Sitting of 27 April 1989

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL
Orders for Third Reading read.
To be read a Third time on Thursday 4 May.
HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL (By Order)
WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 May.
KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
Motion made,
That the petition of the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham, Telegraph Hill Residents opposed to the Tunnel Link (THROTTL) Association and Brockley against the Tunnel Link (BATTL) be referred back to the Court of Referees.—[Ms. Ruddock.]
Hon. Members: Object.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Licensed Netsmen
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the licensed netsmen in the north-east of England; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): I am planning to visit the area and meet local representatives of the licensed salmon netsmen soon. I have received a number of representations about this fishery. My colleagues and I will be reviewing it—and the east of Scotland net fisheries—and presenting a report to Parliament in due course, as required by the Salmon Act 1986.
    Mr. Mullin: Is the Minister aware of the great hardship caused to salmon fishermen in my constituency and elsewhere by the failure to lay the T-nets order? Can he assure the House that he will do all in his power to secure the future of north-east licensed salmon netsmen against the ill-founded but well-financed angling and riparian interests?
    Mr. Thompson: I know of no hardship being caused at present. However, when we review the matter in November, I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends on both sides of the House will do their best to ensure that any new agreement is not destroyed or distorted, as the last one was, by people from the hon. Gentleman's own area.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that drift netting off the Northumberland coast poses the greatest threat to salmon conservation in the United Kingdom? When will he make it illegal, as it has been for years off t he Scottish coast?
    Mr. Thompson: The House now sees the two clear sides of that complicated matter. The November review, which is statutorily required by the Salmon Act 1986, probably will not abolish such netting, but we shall bring it before the House as soon as possible.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of unjustified criticism against licensed drift net fishermen, and that much of the trouble is caused not only by the increasing seal population but by unlicensed fishermen and poachers generally? Would it not be of great assistance to those in the industry and in authority if more advice were taken from the official fishing organisations on how to control unlicensed fishermen?
    Mr. Thompson: Unlicensed fishermen in all sectors of fishery are a great nuisance. Given the different flavours of the views that we are hearing from all parts of the House, I am already looking forward to the debate. As my hon. Friend says, good advice should always be taken.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister aware that despite the activities of north-east linesmen, the Tyne is the best salmon river in England? Have the representations that the

    1077
    Minister received from north-east fishermen included the issue of sewage sludge dumped off the River Tyne? When the hon. Gentleman meets north-east fishermen, will he reassure them that sewage sludge does not involve the risk of their contracting meningitis, herpes or AIDS, as that matter is of great concern to them?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman greatly exaggerates. I am going to the north-east to see that activity and to learn what I can. I have always found that the best way to learn is to listen.

    Agricultural Land
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about alternative uses for agricultural land.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): I receive frequent representation about alternative uses for agricultural land from a wide range of interested organisations and individuals.
    Dr. Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many farmers are trying to find imaginative alternative uses for their land, especially in view of their low or negative farm incomes? Is he also aware that when they apply for planning consent some councils are dilatory, arbitrary and sometimes obstructive? What can he do to help?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am aware that much entrepreneurial activity is taking place in the farming community. Farmers are seeking alternative uses for land, often very effectively.
    The planning issue comes up frequently, and the responses of local authorities vary around the country. In comparison with a few years ago, many more are taking a constructive and positive approach to alternative enterprises, recognising their importance to the income of farmers and to rural areas generally. Nevertheless, there is still some way to go. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I encourage local authorities to be positive whenever possible. It is also why we recently published a booklet to assist farmers, so that they know how to approach the planning system and can put their proposals in the best possible light.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that permits have been issued for the killing of Brent geese and Greenland white-fronted geese? Brent geese do not come from Brent, incidentally, so any Conservative Members who may feel enthusiastic about slaughtering them had better get that straight.
    That action is being taken because the geese are allegedly damaging crops. Would it not be appropriate for the Ministry to extend compensation to farmers, so that when they are lucky enough to find the geese alighting on their land the geese can continue to crop unhindered and unslaughtered, and the farmers can continue to receive the income?
    Mr. MacGregor: That raises compensation considerations rather different from any that we normally encounter, but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that horse-breeding establishments are now considerable users of agricultural land and riding is
    1078
    becoming a major leisure industry? Is it not time that the Ministry recognised the horse as an agricultural animal and made diseases such as equine herpes notifiable?
    Mr. MacGregor: When the horse is involved in agricultural activities, it is treated as an agricultural animal. As I believe my hon. Friend knows, the matter has been considered time and again and it is not solely a matter for me, but the Government's position has been made very clear.
    I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no doubt that horse-based activities represent a growing alternative use of agricultural land, and perhaps one of the most important. I believe that a Little Neddy agricultural report recently suggested—I speak from memory—that up to 250,000 hectares might be thus employed.

    Brussels (Visits)
    Mr. Grocott: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many officials of his Ministry have visited Brussels in the latest year for which figures are available; and what was the total cost of the visits.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): The total number of visits undertaken by Ministers and officials in the financial year 1988–89 was 2,072. The average number of people per visit was two. The provisional cost was £825,253, some £300,000 of which is recoverable from European Community funds.
    Mr. Grocott: That is an awful lot of money. Bearing in mind that the cost of the common agricultural policy to the taxpayer has doubled to £2·5 billion under the present Government, does the Minister agree that it would be better for all of us if more of those officials and Ministers stayed here, and if British food policy was determined in Britain rather than in Brussels?
    Mr. Ryder: When our officials travel to Brussels, they fight hard for British interests. If they did not go when officials from other countries went, we should not secure such good deals as the one secured by my right hon. Friend last week.
    Mr. Curry: Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to dispel the increasing and pernicious myth that Brussels is staffed by an enormous, predatory bureaucracy, and to point out that many decisions are made by delegates of national Governments who are barely accountable? Would it not also cost less if we had a reasonable structure for air fares in the European Community?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right to say that the bureaucracy in Brussels is nowhere near as large as it is painted by Opposition Members. Those who work in Brussels do a magnificent job. The present British Government have been spearheading efforts to reform the CAP and the Community. Without our contribution there would be even more officials there than there are now.

    "Nuclear Accidents and the Farmer"
    Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the distribution of his Department's leaflet entitled "Nuclear Accidents and the Farmer".
    Mr. Ryder: Our initial distribution was to holdings in England in the vicinity of the major nuclear installations. Large numbers of copies have also been distributed at meetings held by my officials and in response to individual requests. Distribution has been carried out principally through my Department's regional organisation and further copies remain available free of charge on request.
    Mr. Home Robertson: We welcome the realistic advice in the leaflets and the acknowledgement that nuclear accidents can cause serious long-term disruption of food production. Is the Minister satisfied that the £20 million third party insurance carried by nuclear generating companies is adequate? How could a Downing street seminar advocate further nuclear power proliferation on the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, which took place 1,200 miles away but is still affecting more than 400,000 acres of British farmland three years later?
    Mr. Ryder: European Commission documents show conclusively that the British Government's response to the Chernobyl incident was prompter and more comprehensive than that of other Governments in western Europe. Furthermore, the excellent leaflets to which the hon. Gentleman refers have been widely welcomed not only by farmers' organisations but by all those people who live in the vicinity of a nuclear site. [Interruption.] I am pleased to say, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) refers to himself, that the leaflets willl soon be available in Scotland and in Wales.
    Mr. Martyn Jones: May I remind the Minister that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development report said that the British Government's reaction to Chernobyl was the worst of the nine countries concerned and that the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I was a member, made the same point in its report, referred to the inadequacy of the compensation and highlighted various other matters that the Minister has neglected to recall?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Select Committee on Agriculture, of which he was a member, did not say that our response was worse than that of other countries in Europe. On the contrary, the Select Committee report showed conclusively that the British Government's response had been prompter and more comprehensive than that of most other Governments in western Europe.

    National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations; and what subjects were discussed.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: I last met representatives of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations when I visited the Fishing '89 exhibition in Glasgow on 14 April. A number of important issues were discussed, including total allowable catches, licensing with reference to under 10m vessels and light dues.
    Mr. Michie: Does the Minister agree with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations that more action should be taken to protect marine life? If a true blue Tory party slowly turning green wishes to prove that claim, it
    1080
    must take its industrialist friends to task and ensure that they reduce the amount of industrial waste being dumped in the sea.
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the effective action that the Government are taking on what he calls green issues. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says that we must take effective action on green issues, she does not then say to me that she does not meant it. She means, "Double and redouble your efforts," and that is what is happening. The amount of waste being dumped into the North sea by this country is very strictly monitored and it is decreasing year by year.
    Mr. Harris: Did my hon. Friend see the lead letter in The Times last Monday, headed "Fishermen, Cod Quota Development", which was written by one of my constituents, Mr. Mahon? That letter sums up the frustration and anger of many Cornish fishermen about the halt to cod fishing in the Channel. Will the Minister confirm that scientists will examine the basis of total allowable catch proportions before the next full meeting of fisheries Ministers in June to review the TACs and the cod quota?
    Mr. Thompson: I fully understand the frustrations of Cornish and Channel fishermen at having their cod quota curtailed. There will be no cod fishing until later this year because the fishermen caught more than half the quota in the first six months. I have seen the letter in The Times from my hon. Friend's constituent. I have it in my hand now. My hon. Friend will remember that we increased the tonnage of cod from 22,000 tonnes to 23,900 tonnes. We are not being idle in this matter. We are discussing with various other nations quota swaps, among other possibilities, so that we can reintroduce cod fishing before July, but that is a faint hope and I cannot promise that our negotiations will be successful. Nevertheless, we are trying very hard and we are searching for ways to improve fishing opportunities for our Channel fishermen.
    Dr. Godman: I, too, met members of the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations in Yorkshire recently. They expressed a number of concerns, one of which centres on the need for a fair and sensible decommissioning system to meet European Community guidelines. A more pressing concern was the loss of noxious or toxic cargoes on or close to fishing grounds. Does the Minister agree that following the foundering of the motor vessel Perintis in the Channel last month, a hazardous and noxious substances convention should be set up? What is the Ministry doing about that? While the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may not be the lead Department in these matters, surely the concerns surrounding the loss of those cargoes close to fishing grounds should be discussed at the next Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels.
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There is hardly a fishing council in Brussels or anywhere else in the world that is not concerned about pollution. The hon. Gentleman began by asking about decommissioning, which is one of the many options that we have in our armoury to ensure that we retain a prosperous fishing industry. As for the Perintis, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food pressed very hard to ensure that we used every possible means to recover the barrels from the bottom of

    1081
    the Channel. HMS Challenger successfully recovered all but four of those barrels—if my memory serves me correctly, it recovered 28 out of 32—in the past 10 days. We are now considering the other four barrels seriously. The matter is of very high priority.

    Farmers (Incomes)
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the average fall in farmers' incomes in real terms during 1988.
    Mr. MacGregor: Individual farmers' incomes depend on many factors, but aggregate farming income fell in real terms by 28 per cent. between 1987 and 1988. Real incomes increased in the hills, dairy and the other grazing livestock sectors throughout the United Kingdom. Those figures relate to family farming activities and do not take account of income from the diversified activities on or off the farm.
    Mr. Colvin: To help cushion the fall in farm incomes of 28 per cent. in real terms, and further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark), will my right hon. Friend have urgent talks with Ministers at the Department of the Environment who are responsible for planning, with a view to producing new guidelines for planning consents for redundant farm buildings, which can be of considerable assistance to farmers facing difficulties and are often unreasonably refused? My right hon. Friend referred to his booklet, but the booklet does no more than repeat the existing rules. We want new rules.
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of making different uses of redundant farm buildings and much is being done in that respect throughout the country. I have had regular discussions with my right hon. Friend on that matter. Guidelines have been produced and we constantly urge local authorities to be as positive as possible on the re-use of redundant farm buildings.
    Mr. Martlew: When assessing farm incomes in the future, will the Minister take into account the large savings that some farmers will be making as a result of the poll tax at the expense of their employees who live in tied cottages? Will he advise the National Farmers Union of England and Wales that compensation should be paid to those employees who live in tied cottages to recompense them for the loss of earnings? Will he also recommend that the NFU does not take into account the disgusting and outrageous decision of the Scottish NFU, which was mean to say the least, that it is right to refuse to compensate those agricultural workers who lose out under the poll tax and have been badly hit by the poll tax bills coming through their doors this month?
    Mr. MacGregor: As in the case of the rating system, that is a matter for discussion and negotiation between farmers and their employees. I know that in the past, many employers have been generous in the way in which they dealt with the rating system.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one factor which helped the incomes of hill farmers in 1988 was the prompt payment of hill livestock compensatory allowance? Will he accept that there has been some delay in the payments during 1989 and can he give any assurances about that for future years?
    Mr. MacGregor: There are a number of matters relating to payments and other issues affecting farmers on which Ministry officials have been hard pressed. It is a question of priorities, but I understand the problems caused by the delays and I note what my hon. Friend has said. We have no wish to delay payments longer than necessary.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister consider carefully the impact of interest rates on farm incomes? Can nothing be done to mitigate the high rate of interest that farmers have to pay? Is the Minister aware that farmers in my constituency constantly tell me that they are at a disadvantage compared with farmers in other European countries because, according to them, European farmers have systems which mitigate the level of interest rates that they have to pay?
    Mr. MacGregor: With regard to other European countries, under the structures regulations it is possible to use either low interest rate schemes or grant schemes. We do the latter. More generally, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the conditions that made it right and necessary for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to raise interest rates. I have never believed that it is easily possible to find any scheme specifically to direct low, subsidised interest rates to any particular group, and it is difficult to see where to start. It is not right to look for special exemptions for the farming community.

    CAP
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on recent developments in the common agricultural policy of the European Community.
    Mr. MacGregor: As I said in the House yesterday, last week's CAP price settlement was very satisfactory. It was fully consistent with United Kingdom objectives for the CAP and expenditure, and the substantial green pound devaluation that I secured benefits United Kingdom farmers' income and competitiveness.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he tell the House, with all due modesty, whether he is aware of any other members states which, at the price-fixing negotiations, achieved a bigger devaluation of their green currency or a larger proportion of increase in benefits for farm incomes? Will my right hon. Friend press on with the good work to ensure the elimination of monetary discrimination altogether in 1990?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There was one other country which did as well. That was Greece, but the condition to the Greek economy and the general requirements which made that necessary are totally different from ours. It is therefore fair to say that we undoubtedly secured the best outcome on agrimonetary matters and green currencies. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is extremely important for farmers' incomes. Of itself, it should improve them by £155 million in a full year. I also agree that it is crucial that we stay on target to see tha the real monetary gaps are reduced throughout to zero. As my hon. Friend knows, we have done well in most sectors, but we want to achieve zero throughout by 1992 so that we have a genuine single market in agriculture.
    Mr. Hood: We heard the Minister express some concern yesterday about the amount of fraud in the common agricultural policy, but is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation recently visited Luxembourg to meet the Court of Auditors and that we discussed at long length the billions of pounds involved in fraud and the efforts of the Court of Auditors to catch the people who are committing the fraud? We were also told that for the past two years the United Kingdom Government has refused to give access to the Court of Auditors—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time.
    Mr. Hood: Will the Minister explain to the House, in the light of his concern yesterday, why the Government have refused to co-operate with the Court of Auditors for the past two years?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that we are refusing to co-operate with the Court of Auditors' general approach to this question. On a number of occasions in the Agriculture Council in recent months, I have specifically referred to the recent Court of Auditors' report on the operation of the intervention system and specifically asked that its recommendations be followed up and agreed in our Council. As I said yesterday, we are now making considerable progress. I welcome the Court of Auditors' recent report and certainly think that we should follow it up.
    Mr. Dykes: Just to get The Times newspaper beside itself for another hysterical anti-fraud headline, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Court of Auditors has solemnly reminded us all that fraud amounts to nowhere near the £6 billion figure that The Times keeps giving in its headlines, and that all the member states are equally involved in fraud, which is a serious matter, and that the Reading cold storage agency has been the least co-operative in supplying cold storage audit figures to the Court of Auditors?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. By definition, we do not know the precise figures, but most informed observers think that £6 billion is far too high. Nevertheless, I am sure that my hon. Friend will think that something well short of that amount would also be far too high. That is why we take these matters seriously and why we wish to pursue fraud in any direction, wherever it occurs.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What action is being taken to ensure that eggs imported from other European countries are up to the high health standards that are now required on British farms? How are British consumers and producers being protected against the effects of substandard imported eggs?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of this. First, we have stepped up our monitoring of imported eggs and if we find any cases of salmonella–I have had no reports of any to date–I shall, of course, be taking that matter up straight away with the Minister of the member state concerned.
    Secondly, we are now pursuing within the European Community the whole question of action on salmonella and all such diseases. A report is now being drawn up on this matter and I hope that it will lead to action. As always, it takes some time to reach agreement on these matters
    1084
    within the European Community, but I entirely agree about the importance of tackling this at a European Community level.

