be for the foreseeable future, under threat of a balance of payments deficit rising to nearly unmanageable proportions. We must not lost sight of the fact that British agriculture is a very substantial contributor to preventing that adverse balance of payments becoming even worse than it is today.
I shall not weary your Lordships with statistics, but between the years 1974 and 1988—that is, in 14 years—the imports of agricultural produce fell from £7,541 million to £7,347 million. That was an improvement of approximately £200 million which was largely due to the benefits of agricultural research. During the same period our exports increased by £1,440 million. When one is talking in terms of billions the mention of just one million, or a few hundred million, does not seem so important. However, I suggest to your Lordships that if we were to continue with the rundown of agricultural research, as appears to be the danger now, our balance of payments figures—quite apart from any other considerations—would undoubtedly suffer more and be even more unsatisfactory than they are today.
Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness, when she replies, will give encouragement to all of us who are concerned with those aspects of agricultural research. I also hope that she will assure us that her department and the Government are fully aware of

1023
the absolute necessity of maintaining the highest possible standards as regards the scientists working in this field.
1.24 p.m.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, I must begin by apologising for the fact that an evening engagement in Newcastle upon Tyne means that I cannot stay for the full debate. I apologise most sincerely for that. I should like very much to congratulate my noble friend Lord Butterworth on his presentation of the report. I thought it masterly and comprehensive. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend on his chairmanship—masterly and courteous at all times—of the sub-committee during its long deliberations.
I was a co-opted member of the sub-committee. I think that I was co-opted for two reasons. First, as a practical farmer I am on the receiving end of research and development in agriculture. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, in another place I was chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. During that period I chaired an inquiry into the cost-effectiveness of agricultural research. Our terms of reference were not all that different to those of this recent inquiry. However, I thought that we conducted our recent deliberations in very different circumstances in terms of the agricultural situation generally compared to those which existed 10 years ago.
Paragraph 2.9 of the report states:
"Major policy changes have from time to time been introduced at short notice, with too little thought given in advance to their consequences".
The report gives as an illustration milk quotas. It was the Select Committee of another place which I had the privilege of chairing which strongly recommended the introduction of milk quotas. Indeed, nine years ago that seemed to be the only answer when an excess of milk production in Europe was a general worry throughout the Community. Of course we have had enormous increases in milk, grain and grass, not least because of previous basic agricultural research. Sir Kenneth Blaxter told us:
"Research and development has been outstandingly [so] successful in providing the technical and scientific base for the enormous increase in food production … hat farming and its related industries [have been converted] from craft activities to science-based ones".
How true that is. I took my noble friend's point when he referred to food mountains having been brought into being by political decision rather than by reasons of research and development. But research and development have had an enormous amount to do with regard to great increases in stocks. If, as a practical farmer, someone had told me not so many years ago that it would be possible to produce four tonnes of wheat from one acre of good land, I would have thought that he was talking utter madness. However, that is now possible. Moreover, a great deal of research has gone into making that a possibility. The same applies to the milk cow which gives a remarkably increased quantity of milk during each period of lactation compared to not very many years ago. All that is due to some highly efficient and successful research and development.
1024
We have had the food mountains. However, it is perhaps salutary to note that at present the situation—albeit temporary—is somewhat the reverse. According to recent figures, world grain stocks, at eight weeks, are at their lowest since the mid-1970s; wheat prices are 50 per cent. higher; and soya and maize are 20 per cent. and 30 per cent. up in price. The Food and Agriculture Organisation has called for a 13 per cent. increase in grain production in 1989. All this, although temporary, has come about because of the drought in 1988 in North America. It goes to show that we should never take enormous food mountains of any kind totally for granted. We should never think that it is possible for them to be there all the time. There are certain periods in respect of which we should be extremely thankful that research and development has been such that we can very quickly make up for a disastrous farming summer such as North America had last year.
The committee was told several times during its deliberations that there was a danger of confusing overproduction with efficient production. That was rightly emphasised by a number of our witnesses. While talking about sufficiency, which we did on several occasions, we became wholly convinced that excessive production should in no way indicate that there should be any reduction in basic agricultural research.
When my right honourable friend the Minister was before the committee, he said that research on products in surplus had been cut back and replaced by what he called work on public good aspects. That broad aim of improving research on anything relating to the environment is much appreciated by the farming industry. Those in farming agree that there is urgent need for further research, as already stated today, into the development, for instance, of environmentally acceptable methods of weed control. There is urgent need too for research into the effect of nitrogen run-off from land and into effluent loss from the rapidly increasing number of grass silos.
The committee was extremely grateful to the Nature Conservancy Council for its evidence in that context. Those involved in farming seek to emphasise that there is a need for much more research into alternative methods of production. I am aware that that has been said today. Our report stresses that point. My noble friend stressed it in his presentation.
To those engaged in the industry, set aside seems to have come upon the industry suddenly. Again, it is the possible enormous increase in yields that has brought it into being almost as a matter of urgency. A great deal of immediate extra research on set aside is needed.
Farm forestry is currently of great interest to the lowland farmer. As several noble Lords have said, we import an enormous amount of timber. I am a member of the Port of Tyne Authority; I receive its weekly figures. Each month, under the heading "Forestry Imports", I note that the figure is steadily rising. That is good for the business of the Port of Tyne, which I am happy to report is flourishing to a greater degree than it has for many years. We

1025
are importing a great deal of timber. But greater quantities will be needed. There is a world shortage. I know that lowland farmers are interested in the posssible introduction of small plantations on good land.
Our thinking on timber in the past has always been that it should be on the higher ground, on land which could not grow corn or graze cattle or sheep. That thinking no longer exists. If we have more knowledge through research, there is a possibility of introducing fast-growing strains and using of broadleaved timber for industrial purposes.
Sir Ralph Riley told the committee that there has as yet been no study into the production of timber on good land. All engaged in livestock farming will be concerned by the evidence given by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Its message was distinct: any further reduction in research could lead to a serious problem of disease control in some emergencies. The Royal College also expressed its concern, as did several other professional bodies, about the great difficulty it is experiencing in recruiting the right type of people to conduct research. That is something that the Government should fully recognise.
Professor Spedding, of Reading University, who was so helpful when I was the chairman of a Select Committee in another place, stressed in his evidence the need for research and development to focus on the food chain as a whole. That is right. Again, I emphasise that those engaged in farming recognise that there is a great need for extra thought to be given to the food chain as a whole. I can assure your Lordships that those engaged in farming would happily accept recommendations designed to bring about improvement in that sphere. There is a considerable scope for adjusting agricultural production to the consumers' present day demands.
I have no doubt that when my noble friend answers the debate she will have already noted the National Farmers' Union concern about what is meant by near-market research. That point has been raised several times and I shall not dwell on it. The recommendation in our report that the government list of near-market projects should be clearly stated is one that those engaged in farming would welcome. As my noble friend said when he opened the debate, five years rather than three should be accepted for the transfer of projects to industry.
I conclude by summarising my view of the report. It stresses strongly the need for continued and extended agricultural research. It states, again strongly, the need for the restoration of confidence in their future of those involved in agricultural research. It emphasises the need for greatly improved co-operation among research councils, the industry and the universities. Lastly, and above all, it stresses the need for a stable, long-term land use policy.
1.35 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I found this to be a most excellent report. It maintains the high standard that we expect from our Select Committee on Science and Technology. I feel unqualified to enter the debate as I was not a member of the committee. I cannot begin
1026
to deal with the subject in such depth as does the report and its two volumes of evidence. My qualification is that I have been interested in nutrition for about 25 years and, for even longer, in human health, real or imagined departures from which I deal with daily.
Like many other noble Lords, I shall have to apologise. Due to the interjection of the Companies Bill before we started the debate, I may not be able to stay. I hope that the Minister will be able to take up some of the points that I make. They have been made by other speakers, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. I am glad that the committee took a broad view of the subject and looked into the effects of food on the consumer as well as its production.
Many of those who gave evidence, however, seemed to forget about the ends and were concerned only with the means. Professor David Conning, who spoke for the British Nutrition Foundation, has been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. Another of the professor's quotes was:
"but most importantly there is a need for underpinning research into human nutrition".
In a further paragraph he stated:
"It cannot be overemphasised that current knowledge of human nutrition is inadequate, particularly concerning" —
and he put this in his usual rather acid style—
"the putative adverse effects of over-indulgence".
Research into human nutrition until the Second World War was related largely to deficiency states in the United Kingdom. Good application during that war almost eliminated nutritional deficiency disease in this country. The need for such research continues with possible applications for third world problems.
After the war, in the United Kingdom, with relative nutritional sufficiency, interest fell somewhat. It is only recently that the role of nutrition in the cause of some of the most prevalent diseases has been recognised. The United States was about 20 years ahead of us in this. There was one publication in 1963, 25 years ago, entitled, Fat Boy Go Unsaturated. It would have meant nothing to us then but will be fully understood now.
In Volume II, at page 90, Professor Philip James of the Rowett Institute at Aberdeen, said:
"Yet the prevailing nutrition in Britain is row linked to the commonest causes of premature death such as heart disease, and cancers, as well as to debilitating and prevalent problems such as diabetes, gallstones, blood disorders and dementia of the elderly".
The committee recognises the need to build up the strength of nutrition research and makes useful suggestions about how that should be done. Some of the phrases describing the prerequisites of the build up of research expertise sounded very familiar to me, having served on your Lordships' Select Committee on Priorities in Medical Research, the report of which was published about a year ago. It mentioned, for example, the need for,
"a period of stability and adequate funding enabling [the Agricultural and Food Research Council] to plan for the future and to reverse the damaging trend towards too many short-term appointments".
That is almost completely echoing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, who made the point so much more clearly than I.

1027
Similar statements were made again and again with regard to the future health of medical research when we were gathering evidence for that report. I therefore very much welcome Recommendation 5.19, which has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, recommending that nutritional research should be given greater priority.
Another area mentioned by the noble Lord concerns the dissemination of sound nutritional information to the public. Here I am repeating some of the noble Lord's speech. Paragraph 4.29 says:
"Research funded by commercial interests is bound to be open to accusations of bias in an area as senstive as diet and nutritional value. Advice in the media is often based on shaky scientific foundations. The public would benefit from a disinterested source of information".
The committee recommends that the Health Education Authority should take greater responsibility for that. The Health Education Authority, in turn, welcomes the recommendation and said in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth:
"The HEA is ideally placed to meet the need for scientifically based, authoratitive and comprehensible information for the public … It is part of the National Health Service and is both objective and disinterested".
The recognised role of the HEA needs to be publicly acknowledged by the Government and research councils as the main source of health education and information on diet and nutrition for the public.
Two previous bodies—both rather short-lived—were set up to fulfil that function. NACNE—that is, the National Advisory Council on Nutritional Education—was the first. Its report in 1982 on current nutritional thinking met with such fierce opposition from the food industry that it was partially suppressed for nearly two years. Following that, we had JACNE, the Joint Advisory Council on Nutritional Education, which was commissioned to interpret the recommendations of the COMA report on Diet and Cardio-Vascular Disease in 1984. However, I regret that that also came to a sticky end.
The Health Education Authority, by default, now has the role of nutritional educator to the nation. But no special resources have been given to it to undertake the function. It has only two staff at its headquarters handling nutrition. What it has done in such straitened circumstances is commendable, advising the Look After Your Heart campaign in its nutritional aspects and distributing some 2 million copies of its Guide to Healthy Eating as well as some other activities. There is a real need for a much expanded nutrition section of the Health Education Authority so that not only the public directly but also health journalists, catering colleges and health professionals can become better informed.
A more discriminating and better educated public will provide the market pressures which are needed to get farmers and food manufacturers to provide the right products. Of course there is much more to be done as well to change national eating habits. To name only two activities, both of which very much concern the EC, they are: first, getting an adequate and well understood nutritional labelling policy on the map; secondly, dealing with the problems of the common agricultural policy which act against the
1028
best interests of human nutrition so that its intervention policies might be adjusted to price out food we do not want to encourage—if I dare mention it, I include dairy products and fat meat, fat carcases—and price in what we want; that is, oilseed and whole grain products, lean meat, fruit and vegetables. An informed public and health profession will mount pressure for the appropriate changes in legislation.
Health professionals—nurses and doctors, for example—are at present very poorly informed about nutrition. They do not give consistent nutritional advice. Professor James said at page 98 of Volume II:
"If you ask [the public] which group they believe most, then they believe their doctors more than the others, but unfortunately they are the least knowledgeable".
He then went to suggest how medical schools should improve undergraduate nutritional education first by teaching the teachers.
Finally, I should like briefly to echo some of the remarks other noble Lords have made about near-market research, a much discussed topic. I found some of the report rather worrying here. The committee considered that some of the research identified as appropriate for industrial support includes elements of public good research, which has been mentioned particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. Some of the examples are weed control and growth regulation systems which are extremely environmentally sensitive, as is the assessment or forecast of plant pests. Perhaps more relevant to human health is control of a range of animal diseases, some of which can be transferred to man; for example, leptospirosis, otherwise known as Weil's disease, and campylobacteriosis, which is almost as prevalent now as salmonellosis and enteritis which includes salmonellosis itself. Some of the mechanisms of transfer from animals to man are not—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, I wonder whether in the interests of speed I might say that leptospirosis has been removed from the near market list and is on the public good list, as is also the second item mentioned by the noble Lord.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted to hear it and I think that the kind of remarks that have gone into the report may have accelerated that process. Some of the mechanisms of transfer from animals to man of the diseases which still remain on the list are not fully understood and badly need more research. Therefore, I fully support Recommendation No. 512, which states:
"The Government should reassess their list of projects identified as 'near market' ".
I know the noble Baroness has said the Government are already doing so, but perhaps more thought should be given to it. Some of the projects listed are public good research, which must be continued.
I very much hope that the noble Baroness, having previously and very successfully worn a health hat, will ensure that research on these topics of great