    Livestock Producers
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects for cattle, sheep and pig producers prior to the completion of the internal market, in 1992.
    Mr. MacGregor: The conditions for livestock producers between now and 1992 will be affected by a number of factors, including some changes, connected with completion of the single internal market which are at an early stage of discussion. My objective remains to seek arrangements under which United Kingdom producers can compete on thoroughly equal terms with those in other Community countries.
    Mr. Gill: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his considerable and beneficial achievement in securing the partial elimination of MCAs, which will go a long way to helping British livestock producers to be more competitive? Does he accept that many British livestock producers look forward to the completion of the internal market in 1992 and will he assist them by instituting a survey to demonstrate what comparative advantage there may be in the production of sheepmeat and beef on completion of the single market?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the first part of his question. I hope that everyone will recognise just how far we have gone in improving the position of the United Kingdom industry relative to even two years ago. In the livestock sectors to which my hon. Friend has referred, two years ago we had negative MCAs ranging from 24 to 31 points; today, in three of the four sectors, there is no MCA and only a small one of under 2 per cent. in the other. We have therefore already made considerable progress towards the objective that we set ourselves. Indeed, we have practically reached it already in the livestock sectors.
    On my hon. Friend's second question, my Department is co-sponsoring with Food from Britain, the Home-grown Cereals Authority and the Food Research Council a study to highlight, among other things, the impact which the single market will have on agriculture in the 1990s. I hope that that will give some indications in the direction that my hon. Friend seeks. I am sure that he will also agree that one of the benefits of the recent agreement on the changes in the beef sector is that clawback of exports has been removed, which should enable producers to expand their prospects within the Community in general.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Minister realise that, if he abolishes the Potato Marketing Board, there will be a huge increase in the amount of potatoes fed to pigs and other livestock—the subject of this question? Will he therefore give me an absolute assurance that he will make no decision regarding the Potato Marketing Board until he meets my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for East Lothian (Mr. Hume Robertson) and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and me on 10 May at 3.45 pm?
    Mr. MacGregor: I congratulate the hon. Gentlman on his ingenuity in working the Potato Marketing Board into

    1085
    this question. I have received all the written consultations now and carried out a number of meetings on this question, and I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the matter on the date he mentioned. I cannot give a precise date for when we shall be making our announcement, but I am certainly listening very carefully to all the consultations.
    Mr. Hill: I declare an interest in this as one of the major sheep and pig producers in Hampshire. I have to say very clearly that we are not looking forward to 1992. In fact, many of the pig producers in Hampshire are looking forward only to bankruptcy. They are not making money at this time; we feel that MAFF has rather neglected our cause and that something should be done, certainly between now and 1992.
    Mr. MacGregor: In fact, we have a single market already, because I have been able to negotiate down to zero the monetary compensatory amounts in the pigmeat sector. So the pigmeat sector is now not suffering from that disadvantage. That is one of the things that we have achieved within the last year. My hon. Friend will know that the real profitability of the pigmeat sector depends on supply and demand. That is now more sensible and we have therefore seen an improvement in returns to pig producers. I have been well aware of the difficulties they have had up to now.

    Research Whaling
    Mr. Hanley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he estimates the United Kingdom's action against research whaling will be successful.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: We have already met with success as Korea has not pursued its intended research whaling and Japan, Iceland and Norway have all modified their programmes. We will continue to press strongly against unjustified research whaling.
    Mr. Hanley: The whole House will support the initiative of my right hon. and hon. Friends in trying to reduce the often cynical and fraudulent practice of commercial whaling under the guise of scientific research. My hon. Friend will remember that recently, at the International Whaling Commission, 16 nations out of 32 followed the British Government's lead in trying to introduce a moratorium in this area. When does my hon. Friend believe that that 17th country, which would make all the difference, will follow the British Government's lead?
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is well known for his constant and caring attitude on this matter. He is wrong in only one slight degree: it was not at the International Whaling Commission's convention, but on our own initiative that the United Kingdom wrote round to various countries about Japanese whaling and got only 16 votes, with four against and some abstentions. We shall continue to press this matter year by year.
    Dr. David Clark: Can I add our support to the Government stance on whaling, which has been very commendable indeed? Can I also draw the Minister's
    1086
    attention to the explosive expansion of research whaling by the Japanese? Will the Minister seek again to influence the Japanese to try to cut back on that huge explosion?
    Mr. Thompson: It was because of this country's persistence last year that we reduced the Japanese intended catch from 825 to 241 whales. I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their support on this important matter.

    Goats' Milk
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the Goat Producers Association concerning legislative control over the production of goats' milk.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: I have received a copy of the circular letter that the chairman of the Goat Producers Association sent to a number of hon. Members earlier this year.
    Mr. Coombs: Bearing in mind the purely voluntary clean milk scheme of the Goat Producers Association, is it the case that, under the Food Act 1984, there are specific regulations for monitoring the quality of cows' milk but not goats' milk? Therefore, bearing in mind any impending food legislation, is there a strong case for extending the regulations to goats' milk? Does the Minister intend to do that?
    Mr. Thompson: My hon. Friend is quite right. We have no powers. The wording of the Food Act means that detailed regulations applying to cows' milk cannot be extended to goats' milk. However, consultations on the new Food Bill have suggested that powers should be taken to enable Ministers to regulate the production of milk from other animals as well as cows.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister take great care to ensure that people who own small herds of goats are not placed in ruinous difficulty as a result of any regulations?
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the National Goat Society held its annual international conference in my constituency this year. Therefore, I was able to discuss these important matters with it face to face.

    Council for the Protection of Rural England
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Ryder: I met representatives of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including the chairman, on 22 March, when we discussed a number of issues of concern to them.
    Mr. Arnold: Did my hon. Friend also discuss a recent proposal to land the farming community with a further £3 billion bill for water quality improvements? Is he aware that that proposal was made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)? Does it not represent a further extension of Labour's policy of clobbering the farming community?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is quite right. Between now and the next general election, we shall return frequently to the remarks which the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) made in the course of an interview last week.
    Mr. Jopling: Did my hon. Friend discuss with the chairman the possibility of designating further environmentally sensitive areas? If he did not, will he do so next time he meets him?
    Mr. Ryder: I did not discuss with the chairman the possibility of extending the number of ESAs. However, as my right hon. Friend is aware, we shall examine the matter in greater detail during the next two to three years, and I shall look forward to discussing it with the chairman of the CPRE during the next few months.

    Set-aside
    Mr. Lord: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the latest figures on the uptake of the set-aside scheme.
    Mr. MacGregor: About 1,800 United Kingdom farmers are setting aside about 58,000 hectares of arable land in the first year of the scheme. We will be opening the scheme for further applications shortly.
    Mr. Lord: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that it is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Although no one enjoys seeing cereal farmers' difficulties, everybody in the country must be pleased to see the amount of tree planting that is now taking place. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue persuading farmers to plant trees wherever possible. Will he do his very best to reassure them about the long-term existence of such supporting schemes?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I will indeed. My hon. Friend will know that there is interaction between the set-aside scheme and the farm woodland scheme. He will be pleased to know that we have just received the first six months' figures for the farm woodland scheme. In the first six months, more than 800 farmers applied to plant 14,100 acres with trees, a high proportion of which will be broadleaves. That is an extremely good response, but I certainly intend to continue to publicise the scheme. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know also that the Norwich division has had the best response among all the Ministry divisions, with 107 cases covering 711 hectares.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister accept that many millions of people look askance at a scheme that pays farmers to watch trees and grass grow when their income has diminished, while the selfsame Government have frozen child benefit so that the poorest of the poor have to watch their children grow without additional help from the Government, led by the woman in blue on the Minister's left? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: That is not unparliamentary, but it does not help.
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is totally wrong. On the question of farm woodlands, which we are discussing, he is out of touch with his party. There is widespread agreement that the encouragement of a more attractive landscape, which the farm woodland scheme is
    1088
    assisting us in doing, is of great benefit to future generations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should consult his hon. Friends to find out how they respond to the farm woodland scheme that we introduced and that is already going so well.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Malins: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Malins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most important messages from yesterday's seminar on global climate is the environmental advantage of nuclear power? Does she further agree that we should all try to get that message across to the whole country?
    The Prime Minister: Yes; one of the important messages from the seminar and from many other scientific sources is that one of our greatest concerns at the moment is the sharp increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which are staying there. Future policies must take account of that and try to reduce the increase. One of the best ways of doing that is to concentrate on nuclear power stations, which do not add to greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is one of the surest ways of maintaining economic development without damaging the environment.
    Mr. Kinnock: Since the doctors, meeting today, have unanimously rejected the Prime Minister's National Health Service proposals, will she follow her usual practice, or will she listen to them?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has amply answered much of the false propaganda that has been put out by doctors to their patients. In fact, the doctors have done very much better under this Government, and so have the patients. When the full White Paper is in operation, it is designed to give much better service to the patients.
    Mr. Kinnock: Does not the Prime Minister yet understand that the great majority of people know that the National Health Service is much safer in the hands of their GPs than it will ever be in the hands of this Government?
    The Prime Minister: Under this Government, there are more GPs and they have lower lists. Therefore, they can give more attention to their patients. As the New Statesman article pointed out:
    "Many of those with larger practices are already queuing up to become GP budget-holders."
    In the article one doctor pointed out that when the National Health Service White Paper was in operation, all that would change was that he would start, as a GP, to be paid for the extra service that he provided. He said:
    "I am certainly keen to become a budget holder, which will be a natural extension of the kind of general practice I have been providing for years."
    Under the proposals, the doctors with the heavier work load will get more pay. That seems right.
    Mr. Thurnham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the strength of Europe lies in its members working closely together in defence of their individual freedoms, freedoms that have given this country the most improved economy in Europe and made it the most favoured choice for inward investment?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that those freedoms are backed up by an economic freedom that would be put in jeopardy if we had a Europe that tied itself and industry in bureaucratic knots. We must see that that does not happen.
    Mr. Terry Lewis: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady consult the Conservative Family Campaign, which is most concerned about the suffering of families up and down the land through premium telephone services? Will she further send for the tape shown on Independent Television News last Wednesday, view the unedited version and then take personal control of that sordid service which has been released upon families?
    The Prime Minister: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. I cannot agree precisely to the things that he has asked of me, but I shall certainly put it to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend take some time this afternoon further to clarify the Government's reaction to the Delors report?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made the Government's view very clear. The Delors report is aimed at a federal Europe, a common currency and a common economic policy, which would take many economic policies, including fiscal policy, out of the hands of the House, and that is completely unacceptable. It would also require a treaty amendment, which we do not believe would ever be passed by the House because of the lack of sovereignty that it would imply.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Salvation Army has found it necessary to repeat General Booth's survey 100 years ago of homelessness in London? As the country approaches the anniversary of its 10-year sentence under the right hon. Lady's leadership, what miserable excuse will she offer the House this afternoon for the doubling of poverty and homelessness in London since 1979? I do not know what gift her colleagues will buy her to commemorate her anniversary—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions.
    Mr. Banks: Opposition Members want to give her a cardboard box, because cardboard cities are the most stark mementoes of 10 years of Thatcherism.
    The Prime Minister: There are about 1·8 million more homes now than there were 10 years ago, which is quite a good record. This country has the highest standard of living that it has ever known. With regard to homelessness, there have been additional resources totalling more than £74 million since December 1987, and the gross provision for the Housing Corporation increased from £705 million in 1987–88 to £737 million in 1988–89. Some 18,000 places have been approved in the past eight years for the single homeless with special needs. Real incomes have increased throughout all income groups.
    Mr. Banks: Tell them that on the south bank.
    The Prime Minister: There has been a real increase in disposable income between 1979 and 1985, with an increase of 5·9 per cent. for the bottom tenth, and real take-home pay for the lowest one tenth of adult male full-time earners has risen by 13·1 per cent. over the past 10 years.
    Mr. Marlow: If my right hon. Friend were the Chancellor of the West German Republic, would her main priority not be the unification of Germany and further traditional moves towards involvement with eastern Europe? What does this mean not only for NATO, but for the European Community?
    The Prime Minister: That would not be my main priority. On the question of the European Community, my hon. Friend will know that goods come into the Federal Republic of Germany from East Germany without any levy being paid. Therefore, the Federal Republic of Germany receives a special bonus from Europe that is not available to anyone else.
    Mr. Sillars: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sillars: Is the Prime Minister aware of the indelible stain on her political reputation from the rejection of democratic fundamental demands for human rights by a small but nevertheless important group of people? I refer to the Chinese population of Hong Kong. Does she not accept—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Sillars.
    Mr. Sillars: Does not the Prime Minister accept that it is only if they get British passports and resident rights in the United Kingdom that the people of Hong Kong will have any real bargaining power with the Chinese Government? Before she answers, will she reflect upon the paradox that the way in which human beings are being disposed of there is more akin to Stalinism than Thatcherism, which is supposed to be about fundamental human rights and libertarianism?
    The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that the standard of living in Hong Kong greatly exceeds anything in China, through the efforts of the people of Hong Kong. I know there is strong feeling in Hong Kong about the particular point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I believe that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is either in Hong Kong now or has recently been there and doubtless it will have something else to say upon

    1091
    this. At present the position is governed by the British Nationality Act 1981, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to suggest any amendments, I am sure that he will do so.
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend have talks with the Secretary of State for the Environment about the performance of the Labour-controlled Hertfordshire county council, which over the past four years has increased its staff by more than 2,000? Of the 300 additional staff appointed to social services, only 20 per cent. are social workers and the other 80 per cent. are administrators. Is it not surprising in those circumstances that the Labour finance chairman of Hertfordshire has—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the Government's responsibility.
    The Prime Minister: I think that we all heard what my hon. Friend said, and he carries a very important message. The 10 counties with the lowest rate poundages are all controlled by the Conservative party; none of the 10 counties with the highest rate poundages are controlled by Conservatives.
    Q6. Mr. Alan Roberts: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Prime Minister aware that car exhausts make a significant and growing contribution to the greenhouse gases? [Interruption.] In April, the European Parliament, including Conservative EuroMembers of Parliament from Britain, voted in favour of imposing United States standards on car emissions in Europe. Those standards allow for four times less pollution than the current European standards. How can the Government be taken seriously if, in the Council of Ministers in Europe, they veto the proposals to have those increased standards imposed in Europe? How can their concern about global warming be taken seriously, since the Government have just massively cut programmes on energy conservation and insulation?
    The Prime Minister: If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly—I did not hear the beginning—he was talking about greenhouse gases. Was he then talking about car emissions?
    Mr. Roberts: Standards in Europe—and you vetoed it.
    The Prime Minister: Now look, the science—[Laughter.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Now I have identified what the hon. Gentleman is asking about, may 1, with the permission of the House, point out that the science on this matter has yet to be resolved? The three-way catalyst makes a car engine 10 per cent. less efficient and therefore on some interpretations can lead to more greenhouse gases. There are those who say that the lean-burn engine, especially on smaller cars, is much more efficient and, together with a lesser catalyst, would have less greenhouse effect and every bit as much control over reducing the emissions from cars. I trust that I have made myself clear.
    Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Michael Clark: In view of the recent petrol price increases, will my right hon. Friend, during the course of her busy day, consider whether it would be appropriate to hasten the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's deliberations on the major oil companies, with a view to divesting them of their retail outlets? Is not this the way to get increased competition, and the way to prevent prices at all the pumps from being raised to the same level at the same time?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend has said, the Director General of Fair Trading referred the wholesale supply of petrol in the United Kingdom to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on 9 November 1988. I regret that the Commission's report is not expected until this November. My hon. Friend asked whether it could be speeded up. I will pass the message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
    Mr. Jimmy Wray: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wray: What plans do the Government have for eradicating poverty in Scotland? Does the Prime Minister realise that last year 16,000 people in Scotland had their electricity cut off? Does she realise that a European report on poverty, published today, places Great Britain sixth?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to poverty in Europe, the figures that I gave earlier, in response to another question, are the correct ones because they are taken from figures that are comparable with one another. Scotland is enjoying the highest standard of living that it has ever known. The average weekly earnings for men and women are higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom, save the south-east.