1029
public concern will not be denied public funding. Will she please press her right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on the issue that I mentioned previously—additional finance for the Health Education Authority for it to assume properly its nutrition education function? That is a very necessary and overdue step.
1.51 p.m.
The Earl of Selborne: My Lords, I must immediately declare an interest because I am chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council. I hope the previous speaker will not mind if I do not follow him in speaking on the role of nutrition and nutritional research, as clearly I have only a short time to speak.
I read the report with great relief and a feeling of great thanks to those who served on the committee, particularly to my noble friend Lord Butterworth. Over the past five or six years there is no doubt that agricultural research has had a very rough time. It has had a rough time because, I believe, its role has not been clearly understood, and the opportunities, which this report sets out so clearly, have not been perceived by the Government.
The report starts off with a very firm case which I hope will be widely read within the Government. I am sure the report's recommendations have long since been accepted by Ministers within the Ministry of Agriculture. The report states that the industry is going through a rapid period of change. The research services of the industry are, equally, evolving extremely fast. The biological industries are rapidly turning to what my noble friend called the scientific revolution, in order to be underpinned in future.
The industry has very exciting prospects. Therefore, it is ironic that over the past few years so much of the biological research which comes within the portfolio of agriculture and food has really had a difficult time. That applies to the research councils, the Ministry of Agriculture itself and elsewhere. To be fair, I think the Government have adopted, quite recently, a perfectly clear policy on agricultural and food research, and indeed on biological research as a whole. I am sure my noble friend on the Front Bench will correct me later if I am wrong, but, as I understand it, with the very welcome increase in science Vote funds which has materialised in the past few months there has been a clear commitment to increase public funding towards basic and strategic research.
Furthermore, at the same time there has been a policy of persuading industry to contribute more towards applied research as part of the policy of the near market about which we have heard so much already. If that was the only implication of that policy, many people would accept that was a very sensible basis on which to operate. After all, industry will not fund basic and strategic research. We recognise that there are enormous scientific opportunities. It is clearly right that the public should contribute more than they have in the past, and that these opportunities should be exploited.
I remember that in many debates in your Lordships' House we pointed out that in agriculture,
1030
and indeed in the food sector, industries had not always subscribed as generously as we had hoped. Much more could still be contributed from industry. We compare poorly with many of our competitors as regards private sector research funding. That has to be said time and time again. I welcome the commitment by the Government to increase the science Vote funding. I believe the implications are only just being understood, not just by the research councils themselves, which I hope are responding through their corporate plans and through some very quick changes in their structure. I hope also that the implications are understood within the Ministry of Agriculture itself. However, in the latter case I am slightly less confident.
I shall only deal with two specific points. First, I shall discuss the report's recommendations that there should be a fairly large transfer—I believe the sum mentioned was £27 million — from MAFF funds used for commissioning research, back to the research councils, or rather to the science Vote. The second area I wish to refer to is the implications of the near-market research policy.
Until the last science Vote announcement, we had had five years of cuts and, what is probably more damaging, there had been a fear of cuts throughout that time. Neither scientists nor industry were able to perceive any rationale or policy behind those cuts, except perhaps a frustration on the part of the Government at a common agricultural. policy which they have been unable to control. If national policy for agricultural support is exceeding predetermined budgets, it is clearly inevitable that the national expenditure, particularly on research, development, advice and other such matters, will be subjected to great scrutiny.
I have no doubt also that many members of the Government have not listened to successive Ministers of Agriculture when they pointed out that the fact that there are food mountains does not mean that research should be cut back. I shall not go into that argument because it is so well presented in the report. However, I believe there has been an abysmal lack of understanding of this essential. point within government. I know the report will be of great help to Ministers in pointing out the fallacy of that argument.
With this new strategy of increasing funding for basic and strategic research, so comes the need for a more closely integrated publicly funded research sector. The commissioned research has, by its nature, tended to be short-term applied research and there is no certainty that research contractors will have their commissions renewed at the end of the period. There must, therefore, be a justification for bringing the publicly funded research more closely together and making sure there is a common form of assessment, monitoring and evaluation. When Rothschild put forward the principle of customer/contractor policy, there was a very different situation as regards agriculture. That was mentioned earlier in the debate. That situation occurred at about the time of the White Paper entitled Food From Our Own Resources. That was a time when the Ministry of Agriculture was seen to be a vicarious customer on behalf of farmers. The near-market policy now

1031
has just the opposite aim. It wishes to encourage farmers and other sectors of industry to take on this responsibility themselves.
I hope that the Government will look carefully at whether there could be simplifications in the public funding of research, if the report's recommendation on transferring this sum of money back to the science Vote is implemented. The suggestions of my noble friend Lord Butterworth that there should be close integration between the research councils and the AFRC, and that there should be an annual stocktaking, are very sensible. I have no doubt there would be much advantage to be gained from that, and from a recognition of the fact that if the Ministry is going to use its commissioned funds to move more and more into the strategic area there is bound to be duplication with research councils.
Incidentally, I believe this will help to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that there is clearly concern among scientists as regards short-term appointments. If there could be greater certainty as regards funding — that will happen if there is less reliance on short-term commissions —clearly there will be long-term appointments.
I shall move on to my concern about the implementation of near-market research. I preface my remarks by reminding my noble friend on the Front Bench that I entirely understand, agree with and support the concept of increasing the funding from industry. I am sure that is correct, but it will take time. The time-scale of three years which is being implemented is unrealistic and damaging. My noble friend has had a difficult time on the process of consultation because of the wide-ranging consultations which are required. But the amount of consultation that has taken place is not realistic if changes on this scale, and the responsibilities which the industry is being asked to accept, are to be taken up.
The report known as the Barnes Report has not been published. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, referred to that. I believe that that is a great mistake. Industry has to be brought in as a partner, not just in respect of funding but also in respect of the philosophy behind the concept. We need a responsible and informed dialogue. The attitude that there is some information which industry can have and some which it cannot is outdated and mistaken.
I agree that there is a lack of understanding as to what is meant by near-market research. The NFU referred to that point in its evidence, and other speakers have also mentioned it. My noble friend has just told us that some work has been taken out of this sector. But until there can be a much better informed discussion as to what would come into the category of near-market it is difficult to have a sensible dialogue as to where the boundaries should be drawn. I believe that the widespread concern which has been expressed about the implementation, not necessarily the philosophy, of the near-market research policy is well founded.
It is very important that the transition is accomplished as smoothly as possible. The agricultural research services, both in the ministry and in
1032
the research councils, are a national resource which we cannot allow to be lost. As I understand it, it is not the Government's policy that there should be no applied research but rather that there should be a greater contribution from industry and from third parties towards funding that applied research. What is happening because of the unrealistic timescale and rather poorly handled procedure is that within the research services, and no doubt within the ministry and elsewhere, we are having to make decisions at a speed which does not allow others to pick up the resources which otherwise will be lost forever. I believe that that is bad business. If one has a resource of such high repute, as many speakers from all sides of the Chamber have mentioned, one does not lightly allow it to be run down if it is one's policy to ensure that the agriculture and food, and other biological, industries are to be underpinned in the future.
Another point, which is reflected by the observations of my noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth about butter mountains and grain mountains, is that in the international scene it is very quickly being perceived that the problems over the next 10 years will not be of mountains and surpluses but could be the sustainability of yields, particularly in the third world. There is already evidence that it can be very difficult to sustain yields throughout the world without ever-increasing inputs, which we understand for many reasons will not be available.
I hope that the Government understand the implications of the principles which they enunciate. We cannot reduce this national resource piecemeal. We must allow a timetable which is realistic, and we must accept that the present timetable, which is frantic and fast, is not sensible.
I hope that the Government study very carefully what I believe is a very important report. Particularly if there is to be — and I am sure that there can be — a great contribution to this country from agriculture and food research towards not just the agriculture and food industries but to other biologically based industries, we need a period of stability. The great cuts and changes and the lack of strategic thinking have to end.
2.4 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, before I speak on the business in hand I should like one piece of research to be carried out. That is, why, when this House empties on a cold day, instead of the Chamber being heated we have nothing but a cold, air-conditioned draught coming up around our feet and legs, making waiting to speak very uncomfortable. I am sorry that there is no official present, other than the noble Baroness, to take note of that complaint, but I hope it will be raised in the proper quarters.
Like previous speakers, I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, and his committee on a very good report and on the way in which they have put the information on paper. One can see from the list of witnesses, who totalled 333 for the two reports, 35 of them giving oral evidence, that it must have been a colossal job to sift all the evidence and get it down on paper so well.

1033
In addition the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has given an excellent introduction to the report in the House today.
On the general theme of research in agriculture and food, I should just like to say that in 62 years in farming I have benefited tremendously from research. I have benefited particularly from the work of some of the research institutes in my own country, notably the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen. I am sure that we are all sorry to learn that one of the institute's best known directors, Sir David Cuthbertson, died the other day. He did a tremendous job in the agricultural field and in animal nutrition. He also did a tremendous job, after his retirement, in medical research at Glasgow University. He was a great friend of all of my family.
There are some 240,000 farmers in this country. They farm anything from 20 acres to 20,000 acres and they grow different crops. Some manage to grow only one or two but others grow a tremendous diversity of crops. The same applies to stock — beef, dairy, sheep, pigs, and poultry. It is a very diversified industry. If the Government now wish farmers to pay for research which has helped them tremendously in the past, it should be done in some other way. Rather than the elusive near-market research there should be one overall levy. It might be levied on any basis which is as fair as possible, probably per acre and possibly varied according to grade of land. Money should be raised in that way to supplement Government grants. The AFRC should distribute the levy together with the Government grants — I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will be delighted with that point.
A few weeks ago I received a notice asking me to vote on a proposal that there should be a levy of 50p per tonne on oil seed rape for research. Imagine that principle being extended. There might be another levy of £1 per tonne for wheat, and so it would go on. A plethora of levies on those lines would overlap and would result in a considerable amount of wasted effort. I believe that, if the Government insist on obtaining so much money from the farmers, it should be a straightforward levy, which is probably fair enough in any case.
That is all I want to say about the broad basis of the research and the way to fund it. However, I should like to turn for a moment to the question of forestry research. The total tree area in the United Kingdom is just short of 5 million acres. I am sorry if I do not use the term "hectares". I am too old to think in hectares, so I shall always use the word "acres". That figure is about 8 per cent. of our land area. That is the lowest figure in the European Economic Community, apart from Ireland, and we must do something about it. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, mentioned the fact that we import over £4,500 million-worth of wood and wood products per year, which is an enormous figure. If the figures in paragraph 4.31 of the report reflect the figures that we shall need in the future, we should make a strong effort, as I have advocated ever since I was in the Forestry Commission, to double our acreage up to about 10 million. As some earlier speakers have said, if we are to do that, we shall
1034
need research in order to be able to continue in one way or another in forestry.
I believe that it was in 1981 or 1982 that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, recommended the appointment of a chief scientist for forestry research. However, the Government did not accept that recommendation and appointed a co-ordination committee made up of representatives of various research bodies. As far as I know, it has done a good job. I cannot see what the appointment of a chief scientist, as the report recommends, can do that will make any difference. There is no question that there has been antipathy between farmers and forestry in the past, but that has been removed to some extent. I am sure that it would be much better to fund the co-ordinating body. Paragraph 34 of the report appears to cancel out paragraph 33. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, agrees with me, but, if he reads it carefully, he will see that it makes a strong case for the co-ordinating committee. I cannot see much need for both the co-ordinating committee and the chief scientist in forestry.
Perhaps I may make a suggestion about where forestry should go in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, referred to the food situation. I note that Sir Kenneth Blaxter gave evidence, although I do not believe that he touched on this point. He wrote a well documented article in The Lancet about a year and a half ago on the population situation in the future. He said that populaton control had failed and that he would not use the word "if", but the word "when". He said that, by the year 2030, the population of the world would be about 7,500 million. He also said that to feed that population would require every unit of agricultural production to produce two and half times more than it does today. If that is the figure to which we must look, short-term worries about surpluses should be banished from our minds. I admit that a government who fund surpluses must take a short-term view to solve that problem in some way and I hope that set aside is a very short-term effort to do that.
I simply do not believe that we should give any thought to converting a great deal of good land in the lowlands to forestry and hardwood trees. I do not believe that we need much research into that matter. We all know that good land grows good hardwood trees. We should concentrate on research into how to grow hardwood trees on higher land. That would be a much better proposition. Such land could be taken out of agriculture without making a great difference to production. We could grow, or breed, hardwood trees. It takes a king time to research the breeding of trees, although there is a system in respect of conifers in which one can tell within seven years whether a new tree will be a success, but that is not the case with hardwoods.
I appeal to the Government to think 'very carefully indeed about pushing forestry on to good land in the lowlands. I do not know where we shall obtain the extra acreage needed to double production. I do not understand why the proposition was made that there should be no more forestry in areas of Derbyshire and the hilly areas of Cumberland in England. I am

1035
aware of the opinion of environmentalists, ramblers and such people but it has always been done in Scotland. We may have made mistakes in the past but the landscaping of trees into the hills is done there now by the Forestry Commission and by private firms as well. One has only to go to places such as Eskdale or Grizedale or the Kielder area, where the lake and the new water reservoir are, to see that it can be done. I think that it is a huge mistake to forbid the planting of trees in those areas of England.
One aspect of research in forestry is the fertilising of trees. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, is not present today or he would be off like a shot on hearing my words. The fertilising of conifers of course arouses his worries about forest fishing and such things. But only research into fertilising will show the way to increase production along with an increase in acreages. When I was in the commission, the conservator in South-West Scotland was very keen on fertilising trees and did a lot of work on that subject. He had a stand at the Highland Show—indeed, each conservator had a different stand every year—and he made the theme of his exhibit the fertilising of trees. The Princess Royal, who was then the Princess Anne, was a visitor to that show and I showed her around it. The conservator had, I think, overdone it somewhat by putting four or five durable spruce trees in one position and then four or five scrubby little trees beside them with two notices: "Fertilised" and "Non-fertilised". I showed that to the Princess Anne, who looked at it and then turned to me and asked "Do you expect me to believe that?" That rather put me on the spot for the moment.
However, there is much to be done in research in forestry in many ways and I hope that the Government will take note of the need but leave action to the co-ordinating committee. I think it would be a waste to appoint a scientist to the Forestry Commission itself.
2.16 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by announcing to the noble Baroness that I shall be staying to the end of the debate. I have already collected apologies from several noble Lords who will not be able to hear either of us. Of course, the difficulty has arisen very largely, as my noble friend Lord Shackleton, pointed out, because of the failure to look after government business competently last evening, for which no apology has yet been made publicly to the House from the Government Front Bench.
Last summer I had the pleasure of holidaying in Austria. I was able to listen to Haydn's "Farewell Symphony" played in the Esterhaza Palace. Devotees of Haydn like myself will recall that in that symphony one by one the orchestral players leave the stage until no one is left except the two first violins. Today there may remain a couple of second violins and perhaps even a cello in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. However, I sympathise with the noble Baroness who has been extremely patient and who has listened to the whole
1036
debate. I am sure that she will give us a very competent response.
I should also like to add my thanks for, and recognition of, the excellent chairmanship of the sub-committee by the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth. I have a long experience of Select Committees — in fact, I am a connoisseur of committees. Undoubtedly, he is one of the better chairmen under whom I have served. I have only one bone to pick with him. In his otherwise excellent presentation of our report today he did not mention the indignation felt by a number of members of the Select Committee in that we were not permitted to see the Barnes Report, on which a great many of the matters that the committee had to discuss were based. It seemed to me that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House should be entitled to see a report which I understand was discussed with various interests by the noble Baroness herself. However, we were precluded from studying it. Apart from that lapse, I can only reiterate our thanks and our recognition of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth.
Noble Lords will have realised that we are discussing both the interim report and the final report of the Select Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, has already indicated the mental processes whereby we reach the views expressed in the interim report which was published last October. He and the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, were particularly well placed to judge these matters. However, others of us on the committee have some experience of trying to organise academic research and we all attempted to assess the possible options at research council level in relation to dealing with food and agriculture in particular. I believe that we found it somewhat frustrating to engage in the research council exercise when it was known that those with a more direct interest and authority were conducting a similar exercise pari passu.
Our interim report was completed and deliberately issued in advance of the main report in the expectation that the review group of the ABRC, looking into the relationships of the research councils one to the other, might find it helpful. It may take longer than we expected for the considered view of the ABRC to be made manifest. The indications are that a single research council, with suitable divisions but with much stronger powers at the centre than the current advisory body enjoys, is a probable outcome. Rumours vary, however, as to the degree of consensus which has so far been obtained.
Our committee's recommendation was to hasten slowly. The proposed merging of NERC and AFRC seemed to us a natural first step. I remain convinced that it would be well worth while.
However, since we completed consideration of this matter, there have been changes, including changes of personnel. The NERC at least seems rather more reluctant than we had expected. Professor Knill has, I believe, emphasised that of an NERC expenditure of some £ 150 million, only about £ 10 million could be reckoned to be on work having a direct interface with the interests of AFRC, while the latter has no direct connection with the major engagements of NERC in oceanography, climatology and other important areas of science.