Serjeant at Arms (Retirement)
MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had received a letter from Sir Victor Le Fanu, the Serjeant at Arms, which Mr. Speaker read as follows:
I have the honour to make application that you will be pleased to sanction my retirement on 30th September, 1989 from my office by patent of Her Majesty's Serjeant at Arms attending the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Being in my sixty fifth year, and in my forty seventh year of consecutive service in the Army and in the service of the House of Commons, I think that the time has come for me to make room for a successor.
I wish to record my deep appreciation of the kindness and consideration shown to me by all Members of the House of Commons, which has made my term of office here so happy and rewarding.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Mr. Speaker, I am certain all hon. Members will share my sincere regret at hearing the letter you have just read out. The occasion for us to express formally our thanks and appreciation to Sir Victor Le Fanu for his long service to the House will arise later, when I shall move an appropriate motion. That I am not doing so today is in line with precedent and does not detract in any way from the very high regard in which I know Sir Victor is held on both sides of the House for his long and distinguished service.
Mr. Frank Dobson: On behalf of the Opposition, I join in the expressions of thanks to Sir Victor for his work for us as Serjeant at Arms. Sometimes criticisms are directed at the Serjeant at Arms and his staff, but usually we find that that is because they have been expected to provide a quart out of a pint pot. I have undying admiration for Sir Victor's unwillingness, when challenged by Members, to reply, "If you want a better service you had better vote for it and pay for it." I thank Sir Victor for his work, and I thank him too for his diplomacy.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I associate right hon. and hon. Members of my party with the remarks that have been made about the Serjeant at Arms. He has always been most courteous in his dealings with hon. Members. Nothing has ever been too much trouble for him in any dealings I have had with him. He has earned respect on all sides of the House. If I may say so, in spite of the additional strains that we all now have to suffer as a result of increased security, he has prevailed and has always done sterling service for everyone in the House. We look forward to contributing more fully to the tributes at the appropriate time.
Mr. Speaker: There will be an occasion to pay formal tributes in due course. Meanwhile, consultations on the recommendation for a successor to Sir Victor Le Fanu are taking place through the House of Commons Commission.

Business of the House
3.34 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
TUESDAY 2 MAY—Opposition Day (9th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Doctors' Rejection of the White Paper on the National Health Service. Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "Teacher Shortages". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Supplemental timetable motion on and consideration of Lords Amendments to the Official Secrets Bill.
WEDNESDAY 3 MAY—Timetable motion on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill.
Second Reading of the Companies Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 4 MAY—Second Reading of the Police Officers (Central Service) Bill [Lords].
Afterwards motion to take note of EC document on controls of persons at intra-Community frontiers. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Followed by motion to take note of EC documents on public procurement. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 5 MAY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 8 MAY—Progress on consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
[Debates on Thursday 4 May
First Debate

Relevant European Community Document

10412/88

Controls of persons at intra-Community borders

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 15-xi (1988–89) para 1

Second Debate

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) 7496/88

Public works contracts

(b) 5909/89

Public works contracts

(c) 10497/88

Public supply and works contracts: compliance with Community rules

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 43-xxxv (1987–88) para 2, and HC 43-xxxvii (1987–88) para 2

(b) Not yet considered by the Committee

(c) HC 15-xi (1988–89) para 2.]

Mr. Frank Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Are the Government prepared to have a number of sittings of a Special Standing Committee on the Companies Bill so that those serving on the Standing Committee can take evidence from Ministers and officials on that technically complex measure? Since the Standing Orders were changed to permit the use of Special Standing Committees in that way, the Government have introduced 435 Bills, only five of which have been subject to that procedure.
I deplore the Government's intention to introduce a guillotine motion next week on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. That is an important measure which endangers educational standards in Scotland and

1095
Scottish Members should be given every opportunity to go through it in the detail that is necessary. There is no good reason to curtail the debate.
Has the Leader of the House noted that the Opposition have chosen to debate the proposed changes in the NHS on an Opposition day next week? Is it not about time that the Government got round to giving us the promised full day's debate on what, after all, are their proposals? Will he also tell us when we are likely to get the long-promised debate on the proposal to substitute student loans for student grants?
When shall we have the opportunity—this again, is important for Scotland—to debate the statutory instrument which is at present being implemented in Scotland on the collection of poll tax from income being paid to people in Scotland?
Finally, when are we likely to have a debate on the Government-induced difficulties facing British industry in the run-up to 1992?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asks six questions about the business for next week. The Companies Bill has already been before the other place but I take note of his suggestion that this would be an appropriate measure to refer to a Special Standing Committee and the best plan is to discuss that through the usual channels.
The most controversial clauses of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, those which enable Scottish schools to become self-governing if parents so wish, have largely been covered. However, the Committee has taken 106 hours to get that far and needs to make better progress on the remaining 43 clauses. I shall he tabling a timetable motion later today, but I can tell the House that it will allow more than sufficient time in which to consider the important matters that remain.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health welcomes the opportunity that the Opposition have presented him with to correct the Opposition's misleading and distorted allegations, and he will certainly take that opportunity next week. However, I recognise that I have promised a full day's debate on the NHS and I shall provide that. Discussions through the usual channels will be necessary to find a suitable day. I have already made it clear that the best time for a debate on student top-up loans will be when the current discussions with the financial institutions have been concluded. However, I note the hon. Gentleman's point.
I believe it would be best if I discussed the statutory instrument on the community charge through the usual channels, if we can find a suitable time for that debate.
I realise that the matter of 1992 is a very important subject and wholly suitable for debate. Meanwhile, I cannot promise a debate but there are many opportunities on the Finance Bill and other Bills when hon. Members who have points to make might find an ingenious way of making them.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does my right hon. Friend not consider that it is about time we had a debate on the Army Estimates, particularly bearing in mind that several important events are taking place now that could have a significant impact on the size and shape of our ground forces?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope to be able to arrange a debate on the Army before long, and that will certainly provide the opportunity that he is seeking.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Will the Leader of the House consult the Ministers responsible for the Government's reaction to the Griffiths report recommendations? Is he aware that they have been variously describing the imminence of the Government's reaction to this report, for some weeks, if not months, as "appearing shortly"? There must be a limit to the amount of time this takes. Can the Minister guarantee an early statement on the matter? Also, what are the Government doing about bringing forward proposals for televising the proceedings of the House in time to enable the test pilot work to be done in the summer recess in time for a start next autumn?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the demand for a debate on the Griffiths proposals. Although we have just had a debate on the matter, that is not adequate for what the House wants. The Government are not ready to come forward with their proposals, so I cannot give a specific date when that will occur. As soon as that is ready, a proper statement will be made.
Those of us on the Select Committee considering the matter are awaiting the moment when we complete our report on the televising of the proceedings in the House. I will not be revealing any great secret when I say that we are near the end of the report. It will then be presented to the House, and I will arrange a debate as soon as I can.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Could my right hon. Friend find time soon to debate what are serious shortcomings in the Highways Act 1980, which allow builders, when they are refurbishing, to erect gantries and scaffolding not only over the pavement but into the roadway for a distance of 6 to 8 ft.? I know that this is a sign of the prosperity of our city, but there are now 1,000 of these sites, some of them serious traffic hazards. I am assured by Westminster city council that it does not have power to control these works and, in some cases, as at the bottom of Parliament street, the pavement itself is reduced to only two people wide and is a serious hazard for pedestrians.
Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate the concern my hon. Friend has over this issue; perhaps it is more widely spread. I cannot promise an early debate at the moment, but she could seek opportunities to raise the matter on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The Minister for Social Security last night, in answer to my question, gave an unequivocal undertaking to the House in respect of payments out of the disaster fund to those who have been bereaved and injured on Merseyside. Since then the Department has issued a further advisory memorandum that seems to detract from that undertaking. The hon. Gentleman went on the radio at lunchtime today further muddying the waters. Bearing that in mind, will the Leader of the House induce his hon. Friend, before much more time has passed, to clarify the position in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think the situation is as confused as the hon. Gentleman seeks to make out. My

1097
hon. Friend was referring to new social security rules that will come into effect some time late in the summer of 1990, not now.
Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the passage of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill the Opposition actually filibustered an amendment the Minister had accepted? So determined are they, for petty political reasons, to have a guillotine that this morning they actually filibustered an amendment that would allow schools to opt back into authority control. That is what the Opposition have been doing. We need a timetable motion, and we need it now.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting my proposal, but I would not necessarily use his words in commenting on Opposition tactics. I leave it to them to defend themselves.
Mr. Ernie Ross: As the convener of the Scottish group of Labour Members of Parliament, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) in his opposition to the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill. The Leader of the House indicated the time taken by the Committee, in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have been working assiduously—relative to the importance we attach to the matters that have so far been debated. Other matters still to be discussed include teachers' salaries and further education, which will require an equal amount of debating time. It is disgraceful for the Leader of the House to impose a guillotine at this stage.
Mr. Wakeham: No, it is perfectly reasonable of me to impose a guillotine. From my reading of the Standing Committee Hansard, I suspect that the Opposition strove from the start to have the Bill guillotined. I note that on several occasions when the Government accepted Opposition amendments in Committee, the Opposition prolonged debate for several hours thereafter. It does not seem to me that the Opposition made a serious effort properly to discuss the Bill.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: Before too much synthetic heat is generated from the Opposition Benches, will my right hon. Friend remind Opposition Members, in the light of their recent behaviour in Committee on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, of the old adage that when one is in a hole, one stops digging?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right. Perhaps I should also remind the Opposition of what happened in 1976, when a guillotine was used in similar circumstances.
Ms. Diane Abbott: On the subject of Tuesday's debate on the National Health Service, is the Leader of the House aware that I, in common with most right hon. and hon. Members, have received hundreds of letters from my constituents who are concerned about the Government's proposals? They are specifically concerned about the proposed new contracts for general practitioners, cash-limiting GP's budgets and what that will mean for the chronically sick and elderly, and the proposal to allow
1098
hospitals such as St. Bartholomew's in my own constituency to opt out and what that will mean for local services for the poor and the sick. Will the right hon. Gentleman find time at the earliest opportunity for a full debate, so that the Government may answer the fears and questions of millions of people throughout the country?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with the hon. Lady thus far—there is some necessity for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health to put right mischievous and damaging statements made by various people in that dispute. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was present at questions yesterday, when my right hon. and learned Friend saw off all the Opposition's criticisms.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during Prime Minister's Question Time on Tuesday I raised the question whether public companies such as Lonrho or House of Fraser should return documents that clearly give the impression of having been stolen, and that newspapers such as The Observer should do the same? During the course of my question, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—to whom I gave notice that I would be raising this matter today—implied that returning stolen documents is not something that he or his constituents are in the habit of doing. In view of that, and as the Opposition appear to be opposed to the idea that it is right that stolen documents or other property should be returned to its owner, will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on that subject?
Mr. Wakeham: Questions of law-breaking and of prosecution are not for me, but I shall venture this far down that road. I believe that the returning of stolen property is something that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House support.
Mr. John Garrett: Why is the Leader of the House so opposed to the Special Standing Committee procedure? Is he not aware that it was invented, and is particularly well suited for, legislation such as the Companies Bill, which is largely a technical matter? It would be far quicker to consider that Bill by cross-examining the Minister concerned in Select Committee than by putting down endless amendments, and would in many ways be to the Government's advantage to adopt that procedure. Why is the Leader of the House so much less progressive in such matters than his distinguished predecessor, Lord St. John of Fawsley?
Mr. Wakeham: I would not want to say anything to refute the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I aspire to reach the high levels set by my right hon. and noble Friend on all occasions.
I said no word against the Special Standing Committee. I thought that I had been extremely helpful—rather more helpful than the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who speaks from the Front Bench on these matters—in saying that I would consider it. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett) does not think that means that I will necessarily accept it, but his request is reasonable and, as I have said, I shall now consider it.
Mr. Ian Gow: The review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement has now been proceeding for six months. Why does my right hon. Friend continue to deny the House an opportunity to express its opinion?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that I am denying the House such an opportunity. I simply have not been able to arrange a debate in the immediate past, and I am afraid that I see no opportunity of arranging one in the immediate future. I am, however, considering the matter, as I recognise that a number of people believe that a debate should take place and I should like to be able to satisfy them.
Mr. John McAllion: Will the Leader of the House tell his right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) that his advice is not strictly necessary, as the Government, having found themselves in a hole in Committee, have now decided to stop digging and to introduce the guillotine?
Does the Leader of the House not realise that at one stage the Minister on the Committee accepted Opposition amendments which were then voted down by his own Back Benchers? That is a tragedy, but it is no excuse to cut short debate on a Bill that has not been properly examined. The Scottish people will not accept this decision.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but I am told that his memory of the occasion does not coincide exactly with the facts. I do not think that what he has said alters the general proposition that to provide time for a Committee to deal with matters in an orderly fashion under a guillotine is the best way forward.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the allegation made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) is wholly false and without foundation? Will he give the House an assurance, in relation to the details of the timetable motion, that there will be consultations with the two representatives of the minority parties, who are the only Opposition Members on the Committee who appear to know what they are doing?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour Members this morning voted against allowing self-governing schools to opt back into local authorities? Does he attribute the Labour shambles on the Committee to the fact that no experienced Scottish Labour Member was interested in serving on it?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for throwing additional light on the subject. I shall be tabling a motion later today, and there will be an adequate opportunity to discuss its terms next week.
Mr. David Winnick: In order to be helpful, as always, may I suggest that instead of Wednesday's guillotine motion, which is certainly unnecessary, we should have a debate on that day—3 May—about the millions of victims of 10 years of Toryism, that curse that has been inflicted on the British people? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to challenge all the phoney statistics mentioned by the Prime Minister today.
Incidentally, when the Prime Minister addresses her Cabinet, does she use the words, which she used earlier today "Now, look here"?
Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman is trying to he helpful, I wonder what sort of question he asks when he is trying to be difficult. Perhaps we shall never know, for I understand that he never tries to be difficult.
The debates tabled for Wednesday—the timetable motion on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, and Second Reading of the Companies Bill—strike me as a very appetising bill of fare, and I am looking forward to it.
Sir Anthony Grant: Will we soon have an opportunity for a proper debate on the Green Paper on legal services? The Lord Chancellor is seeking views on that important issue and the other place has had a chance to express a view. Everyone seems to be able to do so except Members of this House.
Mr. Wakeham: I should like to have a debate, but I do not think that there will be an opportunity to hold it in the immediate future. However, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor would be pleased to hear from my hon. Friend and from anybody else who wishes to express a view on the matter.
Mr. Alan Meale: Has the Leader of the House taken note of early-day motion 541 on financial assistance for tourism?
[That this House calls on the Secretary of State for Employment to immediately reinstate schemes listed under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, which gave financial assistance to tourism projects in England and Wales, until such time as the review currently being undertaken by Government departments is completed.]
Is he aware that in England all the grants under section 4 of the Act have been suspended but that they have not been suspended in Scotland and in Wales? Will he use the usual channels to bring this anomaly to an end and once again try to get the Government to give some sort of aid to the tourist industry?
Mr. Wakeham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that the decision to suspend the section 4 scheme was taken at a time when investment in the tourist industry was at record levels. It would not be right to continue to spend taxpayers' money on financial assistance for the tourist industry when there are considerable doubts about the value of the scheme. A decision on its long-term future will be made in due course.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on gas prices and of the fact that it has had severe effects on two industries—the horticulture industry in the north-west and individual commercial firms? As those prices seem to have been imposed on all industrial activity in this country, will he provide time for the matter to be debated in the House?
Mr. Wakeham: Energy policy and prices in the gas industry are obviously important matters. No doubt we shall find an opportunity to return to them, but I cannot offer time to my hon. Friend in the immediate future.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Is the Leader of the House able to assist me on the Prime Minister's answer a few minutes ago, in which she suggested that I, and others, might have an opportunity to amend the British Nationality Act? Does that mean that the Cabinet will seriously consider any report on Hong Kong that is