1037
The great upsurge in recent years in biological science—which a number of noble Lords have already mentioned — has greatly increased the problem posed by the interrelationships of scientific endeavour. Biotechnology seems to be all-pervasive. In agriculture itself there is a strongly increasing emphasis on a biological, rather than a chemical, approach to pest control and the like. It has to be recognised that neither science can afford to ignore the other.
As a committee perhaps we should frankly admit that we dodged the problem of where medical research fits in. We simply agreed that the MRC had its own responsibilities for human research, that the medical profession was a law unto itself, that the MRC had been more skilful in keeping government funding under its own control than had either the AFRC or the NERC, and that it was better to leave the MRC alone. This was practical sense for the immediate future. However, it ignores the increasing complexities, for example, of the relationship between animal genetic research and human nutrition and human health, although these sometimes conflicting or overlapping interests will have an increasing effect upon our research organisations.
If the review group recommends a single research council, this radical change would subsume our more modest proposals. Nevertheless, I believe that in spite of certain clear difficulties, AFRC and NERC would be well advised to take seriously the suggestions put forward by the committee's report. Last autumn when our interim report was issued we felt that the plight of agricultural research was so dire and that the two research councils in question had been so feebly and inadequately supported by their respective departments in the face of expenditure pressures and through the misuse of Rothschild principles, that something more immediate was called for. I hope therefore that this aspect of our report will be taken very seriously.
It is true that the two new chairmen of the respective councils, Professor Knill and Professor Stewart, have struck a vigorous and optimistic note in their public pronouncements. But let us not be deceived. Certain major threats remain. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is continuing, I understand, her almost Elizabethan progress in the cause of commercialising near-market research as rapidly as possible. I understand that on 10th May next she will be descending upon the Farmers Union of Wales; not to be confused with the National Farmers Union. Its annual meeting is to be held in Aberystwyth. I am sure she will meet with a most courteous reception. Her great energy and dedication are indeed commendable. However, what she is doing does not remove the strongly held opinion of our committee that the Government have shown a most unstatesmanlike impatience and have caused much additional professional and personal misery by the speed at which they are trying to push through their near-market proposals, I was very pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, emphasise the dissatisfaction of AFRC not necessarily with the basic policy but with the timescale on which it is being operated.
1038
The three years mentioned as the chosen timescale is in practice, I am assured by some of those concerned, often much less—two and a half years or even less. That is quite inadequate for most establishments and sections of the farming industry to comply with. Where large scale organisation has predominated, as in horticulture, it may make good sense. But farming and, as we have just been reminded by our Scottish colleagues, fisheries, which are a concern of MAFF, are mainly small scale and disparate. To find research resources to replace government funding which is being withdrawn—given the current problems of adjustment and the falling incomes in many sections of the farming world—is an organisational feat which cannot be expected to succeed before many research efforts have been disrupted or abandoned and research teams have been broken up.
I hope that the noble Baroness will indicate that these apprehensions are being taken seriously by her department. I should like to quote from a most experienced academic in agricultural research. Unfortunately I cannot name him because he is abroad and I have not received his consent. He has written to me; I should like to read a few of the comments he made in answer to queries that I addressed to him. After acknowledging the recent decision to increase to 30 per cent. the allocation of the AFRC science budget to higher education over the next five years as highly commendable, he makes certain detailed comments. He, like my correspondents in the University of Wales, is concerned about the short-term contracts which have become the custom in agricultural research and the very serious effect that this is having upon younger scientists, in particular, who cannot see career prospects.
For example, I was told that in the Welsh scene:
Four years ago we could expect 30 or 40 applications for each new post advertised. Now we struggle to get three or four of acceptable quality".
The situation is extremely serious. There have been the strongest possible complaints that MAFF, which used to regard a four-year contract as being reasonable for a young scientific worker, is now issuing one or two-year contracts. And no one knows what will happen to the workers at the end. It is difficult to concentrate on research when one does not know what one will be doing six months hence. I hope that the department recognises that this is a serious matter; it has been graphically described by other noble Lords.
My correspondent urges that a greater proportion of the total research allocation to the higher education institutes should be spent on post-doctoral research. At present too many people are receiving expensive training in research to PhD level and are then denied funds just at a time when they are likely to be most productive. I hope that notice will be taken of that point.
My correspondent, in a comment on near-market research, says:
"Unqualified application of free-market principles to near-market research in agriculture will tend to attract an increasing proportion of funds from wealthy companies seeking a commercial advantage over their competitors. This is not necessarily in the interests of the consumer or the farmer. One of

1039
the most depressing consequences of the insistence that AFRC seek more funds from industry has been the increase in the quantity of bad or fatuously repetitive research being carried out in institutes. This research is confidential to the company (the scientists are not permitted to communicate with each other and so advance knowledge) and has been largely designed to measure once again what we know already".
I cannot with authority confirm those remarks, but they come from a good source and should be taken into account.
There is also the question of the desirability of research into extensification or set aside. My correspondent says that,
"there is considerable scope for both strategic research and development into problems relating to extensification policies. These include health and welfare issues related respectively to reduced dependence on antibiotics and pesticides and free-range husbandry systems. Whereas much strategic research can be done in HEI and AFRC Institutes, the Experimental Husbandry Farms of MAFF remain excellent sites for examining the broader environmental and welfare issues. Liscombe Experimental Husbandry Farm on Exmoor, whose closure has been announced is uniquely well suited to consider problems of agriculture in environmentally-sensitive areas".
Can the noble Baroness say whether that aspect was considered when the closure decision was made?
I am encouraged to emphasise the point as a result of notes which various noble Lords will have received from the National Farmers Union. They refer specifically to the Liscombe experimental husbandry farm.
Perhaps I may quote from the NFU brief which states that the,
"decision was taken before the industry had been consulted in spite of assurances that consultation would take place first. The industry has been given just over two months to raise over £250,000 if Liscombe is to be saved. We have asked for details of the stations likely to close in the next two financial years (i.e. the remainder of the Barnes cuts) so that the industry has time in which to make sensible decisions and raise money if it considers it appropriate to save one or more stations; this information has been refused. It is impossible for us to plan a coherent response to the Government's proposals without sufficient and timely information".
It goes on to stress the need for a strategy review group.
That is another clear indication that the haste with which the Government are trying to implement their policies, leaving ideology aside altogether, and the method which they are adopting is proving extremely difficult and is causing much concern and dissatisfaction to those affected by it.
The most recent blow over near-market research has been felt by ADAS, where many of the cuts will take effect before 1991. Noble Lords may have seen the letter sent on 21st March by the Permanent Secretary at MAFF to ADAS's research staff. He refers to a new unit set up,
"to market ADAS research capability".
However, the new unit has not yet been given time to operate. The Permanent Secretary goes on to say in straight terms:
"Industry is unlikely to fund fully the costs of all near-market research currently being undertaken and we shall, as a consequence, have to close a number of facilities".
He makes it perfectly clear in his letter that decisions will be based on financial response, and that at a time of agricultural depression; not on evaluating
1040
the merits of the research itself or its importance for the future. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.
Our own committee whose report we are considering today advances the arguments for a more reasonable timetable. But our opinions seem to have fallen on deaf ears. The Government are bashing on regardless.
I shall not detain the House longer to discuss food and nutrition research, as I should like. However, that has been dealt with very competently by my noble friend Lord Rea. I hope that on the matters which we have been able to discuss we shall receive an adequate response from the noble Baroness.
2.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Butterworth, and his committee for producing a truly first class report. It is thoroughly researched, makes substantial recommendations and I am sure that we are all looking forward to learning the Government's response to the report from the Minister when she replies to the debate.
Any government has to set priorities. An agriculture and food and research and development budget cannot be exempt from that process. Such a budget must be subject to ideological and value judgments by all programmes of all governments. What we are debating and what the Select Committee report addresses with great clarity is, in the terms of reference of the report, the future of agricultural and food research. The Select Committee concludes that there is a need for a firm commitment to agriculture and food research, and that cannot be too strongly emphasised. It goes on to say:
"The Committee therefore recommend that the research base for agriculture and food should not be further reduced. … The research service must be strong enough to maintain an integrated R&D programme with a spread of basic, strategic and applied work".
The whole question of the future of agriculture and food R&D is thrown into sharp relief by the concept of near-market research and development and I propose to concentrate mainly on that aspect of the Select Committee's report, because that has the most immediate impact and importance for the agricultural industry and the R&D sector.
As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, we still await a clear definition of what "near market" means. The Select Committee is extremely polite. Paragraph 4.15 states:
"The Committee are troubled by the fact that the Government's definition of near-market research has not been made public".
Perhaps the Ministry is foreshadowing the new Official Secrets Bill.
The Minister has already set out with her usual joie de vivre her analysis of the concept: "If you want it, you'll pay for it—if you won't pay for it, you don't want it". I venture to say that this definition, while long on ideological machismo, is perhaps a little lacking in intellectual rigour. However, the concept of near-market research and development is not necessarily wrong. Indeed, a Select Committee report from this House on civil research and