1101
published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? Are the Government thinking of tabling an amendment to the British Nationality Act? That would be the only chance that I could have of amending it.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman was a Member of this House long before I reached it. He has long experience of its procedures and knows what opportunities are available to him. I can think of some ways in which he could bring the matter before the House. If he has forgotten them, I suggest that he should take a refresher course. I can add no more to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, except that the Government will consider carefully any report that is published by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after its visit to Hong Kong and China.
Mr. Michael Latham: Does my right hon. Friend recall that more than once he has said that he sympathises with the idea of half-day debates on specific foreign affairs subjects? However, nothing has happened. All we get is late-night orders on Euro-rubbish. Will he think again about the matter and make arrangements for specific foreign affairs debates?
Mr. Wakeham: I tried, but it was not possible to meet my hon. Friend's demands in the immediate past. I was unable to get it tied up in the way that I wanted. My hon. Friend knows that the Select Committee on Procedure is looking into European matters; so is the Select Committee on European Legislation. I am holding discussions with both Committees and I hope that we shall be able to improve the way in which the House considers these important issues.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: In view of the Government's response at 3.30 this afternoon to the Select Committee on the Environment's report on toxic waste—when the Government clearly rejected the Committee's recommendation to establish an environmental protection agency, which will lead to anxiety that the Government are not concerned about environmental matters—will the Leader of the House ensure that a debate is held on that important report and the Government's response to it at the earliest possible date?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes, I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is an important matter to which we must return. I cannot promise an immediate debate. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will study the Government's response to the Select Committee's report with as much care as he has studied the report.
Mr. Barry Porter: I regret my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) who asked for a debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That is a matter of great constitutional importance. I did not understand my right hon. Friend's reply. If there is no time for a debate on that matter, surely there must be time for an early debate on the progress that is being made towards setting up an inter-parliamentary union between Dublin and London. If not, why not?
Mr. Wakeham: I have not in any way rejected a debate on the Anglo-Irish agreement, but I cannot promise one in the immediate future. I welcome any moves to improve
1102
co-operation and understanding between our two Parliaments, and the establishment of a joint British-Irish inter-parliamentary body to discuss matters of mutual interest will be very helpful. But I should emphasise that only the first steps have been taken to agree that in principle there should be such a body and to set out its broad framework. Any debate should await further progress on that.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Is the Leader of the House aware that a 1275 statute at Westminster guarantees free elections, and the Representation of the People Act 1983 guarantees electoral registration, yet figures show that the poll tax is forcing the electoral register to collapse in Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Edinburgh and other parts of the country? In view of that, can we have a debate to discuss whether the Government wish to get rid of the franchise by changing the right to vote or whether they should get rid of the poll tax to re-establish the franchise?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept for a moment the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Therefore his request for a debate is likely to fall on rather deaf ears. However, I recognise that he raises important issues. I wish I could arrange a time for a debate but I regret that I cannot at present.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government in London? Is he aware that domestic rates have increased by more than 60 per cent. in Haringey and by more than 30 per cent. in Ealing and Brent compared with increases in Conservative-controlled authorities of 7.7 per cent.? Does that not demonstrate that only Conservative councils give value for money and provide decent services?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend in wanting a debate on London matters. I hope that I can arrange such a debate in the not too distant future.
Mr. Bob Cryer: In view of the Recruit affair in Japan, which led to the resignation of Prime Minister Takeshita, should we not examine our own organisation of recurring financial interests, have a debate on the Register of Members' Interests and consider tightening up the rules, so that, for example, people have to declare an interest at Question Time and the amount of money that lobbyists pay, mostly to Conservative Members, is also declared and that the practice whereby Members of Parliament put down many written questions at a cost of up to £200 each and get subsidised information from the taxpayer is brought to a halt? As the Leader of the House will agree, it is not fair that private organisations should be subsidised by the taxpayer through paying Members of Parliament.
Mr. Wakeham: Certainly some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised are a clear abuse of our procedures. It is a matter for the Select Committee that is charged with examining these matters to make any recommendations, which the House will then consider.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend find a time for a major debate on local government finance so that we can underline the strengthening case for the introduction of the community charge, particularly in Nottinghamshire, and draw the attention of a wider public

1103
to the dramatic and appalling consequences were the Labour party to introduce its new two-tax system for local government, which would adversely affect ordinary folk on average incomes in my constituency?
Mr. Wakeham: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I recognise the strength of his argument. Unfortunately, I have yet to see the precise details of any alternative form of local government finance that the Opposition may propose. Therefore I cannot comment on the specific point he raised. However, the Government are convinced that the community charge is the fairest means of raising a contribution from local residents for the provision of local services.
Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members would like to have a look in the Chamber at the Government's proposals for selling Girobank at the knock-down price of £130 million to the Alliance and Leicester building society? When the final details of the sale have been hammered out, will he arrange for a statement to be made in the House and not leave details in the announcement to be slipped out in the form of a written answer to an unheard of Conservative Member, as happened last week? Is he aware that there is great concern about the 6,000 jobs at Girobank in Bootle and is he aware that no assurances have been given by the Government that the sale will safeguard those jobs? Surely such a major privatisation proposal, which is a failure because the bank has been sold at a knock-down price and the taxpayers are suffering, should be the subject of a statement in the House so that we can question the Minister concerned, especially as legislation was not required for the privatisation?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest in the matter, so it behoves him not to put his question in an explosive and extreme fashion that would cause unnecessary fear. I recognise his concern, but I do not accept his premise that the business is being sold at a knock-down price. I will refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and see what can be done.
Mr. Michael Brown: With regard to the timetable motion proposed for the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill next Wednesday, may I urge my hon. Friend not to be over-generous with the time necessary because, as those of us who have served in Committee thus far have seen, the Labour party does not want to debate the real issues? Is my right hon. Friend aware that just an hour ago I did a radio interview for BBC Scotland and the Labour party refused to debate with me on that programme? It is clear that my right hon. Friend does not need to be over-generous. Clearly, the Labour party does not want to debate the Bill in the House, in Committee or even through the media.
Mr. Wakeham: In my timetable motion I am seeking to provide adequate time for proper consideration of the outstanding parts of the Bill. I expect that Opposition Members will criticise the motion for not giving enough time and if my hon. Friend catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he may be able to make his point in the debate.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Are these exchanges about the Government's latest proposal to
1104
disrupt education in Scotland not proof positive that such legislation should be considered in a directly elected Scottish Parliament, unencumbered by hon. Members from Gainsborough and Horncastle, Brigg and Cleethorpes or anywhere else south of the border? Will the Leader of the House let us into a secret? Was the guillotine proposal discussed in Committee Room 11 late on Tuesday night when Tory members of the Committee—English and otherwise—were apparently joined by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) over a bottle of champagne? Were such discussions—
Mr. Michael Brown: It was Room 12.
Mr. Home Robertson: I am grateful for that correction. Were such discussions wholly consistent with the Scottish National party's intentions to disrupt progress on the Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: If glassess of champagne were going, I wish that the hon. Gentleman had told me about it beforehand, rather than afterwards.
Mr. Ernie Ross: Was the right hon. Gentleman discussing tactics with her?
Mr. Wakeham: It is hardly likely that I can give a report of a meeting at which champagne was drunk when I did not know about the champagne. I am less than likely to know what happened at the meeting. All I can say is that this is a unitary Parliament and Conservative Members did not complain when the Labour Government used their Scottish majority to timetable the 1976 Education Bill, which severely damaged education in England and Wales. I see no reason why Scottish Members should complain that we are using our English majority to improve Scottish education for the Scottish people.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us who served in Committee are teetotal and that, therefore, if champagne was going around, we were unable to participate? However, is my right hon. Friend aware that the reason why we were debating late at night was that the Labour party was so badly organised that it did not know how to handle matters when the Government said that they accepted Opposition amendments in principle, but believed that they were flawed and would have to be brought back on Report in a manner that was more acceptable? In addition, the Government accepted amendments, yet Opposition Members kept the Committee sitting for hours discussing matters that could have been dealt with quickly. We were, therefore, unable to get on with matters that should have been dealt with. That is why the guillotine is necessary.
Mr. Wakeham: No one has greater admiration for my hon. Friend than I do but I sometimes find that he is not the most unbiased observer of the scene in Committee. However, I have heard what he says and I look forward to the debate next week.
Mr. David Curry: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate before the Madrid summit on proposals currently before the European Community? If the proposals really do represent such an important new initiative and a departure for the Community, and if their constitutional implications are so considerable—both of which propositions are true—surely hon. Members of all shades of opinion should have an opportunity to express their views.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I cannot promise him in specific terms the debate for which he has asked but we shall seek an opportunity of discussing those important matters when we have the time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I give an unreserved and genuine welcome to the fact that the Prime Minister held a seminar on global climatology yesterday? Possibly next week may we have an answer to the question that was put by the chiefs of the Kayaipo people who were in the Gallery earlier this afternoon, Megaron and Pai-ikani, who were seen by you, Mr. Speaker, and who are serious men whose forests—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about business for next week.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House tell me what the Government are going to do as a result of the seminar and other discussions about the rain forests? Will the Leader of the House persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer—[Interruption.] This is a very important subject. Will the right hon. Gentleman persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tell Parliament what instructions are being given to the British director of the World Bank on these delicate and sensitive issues?
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the seminar held by by right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Downing street yesterday. It enabled her and other Ministers to hear at first hand the opinions and advice of some of the foremost experts on climate change. Although there are many uncertainties about climate change, and especially about its effects on particular regions and countries, there was a consensus that measures such as the use of non-fossil fuels as an energy source, more efficient use of energy, better forestry practice and the phasing out of CFCs all have roles to play in ensuring the success of international measures. It was a successful seminar.
Mr. James Hill: My right hon. Friend will have heard earlier that one of our honourable colleagues was protesting about the length of time that it has taken to hold debates on the European Parliament and I have to agree, but only to the extent that, to my knowledge, we have never discussed in this House two other important European institutions, the Council of Europe and Western European Union. May I remind my right hon. Friend that it is the 40th anniversary of the Council of Europe in May and that Finland is joining the council of Europe in May, which will then comprise 23 countries and be almost twice the size of the European Parliament? In addition, Western European Union has recently been joined by two other countries, Spain and Portugal, making nine countries in all and making it very much a part of the burden-sharing for NATO defences, yet to my knowledge there has never been any time set aside, either by the Opposition, who should be interested in this, or by the Government to discuss some of its important documents, especially that on transfrontier television satellite broadcasting which, as my right hon. Friend knows, our Government picked up in its entirety. Will my right hon. Friend give a little time to those two important institutions?
Mr. Wakeham: I would like to be able to because it would enable my colleagues at the Dispatch Box to pay
1106
tribute to my hon. Friend and others who have served on those important institutions. As I am having enough difficulty in finding time for foreign affairs debates and for debates on European matters, I cannot be too optimistic about a special debate on the subject that my hon. Friend has raised. However, as several of the subjects that those bodies have considered come up under other guises, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to contribute to those debates.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Does my right hon. Friend think that it might be helpful to arrange a debate on industrial relations bearing in mind the likelihood of a dock strike? Would this be a suitable opportunity to find out what Labour's policy really is? Some of us cannot quite believe that it can be that enunciated by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who said that it would enthusiastically support such a strike.
Mr. Wakeham: I can see that that would be a useful debate and we might learn something. On the other hand, we might not. I wish that I could find time for it, but I cannot just at the moment.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Can I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 767, which calls for a debate next week on the very urgent matter of the proposed strike by London Underground from 8 May bearing in mind the serious inconvenience to Londoners that this will cause, as well as the great damage to London's economy that will ensue?
[That this House strongly deplores the proposed all out strike of London Underground staff from 8th May with the severe inconvenience and suffering it will cause for the London public and the economy of London; and urges all concerned to think again and to continue to try to resolve their problems round the negotiating table, remembering that no problem is too large to be insoluble by responsible and fair negotiations.]
Will he give the House an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the whole problem of London Underground manning and services, but particularly this most unwanted strike over a matter which could, I am sure, be solved with good will on both sides?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend. I certainly welcome his motion and regret that the Underground station staff have decided to pursue their grievances through industrial action rather than negotiations. The resolution of this dispute is, of course, a matter for the board and management of London Underground Ltd. I regret that I do not see myself being able to find time for a debate in the immediate future but I very much hope that negotiations will be resumed and the matter resolved.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement which he has made today about the guillotine motion in respect of the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill will have come as the greatest relief to the Scottish Labour party, whose members have been knocked all about the ring by my hon. Friend the Minister in the Standing Committee and whose incompetence and lack of convincing argument have been daily increasingly exposed to the Scottish people? If any evidence of this were necessary, at the moment there is not a single Labour member of that Committee in the Chamber.
Mr. Wakeham: I expect there will be on Wednesday when we discuss the matter and I think we had better keep these matters for discussion on that occasion.
Mr. Michael Irvine: As another member of the Committee on the Self-Governing Schools etc. (Scotland) Bill, may I assure my right hon. Friend that the hours were long and the allocations of champagne that have been referred to extremely modest? In fact, his timetable motion is a kindness to members of the Labour party in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) rightly says, they are simply not present in the Chamber at the moment. It would be a kindness to them to get them out of the confusion and chaos into which they have sunk.
Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous words to the Opposition.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Does the Leader of the House agree that the contribution by the hon. Member
1108
for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) merely illustrates the desperate straits to which the Labour party has reduced the Committee? Will he take up the suggestion by his hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) regarding consultation with the minority parties? Will he consult with the Committee of Selection about discharging the Labour party members for their incompetence and let the rest of us have a sensible discussion on these matters?
Mr. Wakeham: I am all for consultation and discussion and I will see to it that the hon. Gentleman is consulted.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Security Service Act 1989.