1041
development pointed out that, in general, industry should not rely on the public sector to do what any forward-looking company should be doing for itself. The report went on to say:
"Just because research is near the market, the public interest does not necessarily cease. There is 'near-market' research which the Government must continue to fund in support of the public good. The transition from public to industrial funding must also be sensitively handled. This means in particular giving enough time for the transition. If industry is told to take on all the funding of near-market research in a disorderly rush, there will inevitably be a hiatus in some areas".
The difficulty in agriculture arises because the industry does not consist of forward-looking and, by implication, large companies but, as one Select Committee report on agricultural research and development points out, the industry is made up of a number of many small businesses in both food production and food processing and it is highly optimistic to expect that these small businesses can combine for voluntary funding on the scale required.
The problem is further compounded by the "grocery list" approach that the Government have adopted by sending an official rushing around the agricultural and food R&D centre to put money numbers on a great raft of research projects which fit, or are made to fit, the near-market concept. The result is, as a number of speakers have said, that morale in the R&D sector is at an all time low and uncertainty is at an all time high.
I warned the Minister before the debate that I should be asking a specific question. I believe it has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, who said that he thought the cuts might be ended. We are told that the industry must raise £30 million by 1990 –91. We have had the announcement by the Minister on 21st March of the cuts and closures in ADAS. We are told that more will follow later in the year. How many more are to come? What further research projects are under threat in the absence of funding from industry? Perhaps when the Minister replies she will bear in mind the advice that I am told Lloyd George gave to his Cabinet colleagues when they were tempted to defer a difficult decision: "It is unwise to attempt to cross a chasm in two leaps".
The biggest problem is that hazy boundary between research that is for the public good and that which is near market. I illustrate this by giving three practical examples. I should be delighted if the Minister could intervene, as she did with my noble friend Lord Rea, and confirm that these projects have been moved from the near-market list to the public good. The first concerns nitrates. Your Lordships will be aware that there is now a draft directive from the Community concerning the level of nitrates in water with proposals for exclusion zones of agricultural land. Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee on the European Communities is looking at this matter.
I quote from Ministry notes on arable crops. This is a list which the Ministry and DAFS defined as research which is near to the market and thus appropriate for industry funding. It includes:
"spring barley and effects of nitrogen; nitrogen inputs and rotational interactions in relation to …winter wheat …and production systems for barley for malting".
1042
The notes continue:
"Optimising fertiliser inputs in cereal production by defining the best time, method and rate of application thus making the most efficient use of inputs and minimising pollution risk".
That has been defined by the Government as near market. We have recently had the concern over the residues of pesticides in top fruit. I again quote from the Minister's own notes that were prepared for each of the sector meetings defining the research that is considered near to the market and thus appropriate for industry funding:
"Development of nutrition …programmes to increase quality and productivity; development of effective control methods for weeds, pests and diseases"—
all these matters involve pesticide residues —
"improve post-harvest handling and storage performance" —
that is how the pesticides may get on to the fruit —
"development of methods of predicting tolerance of fruit crops to new treatments of herbicides".
That is another example of what the Government have defined as near market, but I believe the rest of us would define it as public good. At the moment there is work in progress at the Luddington and Brogdale experimental horticultural stations on these matters. These stations are for closure and one is entitled to know the intention for the future direction of that work.
The third example —it is only one of many —concerns the advent of 1992. That means the free movement of livestock and livestock products throughout the Community. We know that foot and mouth disease is endemic on mainland Europe and that there vaccination is the standard method of control of foot and mouth disease. In this country we have a slaughter policy. I again quote from the Minister's own notes on the livestock sector that includes as near market:
"vaccine development for foot and mouth virus".
Those are just three examples out of many. Can the Minister say whether work that is defined as for the public good will be transferred from those experimental husbandry farms and experimental horticultural stations that are to close? Will the work be transferred to other research stations? If it is, presumably the projected savings will be reduced. Will this reduction mean that other projects at other research stations will have to be cut in order to meet the required funding target?
I also ask the Minister whether she can be specific about the possible job losses from the various cuts and closures, both those that we know about and those that are in train. In the past she has said that the number of job losses in 1989 –1990 will be up to 290. Does the Minister agree that the eventual total of job losses from the cuts already announced could exceeed 600, which is about 16 per cent. of the total number of posts in the relevant grades? It follows a loss of about 10 per cent. of posts in the same grades between April 1986 and October 1988. In turn that was on top of all the jobs losses arising from the cuts in R&D between 1979–1986.
With all those factors in mind, perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether all this squares with her statement on 4th April 1987 in reply to an