2. British Railways Act 1989.

Points of Order
Mr. Hugh Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of Question Time. No doubt you too were depressed by the Scottish wrangle during Business Questions. May I lift your spirits by asking again whether you have any further guidance after the slight confusion at Question Time on Tuesday and also today, when maybe other hon. Members were, like myself, further bemused when you selected a questioner who was not rising to his feet to put a question? On the assumption that you are not now in the process of developing new metaphysical forms of questioner selection—and I appreciate the difficulties in the Chair—can I ask your guidance as to our reversion to normal practices?
Mr. Speaker: I made a mistake on Tuesday. We were proceeding rather rapidly. There was a good deal of confusion, and I called an hon. Member out of sequence. It is difficult when dozens of hon. Members are rising. A list is kept of hon. Members who are rising. The hon. Member whom I called today was rising, but he did not get to his feet as rapidly as I had expected.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: At columns 967 and 968 of yesterday's Hansard, I referred to a question involving the clearance or otherwise by Downing street of Sir Leon Brittan's—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is this the matter which the hon. Member raised yesterday? I am considering the matter and I will write to him. I think that he knows that. I have not yet been able to do so.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 15 MAY
Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Andrew Mitchell

Mr. Michael Colvin

Mr. John Butterfill

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That the proposals described in the unnumbered explanatory memoranda submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 15th and 27th October 1987 and 25th November 1987 on negotiations between the European Community and Japan under GATT Article XXIV.6, on 15th October 1987 on such negotiations with Argentina and on 21st March 1989 on such negotiations with Canada be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Preservatives in Food (Scotland) Regulations 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 581) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Orders of the Day

  Children Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  [Relevant documents: Second Report from the Social Services Committee of Session 1983–84 on Children in Care (HC 360-I), Government Response thereto (Cmnd. 9298) and Second Report from the Social Services Committee of Session 1988–89 on the Children Bill (HC 178).]
  Mr. Speaker: A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I therefore propose to apply a limit of 10 minutes to speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock. I hope that hon. Members who may be called before that time will bear that limit broadly in mind.
  4.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am particularly pleased to be able to introduce to the House, following its successful passage through the other place, such an important and keenly awaited Bill—a Bill which is the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform of child law to have come before Parliament in living memory. I am delighted that the House is so well filled for this occasion.
  It is a Bill motivated by our overriding concern to put in place an effective legislative framework to ensure the welfare of children. At present, children's legislation is confusing, piecemeal, outdated, often unfair and, in important respects, ineffective—most notably when it comes to our ability to protect children at risk. The Social Services Committee's report entitled "Children in Care" in the 1983–84 Session recognised that, and recommended the thoroughgoing review of the body of statute law concerning children which, in turn, led to our 1987 White Paper entitled "The Law on Child Care and Family Services".
  This Bill follows directly from that White Paper, but it has been reviewed and revised in the light of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss's report on events in Cleveland and, of course, in the light of other comments that have been made both within and outside the House. It also integrates the private and public law relating to children into a single rationalised system, as recommended by the committee, and it now incorporates the reforms of guardianship and custody recommended by the Law Commission. It also bears upon private and public law. I am glad to have the assistance of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General during the debate, and I hope that that will be to the advantage of the House.
  As I hope I made clear, we have high ambitions for this Bill. We hope and believe that it will bring order, integration, relevance and a better balance to the law—a better balance not just between the rights and responsibilities of individuals and agencies, but, most vitally, between the need to protect children and the need to enable parents to challenge intervention in the upbringing of their children. Recent well-publicised cases, including the tragic cases of Kimberley Carlile, Doreen Mason and the events in Cleveland in 1987, have graphically shown the consequences of getting that balance wrong. Of course, of itself, legislation cannot stop

  1111
  such tragedies, but we hope that a clear legal framework will help to make more likely clear-eyed judgments by key people involved in child welfare, whether they are in social services departments, health authorities, the police, education or the courts.
  So, as I have said, the Bill is first and foremost an attempt to establish a unified and consistent code of law covering the care and upbringing of children in both the private and public domains. We aim to provide a comprehensive and comprehensible framework of powers and responsibilities that we hope will secure our central goal, which I think would be the central goal of all of us, that children receive the care, upbringing and protection that they deserve.
  Two basic principles run through the Bill. First, there is an improved statement of the welfare principle governing court decisions in respect of children; that is, the child's welfare must be the paramount consideration. All courts in reaching all decisions about the care and upbringing of children must do what is best for the child. Secondly, we are proposing major reforms of the law governing parental responsibility, guardianship and the court's powers to make orders in respect of children in family proceedings. The Bill's emphasis on the primary function of parenthood will, we hope, sharpen our perceptions and highlight the obligation on parents to care for their children and bring them up properly.
  The first parts of the Bill deal with new provisions in private law. New orders are introduced to reflect our emphasis on encouraging parents to participate fully in the child's upbringing.
  Much of the remainder of the Bill deals with our proposed reform of the public law on children. It follows, as I have already said, the guiding principles set out in our 1987 White Paper. First, parents should be responsible for bringing up their children, but local authorities and other agencies should be ready to help when this reduces the risk of family breakdown. Secondly, such services should be provided in voluntary partnership with parents and in a way that promotes family relationships as fully as possible.
  Thirdly, a transfer of the parents' responsibility for caring for a child to a local authority should require a court order following due legal process and the court being satisfied that that is in the interests of the child. Fourthly, in such proceedings parents and children should have full party status and representation. Fifthly, emergency powers to remove a child at serious immediate risk should be of short duration and subject to court review if challenged. Sixthly, where local authorities are caring for a child away from home, their powers and responsibilities, and those of the child's parents in those circumstances, should be clear-cut.
  In clarifying and improving child care law in line with these principles, the Bill has a number of key provisions. It rationalises local authorities' responsibilities towards children in need, including disabled children and their families. It proposes fairer court procedures for parents and children, improved rights of access to children in care and clarification of local authorities' responsibilities to children they look after.
  A vital part of striking the right balance is the introduction of a new emergency protection order to replace the present place of safety order. This will give those with parental responsibility a right to challenge the order, and power for the court to give directions on access and medical examinations.
  1112
  We also aim to restrict the use of wardship as a means of giving local authorities compulsory powers over a child. In regard to court jurisdiction, the Bill outlines arrangements for child care cases to be heard at the level of court appropriate to the complexity of the case.
  Mr. Max Madden: In the opening passages of his speech the Minister has been talking, understandably, in terms of children and parents. He has not made any reference so far to the rights of grandparents. Will he address himself to that aspect?
  Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I can satisfy him later when I make it clear that there will be a broader definition of party status in the proceedings than children and their parents. If he will bear with me, I shall come to that point; I acknowledge that it is significant.
  It is a complex Bill. So as not to outstay my welcome and so that as many hon. Members as possible may make a contribution, I hope to provide in a limited period a clear account of the Bill's main aspects. Obviously, in a sensible time scale I shall not be able to cover all the details, which is why I look forward, as does my hon. and learned Friend, to careful consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  I need hardly say that I hope and believe that the constructive and non-partisan approach which marked the Bill's passage in the other place will be repeated here. I have great respect for the hon. Member for Monk lands, West (Mr. Clarke), who leads for the Opposition on these issues. I hope that we shall have a happy passage of the Bill, without in any way diminishing the critical scrutiny given to it. I should like to make it clear that we shall be receptive to contributions and we shall not hesitate to make changes if they appear right. The Bill was improved during its passage through the Lords and I dare say that there is room for further improvement here.
  From the general reception that the Bill has received, I am encouraged to hope that we have struck something like the right note. Inevitably, a number of outside organisations are still suggesting amendments. We shall come to those in due course. I hope that, when we have finally done our work in the House, we shall have played a part in the passage of a piece of legislation that can be hailed as a landmark of social legislation in this country. That should be our aim, because Parliament will not return to the issue for a long time. The Bill will be an important and significant milestone that may point the way for many years to come.
  There is one representation that I know concerns a number of hon. Members; indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) raised it with me privately this afternoon. I believe that it would assist if I were to say that a number of hon. Members wrote to me following representations from the Church of England Children's Society concerning services for runaways. I am happy to confirm the Lord Chancellor's undertaking that an amendment will be tabled at a later stage to give effect to the proposal in the White Paper that organisations temporarily looking after children who have run away could be specified and then exempted from liability for the offence of harbouring in defined circumstances. I hope that that meets the point. Those who have written will be delighted to know that they have not written in vain. I hope that that shows the kind of spirit in which we shall approach these matters.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that assurance. Of course, a limited number of organisations will fit the bill, and those which are exempted will need specifying carefully. Will my hon. Friend give his assurance of that, too?
  Mr. Mellor: That is why I said that we shall want to define the circumstances clearly. I shall look forward to assistance from my colleagues on the Committee in ensuring that we get that right in the amendment.
  In the Bill, we have set down in outline a new scheme of concurrent jurisdiction for all children's proceedings. I am afraid, however, that in that respect the Bill still lacks some final details; indeed, there are one or two other provisions that have been sought that I believe will be welcomed but that we have not as yet been able to add to the Bill. That is partly attributable to the fast pace that we set ourselves following Cleveland and partly to the prolonged indisposition of the senior parliamentary draftsman, who has done such good work on the Bill. I assure the House that we shall bring forward the remaining matters in good time for there to be a full discussion on all of them in Committee and on Report.
  Mr. Keith Vaz: On the point of concurrent jurisdiction and clause 67, why did the Government not think it appropriate to introduce a clause setting up a family court?
  Mr. Mellor: This is a reform of the law relating to children, and is not intended to be a reform of the legal structure. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that there are provisions that allow for reallocation of cases from one court to another, which, as he knows as an experienced lawyer, is not possible under the present arrangement. One authority has said that that is the family court in embryo. It is for others to say whether that is a fair description. There are changes to the mechanism from which I believe those who are in favour of family courts could take some comfort.
  This is already a bulky Bill. It is a major reform of the substantive law. It is not intended to be a reform of the legal structure. I appreciate that many hon. Members in all parts of the House want to see a change in the legal structure. I do not believe that the Bill gives them any discouragement; I could say that it gives them some encouragement.
  Without more ado, I shall give a brief account of some of the principal aspects of the Bill, which I hope will help the House. Parts I and II deal with the private law, on which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is the authority. They establish the general welfare principle, to which I have already adverted. The requirement is that the child's welfare should be the paramount consideration. Following on from that, all orders about children should be made only if they contribute positively to the child's welfare.
  Clauses 2 and 3 bring up to date and elucidate the nature and incidence of parental responsibility. A parental responsibility order in clause 4 repeats the existing law in enabling a father of an illegitimate child to achieve full parental status and also allows the mother and the father to achieve the same effect by formal agreement without recourse to the courts. That is a helpful change. Clause 5 also makes some significant changes to the law on guardianship.
  1114
  Part II of the Bill introduces four new orders relating to children—the residence order, the contact order, the specific issues order and the prohibited steps order. They replace the present orders for custody, legal custody, care and control and access that are on the statute book. The new orders will seek to concentrate the minds of the parties and of the courts on the concrete issues relating to the day-to-day care of the child. They are designed to encourage parents to continue to participate fully in the child's upbringing, subject only to any particular matter provided for by a court order.
  We hope that the new orders will be found more approachable and more workable than the present arrangements. We also propose changes in deciding who may apply for orders, which relates to a point that was made earlier. In general, anyone who has parental responsibility for the child may apply for any order as of right. The court, whether prompted or not, may itself make any of the orders in family proceedings if it thinks fit, save where there is a local authority involved.
  Clause 10 adopts a general presumption that delay in deciding children's cases prejudices a child's welfare and provides for the courts to draw up timetables and to give directions to ensure that they are kept to. Those of us who have been in the law as well as those who have not—it is not a well-kept secret—know that delay is endemic in our system. The Bill means to ensure that there is no delay in vital matters affecting children. Finally, clause 14 introduces a new order, the family assistance order, allowing a court welfare officer to advise, assist and befriend any member or members of the family taking account of the interests of the child. It replaces the existing family proceedings supervision order.
  Let us consider the public provision—the public law. If any one issue makes this legislation necessary and urgent, it is the need to ensure that the most vulnerable children are not let down by indecision—that is, a failure to act when the signs of abuse are there, or, of course, by sanctioning over-zealous interference. We want to ensure that, as Lord Justice Butler-Sloss counselled in her report, the child is always treated as a person and not just as an object of concern.
  Part III and schedule 2 deal with the powers of local authorities to promote the welfare of children and to help prevent family breakdown. We believe that their provisions will improve and consolidate the present law. I want to stress the emphasis in the provisions on the family, preventive work and voluntary partnership. Local authorities will have a new duty to promote the upbringing of children in need by their families, so far as this is consistent with their welfare duty to the child himself.
  Among the services which will be picked out for the first time as having to be provided by local authorities on such a scale as they consider appropriate—we think that it is a matter for them—in order to discharge their general duty to children in need and their families is day care for under-fives. We are considering a proposal from the other place that local authorities should keep under review the provision of such facilities, consulting, of course, the local education authority. We intend to strengthen what is at present a power of local authorities in clause 16 to provide care and supervised activities for older children outside school hours.
  Part III also clarifies the responsibility of local authorities in relation to the children they are looking after, whether under voluntary arrangements or as a result

  1115
  of compulsory care proceedings. The local authority will have an absolute duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child looked after by it, to review his needs at specified intervals, to promote contact between the child and his family and to consult the family on decisions. It will also have to establish a procedure with an independent element for considering complaints. I hope that those are in line with the common-sense views of hon. Members in all parts of the House.
  Local authorities will also have enhanced responsibilities for preparing children they are looking after for when they leave care, and for helping them and other children who are accommodated away from home at the age of 16 after they leave that accommodation. We cannot, however, go as far as the Social Services Committee would like by requiring local authorities to provide assistance, including cash help for care leavers, which would duplicate provision under the social security system. That is because of the improvements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security announced recently in benefit arrangements for 16 and 17-year-olds who are living independently. That matter is being kept under review by the Department of Social Security.
  Let me turn, without further ado, to what are perhaps the most vital parts of the Bill—parts IV and V. Part IV makes major reforms in the processes for compulsory intervention in the care and upbringing of children. A court order under the statutory scheme will in future always be required. New grounds for care and supervision orders will focus on significant harm to the child, including the likelihood of such harm, and will apply in family proceedings as well as in care proceedings. Where anticipated harm is the issue, the new grounds will make it unnecessary for local authorities to continue to resort to wardship.
  Rules of court will give effect to the White Paper undertaking that any person, including the child, whose legal position could be affected by the proceedings will be entitled to party status. I am happy to tell the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) that this will include those grandparents who wish to retain or take over care of a child. Parents will now be able to obtain full party status without the need for the court to rule that the child and his parents should be separately represented. The present position on legal representation of the child will be maintained, and arrangements will be made to speed the granting of legal aid to parties in care proceedings. We shall also provide for appeal rights, advance disclosure of documents, access to records, and so on, in line with the White Paper.
  I hope that this shows that we have responded to points that have keen made to us. This is a practical Bill. It is not full of rhetorical flourishes, but is full of the practical experience of those who have appeared in the courts and know the practical difficulties that arise in these cases.
  Part IV also makes it clear that the effect of a care order is to give parental responsibility for the child to the local authority looking after him. On parental access to children in care, we are putting right the present legislation by providing that the court can make an order about contact, whether or not contact has been stopped or prevented—at the moment, the only circumstances in which a court may intervene. We think that that is an arbitrary restriction, which should be removed. A further major improvement is that a guardian ad litem will have to be appointed by the court to safeguard the child's interests in all care
  1116
  proceedings, including those arising in family proceedings, unless—we regard this as an exceptional circumstance—the court considers such an appointment unnecessary. At present, appointments are made only where there is a conflict of interest between the child and the parents. We say that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a guardian ad litem should be appointed right from the outset.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: One of the concerns expressed to me by people practising in this area arises from the fact that guardians ad litem will have to be appointed on day one. At present, it often takes two months before they become available. Will the Minister ensure that there are sufficiently trained people? Those people will be drawn mostly from the ranks of Social workers. Their ranks will be diminished and will therefore have to be replenished before the Bill is brought into operation so that there is not a gap between what the law requires and what a local authority can provide.
  Mr. Mellor: Indeed, we have proposed changes. The hon. Gentleman might like to cast his eye over them and let me know whether he thinks they meet the concerns. Actually, we propose some quite significant changes in the administration and management of panels of guardians ad litem, because there has been some criticism as to whether the fact that a guardian ad litem is drawn from a local authority that might be concerned with the matter leads to a conflict of interests.
  That is why the Bill provides that the Secretary of State will have power to require, in regulations, that panels be based on groupings of authorities. That will be building on existing co-operative experience in some areas. We hope that the distancing of panel management from individual authorities will reduce the risk of conflict. Obviously, training and having the machine ready to move into operation will be of the essence. I hope that we have got that right.
  The major reforms to the statutory framework for the emergency protection of children—of all issues, perhaps the most central in the minds of most of us—are contained in part V. As the House knows, the key reform is a new emergency protection order limited to a maximum of eight days, but extendable by the court to up to 15 days. It will be challengeable after 72 hours where the application was made ex parte, or even earlier if the court decides that only a very short order should be made. That will replace the present place of safety order, which can run for up to 28 days without the parents or the child having any opportunity to challenge it while it is in force. That is one of the lessons learned from Cleveland.
  The grounds will for the first time address the emergency nature of the situation and the need to remove the child, or to continue to keep the child in a safe place, in order to protect it. The holder of the order, who will usually be a local authority social worker or officer of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—whose quality and status we accept—is given parental responsibility for the child and required to take such action, but only such action, as is needed to protect the child while the order is in force. That includes not removing him from home if it is not necessary to do so, or returning him as soon as it is safe to do so.
  The court will also be able to give directions when the order is made, or at any time while it is in force, about medical examination and contact with the child—again,

  1117
  issues of particular difficulty in Cleveland, as we all recall. As at present, the order, when resisted, will be enforceable by a constable acting under a warrant, and police powers to order a child into protection will complement the new order. The local authority's duty to investigate cases of possible significant harm will be made more positive and other agencies will be required to co-operate in such investigations, as was recommended in the report on the tragic death of Jasmine Beckford. I am glad that the Social Services Committee, the Association of Directors of Social Services and, indeed, Lord Justice Butler-Sloss have endorsed those provisions.
  Let me deal now with a matter of concern to, I suspect, a number of hon. Members—a concern which was expressed in the other place and by the NSPCC. Welcome as the changes are to all, they may not deal with cases where there is serious but not urgent concern about a child who cannot be seen, and a separate medical assessment order may be needed for such cases. I am anxious to meet those concerns.
  One solution which has been discussed with the NSPCC and the Association of Directors of Social Services is to make it clear in the Bill that the authority's investigative duty will include a duty to try to see the child, and that an unreasonable refusal of access to a child, which prevents the authority or others acting on its behalf from completing the investigation, will also be a ground for an emergency protection order.
  Another way would be to go for a separate child assessment order, as was suggested in the Kimberley Carlile report. I am sure that there is a potential problem here in relation to the production of a child, but I have refrained from seeking to determine that issue until I have had the opportunity to hear hon. Members' views. We all need to be satisfied that the mechanisms proposed are sufficient to ensure proper protection for the child.
  I look forward to hearing hon. Members' views on the proposals which, clearly, we must get right as the Bill progresses through the House. I cannot think of a more important matter for us to get right. I undertake to take hon. Members' views fully into account and I shall not hesitate to make changes—including, if necessary, the introduction of a child assessment order—if that in the end seems to be the right answer. I shall come to no conclusion on that until I have heard the views of others.
  Dame Jill Knight: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the concern of many hon. Members that a large number of social workers are young and have not had the experience to know when a person is lying? When a mother says that her child is down at gran's, round at Auntie Mary's or playing outside, young social workers are placed in extreme difficulty, and their difficulty will be the need to recognise that.
  Mr. Mellor: I agree. As well as the inevitable apportioning of blame when things go wrong, we have a duty to try to ensure that we help people to get things right. That is why we must have a modern, comprehensible legal framework and proper training.
  Since Cleveland, we have made available a substantial grant of £7 million to back £10 million of total expenditure for training social workers. Through the area committees, which bring in all the different agencies, we have laid stress
  1118
  on inter-agency co-operation, which should help people in vulnerable positions to obtain the assistance they need to make the right decision. I am in no doubt that my hon. Friend is right, and we all have a duty to make things better.
  Mr. Vaz: I agree with the Minister that this is an important clause, but does he not agree with me that, as it is such an important clause, the Government should have spelt out in the Bill itself to whom notice should be given when the child is removed? Under clause 42, the Government reserve the ability to make rules at a later date. Surely the Minister agrees with me that these very important matters must be in the Bill.
  Mr. Mellor: I am not so sure that I do agree, because if rules are made and do not actually meet the technical point, they can be remade, whereas changing primary legislation is not easy. What the hon. Gentleman has raised is a perfectly legitimate Committee point. If, as I hope, the hon. Gentleman serves on the Committee, he can come to that point then.
  Parts VI to IX of the Bill deal with community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations. I pass over those points briefly because of the pressure of time, but we will come to them in Committee. In part XI, clause 64 is significant. It provides for the abolition of care orders as a disposal in juvenile criminal proceedings. People who follow these matters realise the significance of that provision, but I shall not go into it in greater detail now.
  I have already referred to court jurisdiction. I add to what I said earlier in response the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) who spoke about the family court: what we intend is that care jurisdiction in magistrates courts should be transferred from the juvenile court to what is now the domestic magistrates court so that care cases will be heard by those magistrates who also hear other domestic and family matters. So "domestic panels" will be called "family panels" from now on. Care cases will start before the magistrates, except where related proceedings are already in existence. Criteria will be prescribed and machinery provided to identify cases which need to be heard by superior courts. Already, the President of the Family Division and others are engaged in the machinery for concurrent jurisdiction, and that will obviously take some time.
  More generally, the powers to provide for the transfer of cases between courts and tiers of court will be used to enable proceedings concerning the same child and his family to be consolidated, and to avoid unnecessary delay or to expedite cases where the courts they are in are not able to hear the cases immediately or within a reasonable time. If experience shows that more cases need to be transferred up, there is power under the Bill to adjust the scheme and, if necessary, to allow cases to start at a higher level. This is the beginning of the machinery to move family cases around in a coherent way, which I hope will give some comfort to those who have argued for a family court.
  The intention of clause 69 is to prevent local authorities from using the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, including wardship, as an alternative to a care or supervision order or as a means of their otherwise obtaining compulsory powers over children. We say that the inherent power remains available to cover circumstances not provided for in statute, but it is not to be available

  1119
  as an alternative to care and supervision which is obtained in the normal way. We believe that this will represent a better use of the resources of the superior courts.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: I, for one, as a Cleveland MP, would be very anxious if wardship should disappear completely, because it was the one way in which we could get families out of the magistrates courts and away from junior courts into the High Court, where these often very delicate, complicated and heart-rending matters can be dealt with properly by a judge. I would like to see wardship continue as a reserve power, not just for the small minority of cases but for all cases because, as I will say later, I am not satisfied to see some of these matters dealt with at junior level by individual collections of magistrates.
  Mr. Mellor: I will listen with interest to what my hon. Friend says later. I know about the experiences that he and one or two of his colleagues went through at Cleveland. We must look at this provision in the light not of the old mechanism but of the new law and mechanisms I have described. Obviously, if my hon. Friend continues to have reservations, we shall have to look carefully at what he says.
  We hope that the Bill introduces a simplified and coherent body of law comprehensible not only to those operating it but also to those affected by its operations. We are committed to safeguarding the interests of all our children. We are trying to take a firm lead by setting the overall framework in this Bill, but we have drawn on the thinking of others, the recent report of the Social Services Committee, and so on. We have been grateful for the very approving noises coming from most bodies that have already considered the Bill, which raises important and sensitive issues which must be considered carefully. In no sense do we resent that level of detailed scrutiny.
  The noble Lord Mishcon, who leads for the Opposition in another place on this matter, called the Bill a children's charter, and I am happy to adopt that description. It is a charter of rights of children to have their welfare regarded as a primary concern. It must be a basic right of children in a civilised community to grow up without being abused. It must be a responsibility on all of us to step in and prevent that abuse when it happens, as we know it will and as it always has. We know that it happens too much today. We want to do something effective about it, and we are all united in that endeavour. I look forward to everyone involved working together to give effect to these rights. The welfare of children must remain the highest law for the public, as well as for the Government.
  4.58 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Minister has said, we have been helped by the fact that the Bill has been considered in another place, although that is not to say that the noble Lords got it exactly right, as we do not believe they did. We shall be raising a number of issues that have been pursued in another place by my noble Friends and other noble Lords. They must be greatly disappointed that, despite the superiority of their argument, they failed to persuade the Lord Chancellor on such matters as physical punishment in care, and only just persuaded him on the need for a helpful and practical approach to young people needing care. Here we have a chance to deal with that scandal and we shall seek to do it.
  1120
  At the outset, I want to ask the Minister about implementation. What are the Government's priorities? Will the Bill, as many fear, be implemented, as was previous legislation, in dribs and drabs? Surely the evidence is overwhelming that there should be no delay after all stages are completed, as the need for action is great indeed. This Bill has a substantial history of heartbreaking cases, interdepartmental reports, consultation papers, the report by Louis Blom-Cooper on the tragedy of little Kimberley Carlile, a report by a Lord Justice of Appeal on the Cleveland cases, a Government White Paper, and a Law Commission report. Against that background, we are now on Second Reading of the Bill in this place.
  The Bill is a welcome if belated measure that aims to resolve a wide variety of family issues about child care, parental responsibilities, social work practice, and laws governing family life.
  The Bill deals admirably with many matters, but with others less so, and some aspects have been woefully neglected. We applaud the Bill's intention to simplify and consolidate much legislation in a form that will meet the approval of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, yet we remain deeply disturbed about the Government's reluctance to introduce what would have been—despite the Minister's comments this afternoon—the most imaginative, far-reaching and positive reform in post-war child care legislation. I refer to the family court.
  The Government did not lack encouragement for making such a reform, which was clearly recommended by Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in her report on the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. A family court is urgently needed so that the delicate realm of family problems—which some courts today manage with less than speedy and wholly expert resolution—may be dealt with specifically, swiftly and expertly.
  We endorse the Government's recognition of the crucial years of childhood and of the importance of supporting families in need. We remain concerned about the Government's unwillingness adequately to fund effective preventive services and clearly to instruct local government to provide them. Clause 16 does not increase the priority given to day care for children, which is not a luxury but a sensible and essential resource that can help the family and prevent the strains and breakdowns that are so costly both in human and in material terms.
  Only one quarter of three and four-year-olds have either a full-time or part-time nursery place. We need more and better-regulated nurseries, child minders and other specialist day care services. Day care does not undermine family responsibility but allows the family the space and support that it often needs to make the family a happy arid healthy unit.
  The Bill leaves it to the discretion of local authorities to define and deliver what they consider to be adequate day care. We believe that local authorities need fair criteria for the provision of day care, so that the service encompasses not only families in crisis but all parents who would cope better with their family responsibilities and play their full economic role if a properly funded day care service existed.
  It is a matter of major concern to us that the Government show no sign of introducing better regulation on the licensing and training of day care providers in the private sector. Instead, there is talk of the Government deregulating that sector in respect of day care for children aged over five years. However, day care as we know it is

  1121
  not only about infants but is a crucial service for school age children in families needing support when schooling is not available.
  Children and youngsters should not be placed in the care of people and places that have not been properly inspected. We cannot expect parents to be the only or even the best judge of the competence and quality of carers in a deregulated private sector. We hope to persuade the Government to consider that aspect again. I look forward to hearing later from my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who hopes to speak on that subject in more detail.
  We welcome the Government's intention in clause 20 to address the needs of the 12,000 children who leave care at age 18 or thereabouts. Youngsters leaving home face a difficult time, but it is made especially traumatic for young people who have no family or parents to fall back on. We are astonished that the Government will not ensure that that group will enjoy the same level of social security as young people aged 25, who receive the full adult rate. Youngsters aged 18 who have no family and who leave care are as much in need, if not more so, of the higher adult level of benefit that their older peers receive when they are assumed to be independent of kith and kin.
  The scandal of the young homeless, especially in big cities, shocks many—including Barnardo's and Shelter, which estimate that there are 150,000 young homeless. The number grows, but no solution is yet in sight. The need for more resources, more support and the growing outrage at so many young lives being wasted must be recognised by the House. Many organisations help those young people, but they are overwhelmed by their numbers and are hampered by legislation. I welcome the Minister's announcement about an amendment, which we shall examine in detail, concerning runaway youngsters. Those youngsters are estranged from their parents for various reasons and live on the streets, with all the dangers that entails. They need support and security, and time to solve their problems. The Minister accepts that, and we welcome the tone of his comments this afternoon.
  Organisations that seek to help such youngsters will be acting illegally if they do not immediately notify those youngsters' whereabouts. Often, they need a little time to talk about their difficulties—and they must be sure that those helping them will not promptly be asked to return those youngsters to the people from whom they have run away. The Church of England Children's Society informs me that the law hinders its efforts to reunite children and adolescents with their families and to find them a safe place while they sort themselves out. In view of the Minister's announcement about an amendment, I hope that the House agrees that that is an area in which it can assist, by providing a necessary and lawful breathing space for helpers and for the hurt and unhappy youngsters concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends, will want to pursue that point.
  The Bill introduces new court procedures, new social work tasks, and a requirement for new expertise in seeking care orders that deal with rights, responsibilities, access, where children may be placed, and who may look after them. That amounts to a major challenge in the training of social workers and the courts in those new duties. The new
  1122
  emergency protection order, for example, will last a maximum of eight days, and there is a right of parental challenge after 72 hours. A social worker will have to investigate and guide the court not only in respect of the grounds of the order but in contacts with parents and medical or psychiatric examinations. Most local authorities will be compelled to reallocate resources and find additional staff time for those new obligations.
  Any reasonable assessment of those new tasks reveals that there remains an unreasonable expectation by the Government as to the ability of local authorities to finance staff training for those new demands. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will re-examine that aspect. Good planning, good preparation and good training will always win the day. The Bill sets the seal on child care and child protection for generations to come. It must not be introduced only to founder because of underprepared or poorly instructed staff in local authorities and in the courts.
  The Bill, elegant and straightforward in its aim, still leaves too much to fortune. It places an unhappy and worrying reliance on decisions still to be made by rules of court or by the Secretary of State. It appears that fundamental areas of regulation will be left to secondary legislation and will not benefit from parliamentary scrutiny. In those circumstances, rules of court will determine who will be party to care proceedings and when a child will have a right to party status in care proceedings. We believe that a child should automatically have a right to party status in care proceedings. Rules of court may also determine who will be notified of an emergency protection order. We think that that should be made clear in the Bill.
  Likewise, regulations to be made by the Secretary of State at some future date may define the notification procedure for private fostering arrangements. What is worrying about that is that a similar regulation-making power in the Foster Children Act 1980 was inserted, and regulations were not made. We support the view of the Save the Children Fund, which argues convincingly that there is an absolute need for regulations on private fostering to be inserted into primary legislation and not left in limbo, perhaps never to be introduced.
  Opposition Members believe that omissions from the body of the Bill, such as those that I have just mentioned, will introduce unnecessary uncertainty and variation throughout the care and court system. We shall press the Government strongly to encode those fundamental elements. In all, the Bill contains more than 20 regulation-making powers, which we believe must be re-examined with a view to the full incorporaton of such regulations in the Bill.
  We remain impressed by the Lord Chancellor's confidence that care cases will now move freely within the court structure, and will swiftly find their appropriate level and resolution. The Bill, however, does not specify how decisions will be reached, and what appeals may operate should a party wish to challenge the choice of court. We urge the Government to review the matter, and to say how the procedures will operate and how cases will be managed without delay, if only because confusion looms in that part of the Bill.
  We believe that the Bill must contain clear directives so that children and their families do not suffer unnecessary harm owing to a lack of resources and of firm regulation in court procedures. Their future should not hang in the