1043
Unstarred Question that I tabled on this subject. At col. 1072 of the Official Report, the Minister stated:
"there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work, the emphasis is rather on the balance of funding as between the public and private sectors and the priorities we should adopt".
Her noble friend Lord Ferrers, who was on the Back Benches at the time, intervened to ask:
"may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment because she made quite an important statement? I want to get it absolutely clear. Did my noble friend say that the Government did not wish to see any reduction in the amount of work done by research and development and the amount of personnel involved?".
The noble Baroness replied:
"I said that there is no specific plan to reduce the number of staff engaged in R&D or advisory work".
I know that a week in politics is a long time and that that was about 15 or 16 months ago, but it seems that the job losses we have experienced and that we are still to have, do not sit easily with the statement that the noble Baroness made in November 1987. One also remembers the Prime Minister's remark in the now famous speech to the Royal Society, when she said:
"Everyone here, and no one more than myself, will support Whitehead's statements that a nation which does not value trained intelligence is doomed".
There have been a number of contributions to the debate that I wish to comment upon but I know that time is pressing. I wish to say something about the number of references made to set aside by noble Lords. A figure of 12 million acres of agricultural land was quoted in this connection. It was said that that land would eventually be surplus to requirements. Perhaps I may repeat a point which I have made before in this House. There is no such thing as surplus land; there is only surplus food. Low input farming would still use the land, but would reduce the production of food. I make that point to emphasise that this is a very important area for research work; indeed it is the kind of research which, as my noble friend Lady White said, is presently being undertaken at the Liscombe Experimental Husbandry Farm. We must be assured that all the research work into low input farming will be included on the list of research projects which are for the public good, and that it will not be regarded as near market.
There is an interesting sidelight in connection with this matter. A short while ago I wanted to organise a seminar on low input farming. I asked ADAS if it would join in the seminar by sending someone to speak. The organisation said it would not do so if we retained the title of "Low Input Farming"; it would join in only if we altered the title to "Lower Input Farming". That may seem like a connoisseur's distinction, but it is very revealing as to the ADAS ethos of only a few years ago.
There is so much more that I could say, but, as I have said, time does not permit me to do so. Perhaps I may suggest to the Government that they could not do better than to accept the eminently sensible recommendation which is set out in the Select Committee's report in paragraph 4.8. It reads:
"For these reasons the Committee recommend that the Government should make a strong public commitment to agricultural
1044
and food research, undertaking to provide at least level funding in real terms for a period".
A statement from the Government along those lines would do more than anything else to give some hope to the farming industry and to the agricultural and food research sector.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasise and agree with remarks made by many noble Lords concerning the supply and morale of scientific manpower. This is one of our scarcest and most important national resources. I ask the Minister: if she were now a young and bright science graduate who was deciding upon her future career and upon which discipline to follow, would she dream of going anywhere near agricultural research and development in view of what has happened in recent years? I suspect that the answer to that question—which, I emphasise, is entirely rhetorical—is no. That is perhaps the most serious criticism which can be levelled at the Government.
If the recommendations contained in the report do something to improve the situation and thereby encourage more of our scientific manpower, and womanpower, towards agricultural and food research and development, then the report will indeed have fulfilled a very important function.
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like first to assure your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is not my PR agent. Secondly, I must say that I greatly appreciate the stamina which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has shown by staying until the end of the debate. I also appreciate her extremely courteous remarks to me. Thirdly, I should like to add my own congratulations to those of earlier speakers to my noble friend Lord Butterworth on his committee's thoughtful and thought-provoking report.
The Government are giving careful consideration to the many complex issues which the report raises. I regret that it has not been possible to provide a written response before the debate. However, I shall do my best to clarify as many points as I can to this crowded Chamber, which has actually swelled in number over the past few minutes with unwitting listeners who are waiting for the next debate. The Government will of course provide a memorandum as soon as possible and letters following the debate will be written if so desired.
My noble friend Lord Butterworth, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to the major recommendation in the committee's interim report for the merger of the AFRC and the NERC to form a new natural resources research council. That recommendation has been reiterated in the committee's final report and will be considered most carefully by the Government.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is also expecting advice in the next month or so from the advisory board for the research councils regarding the future disposition of responsibilities for the biological sciences between the four research councils

1045
concerned. The Government intend to consider the committee's recommendation alongside that advice from the ABRC.
I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that the Government's overall spending plans are subject to review every year in the public expenditure survey and that I cannot give assurances about the precise level of future expenditure in particular areas. However, I must reassure my noble friend Lord Butterworth and the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Carter, that the Government will understand the need to avoid sudden disruption of research programmes and I want to make clear our commitment to R&D.
First, the Government are committed to maintaining a strong science base. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in the autumn that the science budget for 1989–90 would be £120 million a year more than last year, representing a 10 per cent. increase in real terms. That increase has allowed the AFRC funding from the science base to be increased from £62 million last year to £75 million this year. The Natural Environment Research Council also received increased funding for relevant research. Those decisions reflect the importance that the Government attach to basic and strategic research in the universities and research councils.
Secondly, the money released from withdrawal from near-market research is being redeployed within the Government's R&D base. It is not being taken away from science.
Thirdly, as the agriculture departments withdraw from funding near-market research, increasing emphasis will be given in their programmes to research aimed at public good work in support of statutory functions and policy requirements. I include in that work areas such as conservation, animal welfare, diversification of agricultural production, food safety and nutrition. A new programme of work on salmonella was announced last month.
We recognise in relation to public good and near-market projects that there are borderline cases. There always are in any categorisation. However, we must be clear on this matter. The best way to do so is to illustrate with a few examples. Nitrate work on nitrate leaching is a public good. Work to reduce farmers' expenditure on fertiliser is near market. Slaughter work on stunning and animal welfare is public good. Work on the influences of slaughter practices on meat quality is near market. Programmes on public good may need to be restructured to continue that work in the light of industry's responses on the funding of near-market research; but every effort will be made where possible to transfer work to other sites, and the intention is to maintain projects in the public interest.
In response to the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Mackie of Benshie, perhaps I may set out the programme designed to achieve our goal. The decisions announced following last year's PES included a reduction in funding for near-market R&D of £5 million in 1989–90, rising to £15 million in 1990–91 and to a total of £24 million in 1991–92.
1046
That is equivalent to £30 million at full economic cost. The announcement also contained an increase in funding of £2 million in 1990-–1, rising to £5 million in 1991–92, for additional research by the agricultural departments in areas such as environmental protection and North Sea pollution.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, quoted my earlier statements about cuts. What I said then was correct, but he knows as well as I do that the public expenditure survey is an annual process. Reductions in expenditure were announced in last year's Autumn Statement. We have to meet those reductions. That is why I have announced proposals to close establishments. We are now discussing these with industry. I naturally hope that there will be a good response and that industry will take over the funding of work from which government are withdrawing.
Incidentally as regards nitrates and pesticides, the economic effects are near market. Leaching is public good. We are considering relocation of such work at Luddington and Brogdale. In 1989–90 reductions in R&D funding will result in the loss of about 230 jobs in ADAS. The need to achieve ADAS targets for chargeable advice and to increase efficiency will result in a further loss of about 60 jobs. Of course the number of jobs is not the same as the number of people, and every effort will be made to redeploy staff and to save jobs through industry funding of R&D. Thus there is no confusion over the figure of 290. The internal notice to staff quoted in some reports gave some indication of losses in future years, but this will depend on the outcome of consultations with industry.
The committee has suggested that some of the work reviewed by my department and classified as near market should be regarded as for the public good. I think that there may be some misunderstanding here. There were bound to be mixed projects of this kind as long as nearly all research was funded by government. There is no intention in these cases that industry should be asked to bear the cost of the public good parts of the work. The departments' programmes are continually evolving, as some projects are completed and new ones started. The intention is that by 1991–92 these programmes will have been restructured, with all the near-market work phased out if it has not been taken up by industry.
Baroness White: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness whether the department is considering employing a mediaeval theologian. Otherwise I cannot see how it will make all the distinctions it hopes to make before 1992.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords. I think that to reply would take me even longer than the time the noble Baroness spoke for. Therefore I had better continue my speech and I shall write to her.
With regard to consultations, we consulted industry, sector by sector, on the detail last summer. We are now embarking on a further round at official level. I have a final round of meetings next month. I must assure my noble friend Lord Selborne and the noble Baroness, Lady White, that much information