  1123
  balance of a yet unspecified set of adjustments and mere tinkerings with our over-burdened court system. Our children—our people—deserve better.
  The current set of changes will not resolve the present uneven service that operates in England and Wales. The present guardian ad litem service, for example, is patchy and variable, and requires urgent reform. Proper training and funding is needed, and the service should be independent and available at the same standard throughout the court system. That is clearly not the case at present, and we shall urge the Government to accept their obligation to improve this vital ingredient of current child care practice.
  In the absence of a family court, we must at the very least have access to the expert advice of guardians in every case that affects a child's future, and not just in the cases that any particular court considers relevant. If the Government acted with a will, they could start to build part of the court welfare services that would be needed to supply a future family court, and we hope that they will not waste that opportunity.
  Mr. Cryer: Representations have been made to me by a body that includes guardians ad litem. According to that body, the obligations in the Bill will increase expenditure to provide the service by two or three times. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that to provide the basis for the Bill's success such a resource must be provided by the Government.
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the Minister did not mention resources relating to such matters as guardians ad litem. I hope that that omission will be rectified before the end of the debate.
  Schedule 2 requires local authorities to seek payment from parents for the cost of keeping children in care, and that gives us real cause for concern. All the expert advice suggests that the exercise will often be more costly than is intended, owing to the administrative cost of chasing small amounts of money.
  Often children and young people go into care briefly to give their parents a much-needed break, especially children with severe handicaps. Such admissions to care are not frivolous but are part of a planned treatment programme, and should not normally incur a charge. Of course, parents need to know where they stand in relation to the service that they receive: in that context we welcome the Lord Chancellor's acknowledgement that written agreements are an integral part of a child's voluntary reception into care. Agreements should spell out clearly the responsibility of all parties. Nothing in the Bill, however, defines the nature of those agreed conditions. It should state that when a child is voluntarily received into care there should be a binding agreement about the procedures to be adopted for the child's discharge from care.
  As the Bill stands, a child could be inappropriately withdrawn from care by a parent without warning, which could be upsetting and dangerous for the child. We need to specify the conditions of a voluntary reception, and we hope that the Government will recognise, as we do, that coming into care voluntarily should be a planned and positive event.
  Although the Bill is generally considered well conceived in respect of its overall balance between children and their
  1124
  parents, some child care professionals believe that there is a serious gap that can be filled only by a new clause. That applies most notably to child protection.
  Let me briefly outline the problem as I see it. Quite often circumstances suggest grounds for suspecting that a child is in some kind of danger, but there might well be insufficient evidence to seek an emergency protection order. I think that the Minister would agree with that. The problem was recognised by Louis Blom-Cooper and his colleagues in their report on the tragic death in June 1986 of Kimberley Carlile. They recommended a child assessment order. The idea has been supported by some child care organisations, which argue for an order that would allow for the medical examination of a child without its removal from the family. That would certainly be less invasive of family life, and might help to prevent tragedies that have been all too familiar in recent years.
  We recognise—and the Minister touched on the issue this afternoon—that there is no overall agreement among child care professionals in this regard, but we very much hope that the Government will agree to explore the matter with us. We are deeply worried about the possibility that the frequent uncertainties and suspicions that surround potential child abuse may not be swiftly resolved through the proposed range of care procedures. What the Minister has said this afternoon confirms our belief that he shares our interest in the matter, and we look forward to hearing his comments at a later stage.
  Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend agree that the need for protection might arise in many circumstances and among many people in a way that we do not normally expect? I wonder whether his attention has been drawn to a report in The Independent on Tuesday this week. It concerns a visitor to this country who is travelling around the country subjecting some children —with the approval of their parents—to pain and trouble, with the intention of improving their physical and mental development by taking them to the limits of pain and endurance.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that it ought to be possible to stop the activities of people like Igor Charkovsky instantly, and that parents who are quite well off and well educated should be able to receive counselling in the same way as those living on council estates in my constituency?
  Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has made a useful point, and I hope that, given the wide support that the House has demonstrated, it will be pursued effectively in Committee.
  The nation's most precious resource is our children—that is, all children. Many people believe that the Bill will set the future of child care legislation and practice for generations to come. It is not too much to say that we shall not be forgiven if we get it wrong: we shall not be forgiven if we leave children without the protection, support and warmth of a loving home, which every child needs.
  We all believe that children's welfare must not become the football of politicians, or of anyone else. We believe, too, that the Bill must not become distorted by sectional interests. When the spoken word has been forgotten arid the headlines discarded, people will have to live with and make sense of the legislation. The Bill must therefore receive the constructive yet critical scrutiny of all who believe, as we do, that urgent and effective reforms are needed.

  1125
  We must look closely at what the family means today and at whether the Bill really meets the challenge of what parents and adults need in order to help them through the stresses, the breakdowns and the tragedies that can overtake the closest of homes. We need to think about how we can provide every child who needs it with the physical, emotional and social support to set them on the road to responsible adulthood. The Children Bill provides a rare opportunity for all of us to demonstrate our own responsibility for the future—a future that must provide new generations with the essential building blocks for a safe, caring upbringing that is the right of each and every child.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman referred to hon. Members on both sides of the House wanting to help to secure responsible parenthood. Will he comment on children in the care of local authorities who prove to be persistent offenders and the view of the courts that they need greater powers to deal with such cases? Does he agree that the courts should have more powers when local authorities appear to fail to control unruly children?
  Mr. Clarke: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's scathing comments about local authorities. If he serves on the Standing Committee, it may be possible for him to ensure that we make progress towards the establishment of family courts. Family courts in Scotland deal adequately with precisely the cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Whether we like it or not, society changes and, with it, family life. Statistics suggest that there is more divorce now than in the past. If the present trend continues, it is likely that one in five children will have divorced parents. One in seven families is a single-parent family, and 1·5 million children are living in a family that is headed by one parent. Nine out of 10 single parents are women. Over half of them are dependent on social security. Many of the remainder are trapped in low-paid jobs.
  I am not making a judgment on divorce or single-parent families. My point is that many families need more material help today—and immediately. For many, there has been an unimagined increase in material wealth in the past era, but the plain fact is that that wealth has not been distributed equally. During the last decade, many families have suffered a slow decline into poverty. As the rich have got richer, literally millions of families are living on the margins of life—on low incomes or social security benefits. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 6·5 million people in families with children live in or near poverty. Furthermore, it was reported to the Select Committee on Social Services in July 1988 that Government figures underestimate the number of households with below average incomes.
  What does that mean for children? One fifth of our population is under 16 years of age. A staggering 30 per cent. of children are living on the margins of poverty. We are talking about 3·5 million children. One in 10 children are estimated to be living in families where the head of the family is unemployed. While there has been more prosperity for some in this decade, for over 750,000 children there has been the experience of an unemployed parent, or parents, for over a year. Since 1979, according
  1126
  to the Child Poverty Action Group, there has been a 91 per cent. increase in children living on or below basic social security incomes. During the last decade there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of children living on family incomes that are below the average wage.
  Contrary to popular opinion, this is no nanny state. Nanny in the last 10 years may have increased the overall level of social security payments but, had the system remained unchanged by the Government, nanny would not have taken over £11 billion from the global social security budget since 1979.
  We debate the Children Bill knowing that nanny has been giving many of our families some nasty medicine in the last decade. Today families need more help than ever before. However, the Government refuse to provide clear instructions to local authorities on how to assess family need and what to do about it. There are no mandatory instructions to act. Certainly there is no mention of where resources will come from should a local authority wish to take up the Government's suggestion that they ought to identify need and do something about it.
  It is not possible to look at the family in isolation. Family life is never simply the private world of parents and children. The family is shaped and influenced by a wider society. Few, surely, will share the Prime Minister's view that there is no such thing as society. One of the most significant changes in society in recent decades is the number of women in paid work. More and more families rely on the woman's wage. New labour markets often seek women in preference to men. Over half of married women now work. Rosy notions of every family with a male breadwinner, a housewife, two children, a hatchback and a labrador are very much the ad-men's invention. Families come in different shapes and sizes, with different ethnic origins, with different expectations and with very different incomes and attitudes towards such notions as marriage and the family.
  We need a new system of co-ordinated welfare and legal provision to deal with the needs of today's families. The Bill makes a start in the right direction but it does not go far enough. For our part, we are stating clearly that the future of our most precious resource, our children, can be fully protected only by the development of a number of inter-related strategies—in health, education, housing and welfare. Although the Bill does not countenance the inclusion of wider policy changes, we hope to convince the Government that that is essential if we are to provide an effective and comprehensive service for our nation's children.
  We recognise the need for an effective and co-ordinated set of family policies. The need for such a policy was made clear by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, a decade ago in his comments to the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth. Similarly, we believe that the Government have not acknowledged that the success of the Bill will ultimately depend upon changes in other Government policies. Families cannot cope without the support of good schools, good health services and decent housing and, for those without a wage, a sufficient level of income to enable them to enjoy basic standards of living that the rest of us all too easily take for granted.
  The Bill is the beginning of a new era in child care services and is a welcome start to the creation of a proper family policy for England and Wales. We do not expect to get at this juncture and with this Government a fully

  1127
  fledged set of family policies, but we state clearly for all to hear that that is our aim for the future. For the present, we shall bring a constructive and positive view to the Bill.
  We urge the Government to join us in a spirit of co-operation when the Bill is considered in Committee. Improvements can be made to the new procedures. There are resource implications, from which we hope the Government will not shrink. In that context, the Bill is nevertheless a good Bill. The balance, in our view, is about right between parental responsibilities and children's rights.
  We hope to convince the Government that this major landmark in child care legislation should not be seen in years to come as a collection of good intentions that lay barren through meanness in funding and a lack of clear thinking on some of the clauses. We ask the Government to join us in a spirit of shared optimism that here in this House we can lay the cornerstone of a better future for so many of our children and their parents or carers. I hope that we shall all be able to say that considerations of funding and political advantage came second and children first.
  5.29 pm
  Dame Jill Knight: The position of Conservative Members resembles that of an army under attack from every side. Not just one missile but a multitude is aimed in our direction. Shot, shell and cannonballs whistle over our battlements and past our ears. The river is rising, the siege is biting and violent thunderstorms rage upon us. If it is not the doctors, it is the lawyers, the football supporters, the brewers or the anti-privatisation lobby. While that barrage will never deter us from doing what we believe is right, it is nice, just for once, to discuss a Bill where surely sweetness, calm and light can obtain. Surely we must be at one in our desire to improve the lot of unfortunate children.
  I dare say, having listened to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), that there will be some disagreement. But even when the hon. Gentleman says nasty things he sounds so nice because he is such a delightful man and uses that charming Scottish accent. None the less, his speech presages a few disagreements in Committee. Some will arise about matters that are not in the Bill and others will occur when its aims are thought better achieved in a different way. But in general I am hopeful about the passage of the Bill.
  I warmly welcome the central theme that the best interests of the child should govern court decisions. That is to be welcomed all the more because it is not a general rule. In abortion, experimentation on unborn children, I VF or other fertilisation techniques, the child is secondary. Tonight, for once thank God, the Bill states that the best interests of the child should govern court decisions.
  I also welcome the simplification of the law enshrined in the Bill. As was said in another place, the measure will repeal no fewer than seven post-war Acts, and several other Acts relating to children will be limited by the new provisions in the Bill.
  I welcome the emphasis on keeping families together. Local authorities are to be given powers to provide a service which might prevent the breakdown of families. I await with great interest more details of that service. At last we are getting away from the harm caused to society
  1128
  in the 1960s by Lord Jenkins' pressure for permissiveness in Britain. We are recognising the crucial importance to society of stable family life. When the Law Commission's report is acted on, I hope that there will be some changes to divorce rules, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Monklands, West, because divorce and the breakdown of families is the major cause of misery inflicted on children today. Of necessity, the Bill deals with the results and not the causes of that misery, but I welcome the fact that two important Departments of State are together on the Bill. I hope that the Solicitor-General's Department will be able to help the Department of Health in deciding what should be done to save a great many children from the misery that they presently have to bear when families break up.
  It is a comfort that the lessons of Cleveland have been learnt. We await with great interest the comments of hon. Members who have particular knowledge of that ghastly case. No longer will it be possible for children to be torn from the family home and kept away for weeks as happened under the truly disgraceful regime of Dr. Marietta Higgs. Care proceedings are to be made fairer for parents and children. The Bill is built around those five major points and hon. Members on both sides of the House must support its aims, at any rate.
  Of course there are a few criticisms. I share the view that it would have been much better to introduce family courts. I agree with the views expressed in another place that guardians ad litem must be independent of local authorities and be seen as such by parents. I read with great interest the debate in another place. The Lord Chancellor was clearly sympathetic to that view when he dealt with an amendment on the subject in another place on March 16 at column 398. Although the Lord Chancellor clearly agreed with the independence of the guardian ad litem, the amendment was not accepted because discussion on the consultation paper had not been completed. I do not know whether the discussion has now been completed, but I hope that the Lord Chancellor's Department eventually will administer a guardian ad litem scheme. If that happens—and there may be further amendments in Committee—it will be a useful step towards family courts.
  I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend a direct question about clause 16. The guidance on clause 16 states that the clause
  "requires local authorities to provide day care for children in need who are aged five or under and not attending school and enables them to provide such care or supervised activities as they consider appropriate for children who are attending a school."
  I entirely agree with that, but the next sentence is most enigmatic:
  "It also empowers local authorities to make such provision for children who are not in need."
  I do not understand that. If we are to make provision for children who are not in need, we will not have the money and resources for provisions which children need. The Bill will require much more money to be spent, so why on earth are we frittering it away on provisions which children do not need? I should like some enlightenment on that point because I must warn my hon. and learned Friend that universal pre-school education from the age of two will become very expensive. I am in favour of such help being available to one-parent families in which the mother has to go out to work to keep her family and the child needs the

  1129
  service, for one reason or another, but it does not make sense to provide that service to children who do not need it.
  I do not always trust local authorities. There have been recent cases of children becoming prostitutes while in local authority care and other recent cases of children being sexually abused by local authority staff while in care. I believe that now persons who have a police record for child molestation can no longer take posts under local authorities in child care without their records being known. We need to know whether that is now the case. Is my hon. and learned Friend confident that every possible safeguard has been built in to ensure that local authorities never abuse the role that society has given them as stand-ins for parents?
  It is only fair to say a word or two about the fact that the overwhelming number of local authority officers do a wonderful job. They must sometimes feel that they can never get anything right. In the baby Beckford case, they did not take enough action and in the Cleveland case they took far too much. Balance in this matter is very important. That is why I am worried about young and inexperienced social workers being called upon to perform balancing acts of judgment which would be difficult for older people. In addition, many social workers have big case loads and that has meant problems for children in care.
  Lines have to be drawn between stopping child sexual abuse and what happened at Cleveland, and between cruelty and discipline. To counter a point made earlier, I must say that I should certainly oppose any amendment that sought to prohibit spanking by parents. It would be absurd to try to pass a law that said that parents were not allowed in any circumstances to give a brisk tap from time to time on that part of the anatomy that the good Lord provided for the purpose. There is a great deal of difference between that and child abuse.
  I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will take on board the great concern of some of us about the Church of England "Children's Plea" because there is another side to the question. Many children run away from good homes and not all children tell the truth. If we are proposing to set up an arrangement whereby such children can be kept away from their parents willy-nilly and whereby their parents will not even be informed, we shall be in serious trouble.
  In a Bill of such complexity and importance, there are bound to be many questions, but my hon. and learned Friend can be absolutely assured of warm support for what he intends to do to help our children.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I have read the Official Report of the proceedings in the other place. With all due respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), with whom I rarely disagree, I must say without reservation that I gladly and warmly congratulate the Lords on the many hours of deliberation and concern devoted to the Bill. I must admit that I expressed concern when it was announced that the Bill was to start its passage in the other place, but one saw the House of Lords at its best in those discussions. No doubt my hon. Friend will make his points when the Bill goes into Committee and the
  1130
  Committee will perhaps rectify any points not rectified in the other place. Nevertheless, I regret that the Bill will not be debated in a Committee of the whole House because many hon. Members in the House today who are interested in the Bill and others who are otherwise engaged will not have the opportunity to serve on the Committee. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that we shall follow the Committee's deliberations closely and I wish its members God speed in bringing the Bill back adequately and suitably amended.
  There has never been a more important Bill before Parliament. It is an opportunity to lay the foundations for stable families, to minimise the disadvantages, emotional stress and trauma suffered by innocent children and to end for ever the despair, grief, frustration, torment, mental torture, and humiliation which follow the award of custody to the other parent by the judiciary. A rational, fair and compassionate approach to the rules for family disputes could change the public's attitude to families and parenting for the better. Many children will benefit by improvements in their behaviour, standards, judgment, relationships, loyalties, mental strength, creative talents, personalities, compassion for others and attitudes to crime and violence. All those factors mould the character of our country. They are a sound investment for the future and influence our potential to survive and progress in today's and tomorrow's world. By abolishing the uncivilised battle for possession of a child by two people who once loved each other, the Children Bill, which emphasises the importance of both mothers and fathers in child-rearing, will end the inhuman, callous and cruel practice of divorcing a child from one of his or her loyal and devoted parents.
  How many times have we interviewed constituents in our surgeries who are preparing for divorce? How many times have we witnessed the arguments between mother and father and looked across at the children involved in the dispute in despair, knowing that unless the couple make arrangements those children will be taken away from the love of one or the other parent? I have often witnessed that and I find it heart-breaking. I am fortunate to have been well and truly honoured with a faithful and kind wife and children, as well as grandchildren.
  How many of us, having secured a majority of votes from 60,000 to 70,000 constituents, become disillusioned when crucial issues which above all involve the children of today, the mothers and fathers of tomorrow and the grandparents of the future are left to be dealt with through ten-minute Bills or Adjournment debates, when representatives of the Press Gallery and the media are tucked up in their beds? Children, parents and grandparents who are seeking help, guidance and support are rarely aware that some hon. Members are interested in the issue and are constantly seeking ways to help them in trying to solve their problems and, whenever possible, trying to introduce measures to alter the law. I hope that our debate today will have the media coverage that it deserves and that it will inform all involved that Parliament—not the politics of it, but all caring and compassionate hon. Members—is here to make every possible attempt to express the cries for help, to respond to the pleas for carefully-drafted laws to help people and to assist in introducing measures to solve most of the problems that the present legislation has failed to solve.
  As has already been said, the Children Bill is a formidable piece of legislation to reform the law referring

  1131
  to children. It will help significantly in providing local authority services for children in need and for others requiring help. It will amend the present laws in respect of children's homes, community homes, voluntary homes and voluntary organisations and it will make provisions on fostering and adoption.
  It is not possible in the short time available to me to cover even briefly the Bill's numerous clauses and I am sure that hon. Members will understand if I concentrate on asking all concerned to look again at extending further rights to grandparents. On Wednesday 17 February 1988 I presented a ten-minute Bill—the Grandparents (Adoption of Children) Bill. The House agreed to its First Reading, but the Bill failed to achieve a Second Reading on 22 April and therefore made no further progress. Nevertheless, I secured an Adjournment debate on 27 May on children in care and placed on the record the need for further consideration of grandparents' rights. I also submitted early-day motion 792 in the last Session of Parliament, headed "Grandparents' Rights and Grandchildren", which stated:
  "That this House deplores the increasing frequency of grandparents being deprived of the right of access to, care, fostering or adoption of their grandchildren; notes with alarm the attitude of some social services employees; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to introduce early legislation to give legal rights to grandparents providing immediate right of access before children are taken into care and the right to be present or legally represented at any official hearing or inquiry regarding future access to, care, fostering and adoption of their grandchild or grandchildren."
  That early-day motion was supported by 331 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties. I draw it specifically to the attention of the House because with 650 hon. Members elected to serve in the House and entitled to take their seats, if 331 signed my early-day motion—a figure which could not include Mr. Speaker or yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues as Deputy Speakers, and which could not include Ministers, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition, senior Whips of either party and many others who could not sign an early-day motion—that means that an overwhelming majority of Members expressed the view that my early-day motion should be approved. If a majority of hon. Members declare their support—even for a early-day motion, of which many people take little notice—and their opinion that the Government should include such provisions in their legislation, the Government should, with the full support of the Opposition, ensure that such measures are introduced into law.
  Therefore, I am disquieted, concerned and more than disappointed to find that, after all the pressure that has been brought to bear and all the questions that have been asked of the Leader of the House at Question Time about the progress of the Children Bill, and because of the promise that early legislation would be introduced to implement or to introduce measures to implement the provisions of the early-day motion, little if anything on that subject has been incorporated in the Bill. My research has not only left me bitterly disappointed—it has led me to realise that perhaps the only way to secure those provisions is to highlight for those who may serve on the Committee the clauses that I should like them to consider. I hope that you will bear with me in this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take too much time because many other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to draw this matter to the attention of those on my own
  1132
  Front Bench as I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West did not express much concern about grandparents when he might have spent a considerable time dealing with that issue.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I have enormous respect for my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for giving way. One of my criticisms of the conclusions reached by the Lords, although it is not a criticism of the work that their Lordships and especially Labour colleagues carried out, was precisely the point that my hon. Friend has made—that that issue is not covered in the Bill. I happily give my hon. Friend the unqualified assurance that we shall fight in Committee and table amendments or new clauses to sustain the excellent point that he has made.
  Mr. Powell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know that I shall be more satisfied with that promise than with the promises that I have received from the Leader of the House and other quarters. I thank my hon. Friend very much.
  Although I have read practically every word that was uttered in the other place, which is why I express my gratitude for the work that their Lordships have accomplished, the only mention that I found of grandparents was on 6 December 1988, when Lord Meston stated:
  "I ask that Clause 70 will not diminish the hard-won status of grandparents in care proceedings. In practice grandparents who are willing and able to help are still too often overlooked in these cases. At first sight, one criticism of the Bill before us is that it may make matters too difficult for grandparents arid for foster parents to contribute. Foster parents are special people entitled to special consideration." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 1988; Vol.502, c. 501.]
  I have received thousands of letters from grandparents all over the country which I have read and re-read. It has been suggested that I am not especially sensitive, but as the pairing Whip I am certainly sensitive. I am also especially sensitive to letters from grandparents who find themselves deprived of the opportunity to be with and to love their grandchildren, or even to see them. Grandparents who have reared children from birth until the ages of 11, 12 or 14 may find that the children are then either fostered out or taken away and the grandparents deprived of access to see them. When grandparents have to hide behind church walls, bus shelters, school walls and school toilets just to get a glimpse of their grandchildren, there is something wrong with the law. There is something wrong with a society that can allow such things to happen to grandparents.
  Mr. Richard Holt rose—
  Mr. Powell: I should like to finish this point first because it is important.
  That is why I am campaigning for grandparents and that is why I am concerned that grandparents should have rights. Grandparents want rights because in today's society, where everybody is on the grab for what they can get, grandparents are only offering their love to someone else. They do not want anything from their grandchildren—all that they want is to give something. It is a refreshing change in today's avaricious society to have people who want to give something instead of always wanting to take.
  Mr. Holt: I, too, have cases concerning grandparents which I shall perhaps come to later. In Cleveland, however, not only were the grandparents refused access,

  1133
  but the children were deliberately taken to places well away from Cleveland and no information was allowed to be passed to the grandparents, who were deliberately kept away from their grandchildren. Not only could those grandparents not sneak behind the school or anywhere else to see their grandchildren—they were not even allowed to know where the children were living.
  Mr. Powell: Yes, I appreciate that point as I was fortunate to receive the Cleveland report from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and I have read every word of it. I appreciate the problems that occurred there and the trauma for the parents and grandparents. The Cleveland issue will undoubtedly be a subject for debate in the Standing Committee.
  I shall hurriedly run through the clauses that I should like the Committee to consider, but first I should emphasise that the word "grandparents" is mentioned only twice in the Bill, on both occasions in the same context. On page 66, line 24, as part of clause 75(1), the definition of "relative" is given as follows:
  "'relative', in relation to a child, means a grandparent, brother, sister, uncle or aunt (whether of the full blood or half blood or by affinity) or step-parent".
  The same definition is given in clause 55, which is somewhat negative in relation to grandparents in that in paragraph (1)(a)(iii) it prevents them from fostering their grandchildren. However, clause 56 (5)(a)(iii), on page 52, gives the local authority the right, if necessary, to put a child in the care of its grandparents or other relative. This seems to be only a backup if the welfare of the child is in danger without private fostering. I should have thought that the latter section would have come before the former in that it would be better to put a child in the care of a relative before considering private fostering arrangements. The same argument applies to clause 50, which relates to the welfare of children in the care of voluntary organisations. Apart from a mention in schedule 7, paragraph 2(1)(a), under "Privately fostered children", there appears to be no further mention of grandparents or relatives in the whole Bill.
  After all the promises given from the Government Front Bench about all the points that I have made, I should have expected far more thought and consideration to be given to the subject of grandparents. For some reason, grandparents do not seem to be defined as members of the child's family unless the child has been living with them and they have parental responsibility for the child, or the grandparents are living with the children. On page 12, in clause 15(10) "family" in relation to such a child is defined as including any person who has parental responsibility for the child and any other person with whom he has been living. That definition would normally be taken to mean parents, step-parents, adoptive parents, foster parents, siblings and, of course, grandparents, and indeed uncles and aunts who happen to be living in the same house.
  There is so much to be said that I will trust my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West to read what I have prepared. That will enable me to conclude my speech and give my colleagues and a number of Conservative Members the opportunity to be called. I do not believe in hogging the Floor when my hon. Friend on the Front Bench can take up these matters.
  1134
  There are a number of other places in the Bill where it may be possible to include specific mention of grandparents. This must be given very careful consideration since it may be wrong to give grandparents certain rights while not giving them the responsibility that parents have to bear. I do not see many problems arising if we aim to give grandparents reasonable access to children who happen to be under or about to come under local authority care.
  The other issue to which I wish to refer concerns the inadequacy of the funding provided by the Government for the whole of the Bill. I want to be assured that there will be plenty of funding for adequate training of people. I have a great regard and respect for the majority of social workers and I have come in contact with a number of them, in connection not only with grandparents' rights but with other matters, and I feel that perhaps more money should be spent on the training of social workers.
  I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame Jill Knight) about family courts. "Agenda", the local government booklet, states:
  "NCH has joined forces with other agencies in the Family Courts Campaign. It is our belief, and that of other organisations, that the interests of children brought before Courts in whatever manner would be better served by the creation of a unified Family Court. The Lord Chancellor's views in debates suggests that he does not contemplate introducing legislation for the establishment of such a court at this time."
  I believe that if such a court were established it could solve a lot of our problems, particularly the problems of grandparents in relation to adoption and access.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I begin by promising the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that if it is my good fortune to be on the Committee of the Bill, as I hope it will, I will support his campaign for grandparents, to get those clauses in place. I am not even sure that it will be necessary, because the Minister referred in his opening remarks to the fact that he was taking on board something to safeguard the rights of grandparents. So I believe that the hon. Gentleman's long campaign has not been in vain. It shows that when Back Benchers keep going they can get there in the end. So I say, "Well done".
  Everybody will agree that the Children Bill is long overdue, yet, because of the time it has taken to produce it, I am sure that it is a better and stronger Bill. Over the past few years, we have all read of extremely sad and unnecessary cases resulting in harm to, and sometimes the death of, a baby or a child. The details of such cases have been so horrific that many people have been unable to read very far beyond the headlines. This would be a very poor nation if we failed to learn the lessons from each of the inquiries that followed such tragedies.
  The Criminal Justice Act 1988 contained any amount of splendid provisions for the further protection of children and they were debated at length before being approved by Parliament. That Act, as it applied to children and court procedures, had a great measure of all-party support as well as great public support. I anticipate that the passage of the Children Bill will be marked by efforts to put children's needs first and political differences aside.
  Of course, the Opposition will wish to make amendments, and rightly so; that is what an Opposition are for. But also the Government will want to put in other

  1135
  measures to complete the work that has been done with great dedication in another place. The Government may want to address themselves to such things as the registration and regulation of standards of private nurseries and child minders and the exemption of children's organisations from liability for the offence of harbouring a minor. This applies to safe houses and places of refuge, and so on.
  I hope that it will be possible for the Committee to make provision for the idea of a family court. There is a tremendous amount of support for the family court system in both Houses of Parliament. The Lord Chancellor was very encouraging about family courts on Second Reading of the Bill. I do not give in on this one. I think that, in the fullness of time, we shall get there, and perhaps within this Bill we can lay the foundations for family courts. I believe that the cornerstone of the Children Bill is the attempt to ensure that courts put the feelings and needs of the child first and foremost and provide a better balance between the rights of parents and those of children, and of course of grandparents.
  Local authorities and child care agencies are in very stressful, high-risk professions. In child protection, many pressures are put on them. As in many professions, fatal mistakes have been made in the past. In the majority of cases, the system and procedures have failed and have produced indecision and confusion, resulting, perhaps, in tragedy.
  The reform of child care law in respect of child care proceedings and the emergency protection of children will help field workers, and that is a big move forward. The courts' powers to protect children from abuse and neglect are strengthened in the Bill. The Children Bill, which is certain to be referred to a Committee tonight—I hope without the need for a vote—has been described by the Lord Chancellor as
  "the most comprehensive and far reaching reform of child law which has come before Parliament in living memory."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 December 1988; Vol. 502, c. 488.]
  There could not be a more meaningful statement.
  We should remind ourselves that the Bill is the result of many excellent reports arising from tragic events, tremendous consultation with all organisations which take an interest in the welfare of children, an enormous amount of work within Government Departments and by the parliamentary draftsmen, and, not least, the parliamentary all-party children's group chaired by Baroness Faithfull, who is not too far away at this moment, and the many individuals who have campaigned for years for better child protection.
  All hon. Members can take pride in the fact that, at last, the legislation has arrived. We must make it work and improve it so that it will be the good piece of legislation that the Lord Chancellor says it will be. It will certainly be long and jolly hard work for hon. Members on the Committee. Let us pay tribute to the marvellous work that was undertaken in another place. Let parents and grandparents everywhere be aware that, at last, Parliament is listening to the children's cries of misery. At last we will have on the statute book legislation that will bring greater child protection.
  6.11 pm
  Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome this clarification and simplification of the current legislation dealing with children. However, I and other hon. Members are disappointed that the Government have not taken this opportunity to introduce family courts into our legal system. On Second Reading in the other place, the Lord Chancellor implied that the proposals in the Bill were the first stage in the process of introducing family courts. He implied also that it would be inappropriate to attempt major reforms in one go, and that a gradual approach would be more beneficial. I must admit that other Government proposals for reform, including those for the legal profession, have not led me to believe that the words "caution" and "prudenc" are part of the Government's vocabulary. Perhaps I will be proved wrong.
  In 1974, the Finer committee produced its proposals for a unified family court system. Since then, there has been a steady growth of support. Today, it would be difficult to find many voices in disagreement. Our legal system is complex and far from accessible. Even if the Government's proposed changes to the legal system and the legal profession are accepted, the experience of having to go to law to resolve a family problem will not be less frightening and awesome to people who are often under emotional stress. Decisions to take a child into custody or to award custody and other similar moves are not reached lightly or easily. Such decisions have serious consequences, not only for the child but for other members of the family. Whatever system or methods we employ, we cannot always guarantee that the right decision will be made.
  Evidence from countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which have had family court systems for over 10 years, shows that such a system can work successfully and improve standards in child care and the prevention of abuse. A family court would provide an informal and sensitive setting in which family problems and solutions could be aired freely. Consultation, discussion and decisions would be undertaken by staff who are specifically trained in child care and are aware of the needs of a child in a family.
  Often, under the present system, children regard themselves as the cause of the problems. They suffer guilt when none should apply. In other cases, they are treated merely as the chattels of one or other of the partners. Family courts could do a great deal to relieve that burden. Parents, children and, if advantageous, members of the extended family would all be involved in reaching the decision that will affect the children's lives and future. I urge the Government to reconsider their position and use this opportunity—it may be the last—to introduce family courts into our legal system.
  In the absence of family courts, the proposals to extend jurisdiction to county courts and the High Court will help to simplify and rationalise the present law and procedures. However, they also raise concern about possible delays in the hearing of cases, despite the provisions in clause 10 which create an assumption that delay is detrimental to a child's welfare. Long waits and serious delays are more likely to occur when courts are already