1047
has been made available in great detail to all the sectors. The Barnes Report is confidential because it contains advice to Ministers. That is the usual convention. We must complete the transfer to industry funding by 1991–92 so that the benefits of change can be realised as soon as reasonably possible.
My noble friend Lord Elliott of Morpeth mentioned that more research was needed on environmental issues. The Government agree with the importance that the committee attaches to research on agriculture and the environment. Indeed it already supports major programmes of work through departments and the research councils where a new joint programme has recently been announced by the advisory board for the research councils. The need for further developments will be kept under review by departments and the ABRC, taking account of the committee's views.
My noble friend Lord Butterworth spoke about human health and nutrition and the role of the Health Education Authority. The Medical Research Council is conducting a review of research into human nutrition, and earlier this year the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health set up a new liaison committee to co-ordinate their activities in nutrition research and education. Both departments are helping the Health Education Authority in a consideration of how to intensify and expand the authority's work in education about diet and health. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that meanwhile the nutrition component of the "Look After Your Heart" campaign, run jointly by the Department of Health and the Health Education Authority is being revised and given even greater prominence.
My noble friend Lord Butterworth referred to set aside and emphasised the need for more research on trees, especially broadleaved species. On the matter of set aside, MAFF has in hand a series of five-year experiments on its farms to evaluate different methods of establishing and maintaining set aside of rotational fallows on non-productive green crops. We are also funding research on alternative crops. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that my right honourable friend the Minister remarked that not enough R&D was being devoted to set aside. However, my right honourable friend explained to the committee that sometimes decisions have to be taken before all scientific evaluation can be carried out.
I now turn to forestry research. We recognise that trees are an important part of farming. My right honourable friend indicated to the committee last October that total spending by agriculture departments on farm forestry was planned to rise from £0.6 million in 1987–88 to £2.4 million in 1988–89. The bulk of this new research will concern genetic improvement, with special emphasis on broadleaved species, nursery stock, tree protection, nutrition and hydrology of farm woodlands.
Your Lordships' committee was aware of the large number of sponsors of forestry research. This reflects the wide range of interests in trees and woodlands and means that a chief scientist located in one
1048
department, such as the Forestry Commission, could have only limited influence.
The Government have reconsidered the arrangements in the light of the committee's report and believe that the achievements of the Forestry Research Co-ordination Committee confirm their earlier view of the way in which research needs should be assessed, co-ordinated and implemented. However they recognise that the chairman of the committee may need to discharge some chief scientist-type functions in order to ensure adequate representation of the wide-range research interests in forestry. I am so glad that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, agrees with the Government's view about the appointment of a chief scientist for forestry.
The Government welcome the committee's renewed endorsement of the principle of the customer/contractor relationship, which was reaffirmed by the government response in 1987 to the committee's report on civil R&D. We welcome the committee's recognition of the importance of science to policy-making in my department. However, it also made some critical comments about the way in which my department has operated the customer/contractor principle. I read these with care. The committee has raised a number of important points which the Government need to consider further before a full response can be provided. In the meantime, I am sure noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that I have some initial observations of my own on some of the committee's findings as they relate to MAFF.
I have to say that I am concerned that the committee has gained the impression that some of our contractors are discontented. My department's contacts with our main contractors at the working level do not suggest this. The work we commission may not always be the work that the research councils would have wished to do themselves for purely scientific reasons, but that is precisely why the Rothschild principle was introduced. I would, however, like to reassure your Lordships that we are re-examining our commissioning procedures in the light of the withdrawal of support for near-market research and the changing emphasis in our overall programmes. The main contractors, including the research councils, have been consulted in this major review. The committee's comments will of course be taken into account.
The committee has suggested a redistribution of funding between MAFF and the AFRC. This is an important issue. The allocation of funds between departments is kept under review as part of the normal machinery of government. I have already referred to the alteration in the balance of public support in favour of the science base announced following last year's PES. I cannot go further than this today.
The Government accept that, where appropriate, a surcharge should be paid on government research contracts for the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. However, we remain of the view that flexibility is needed in applying this principle. The MAFF commissions with AFRC do

1049
not contain a formal surcharge. However, they reflect the long-term nature of the work generally placed with AFRC. They are thus drawn up in consultation with research institutes in a way which, together with funding from the science vote, enables each to undertake a balanced programme.
The committee suggested that changing circumstances now call for a review of the relationship between AFRC and ADAS, leading to an integrated research service based on AFRC. That point was enlarged upon by my noble friend Lord Selborne.
The committee drew attention to the changes in public funding, the introduction of an integrated AFRC/ADAS research programme in horticulture and the possibility of agency status for ADAS. We have followed up the integrated programme in horticulture by a joint study of the scope for reorganisation and rationalisation of facilities in this area and are now studying the conclusions. We shall consider the situation in other sectors in the light of the consultations to which I have referred. We shall take account of the committee's views, but we must also bear in mind the fundamental difference in nature between AFRC and ADAS. ADAS is not solely a research organisation but has other functions closely integrated with those of MAFF. The Government would also be concerned at any distortion of the primary role of the AFRC which a merger with ADAS would entail.
This is British Food and Farming Year. It celebrates the honourable past and present of these vital links in the food chain. Today's debate has been concerned with science which underpins the future of the agriculture and food industries. Agricultural and food science has made and continues to make a major contribution to our society. Major scientific advances have had a dramatic impact on food production and diet. Exciting new techniques are continuing to emerge. The challenge for government is to provide the framework within which these developments can be nurtured and harnessed. I welcome the contribution that our discussion today has made to this continuing debate.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—I moved obediently back in to my seat earlier when I wanted to intervene—I wonder whether she can reassure me on the assurance she gave in respect of the money saved on near-market research. She said that it would be applied in the Government's R&D programme. I presume that she meant in the Government's agricultural R&D programme.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the answer is yes.
Lord Butterworth: My Lords, I should like to thank all those who have contributed to the debate today. In introducing the debate I expressed the hope that it would be informative and further illuminate the report. We have not been disappointed. We have heard a most interesting and wide range of views. I trust that my noble friend the Minister and the departments concerned will find what has been said today helpful when they come finally to settle the
1050
Government's reply. I commend the House to take note of the report.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Building Societies (Money Transmission Services) Order 1989
3.14 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order before the House is quite technical.
Building societies have a general power to provide money transmission services, in the course of which the account of a customer may from time to time become overdrawn. Although building societies have power to provide overdraft facilities to individuals, they have no equivalent power to provide overdrafts to companies, and this has prevented them from competing fully for this service.
Allowing this service to be provided to companies may also help societies to meet the volume criteria required for membership of the clearing systems. I should point out that it has the full support of the Building Societies Association.
This order will not allow continuing unsecured lending by a building society to a company in the form of a permanent overdraft. The Government believe that societies should continue to be limited to making unsecured loans only to individuals. The order does not represent a departure from that policy. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].— (Lord Strathclyde.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House rarely find ourselves in any kind of accord with policies emanating from Her Majesty's Treasury, nor, for that matter, from Her Majesty's Department of Trade and Industry. So it is rather a unique occasion for us to be able to give our general support to a comparatively minor matter of this kind. I trust that the noble Lord will not take our assent to the order as reflecting any degree of softening in our implacable resistance to most of the policies that emanate from the Government in the financial and monetary field, but we do not see any particular harm in this measure.
There is just one small question that I must ask the noble Lord before giving the House our formal expression of approval. Why is there a limit in paragraph 7(c) of the order, which deals with Class 3 asset limits? It states:
"where a facility account holder holds other accounts with the society, the value of any shares or deposits in those other accounts shall not be taken into account".
I can understand why shares should not be taken into account, but what is the reason for not permitting offset of any other balances before arriving at the conclusion?

1051
A similar observation applies to paragraph 6(b). Once again, one can understand that shares should not be taken into account, but why is there no offset in respect of deposits? I am quite sure that the noble Lord has the answers at his fingertips. If he could answer that small point, for our part we are happy to facilitate the order.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the general welcome that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has given to the order. However, I must also say that I know that his implacable resistance to the Government's policy towards financial matters will remain totally undiminished.
The noble Lord asked a specific question about the order concerning Class 3 asset limits. Perhaps I may briefly explain what I mean by class assets. Class 1 assets are advances secured on residential land, Class 2 assets are generally advances secured on other land and Class 3 assets are generally other loans, residential land itself and interests in bodies corporate. We have included deposits because a deposit is just as much a debt in itself as a share account. If the noble Lord requires any further clarification, perhaps I may write to him.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes past three o'clock.

  BROADCASTING WHITE PAPER: RESPONSES
  BROADCASTING WHITE PAPER: RESPONSES
  CRIMINAL OFFENCES IN THE SOUTH EAST
  CRIMINAL OFFENCES IN THE SOUTH EAST
  PLANT VARIETY TESTING AND SEED CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS
  PLANT VARIETY TESTING AND SEED CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS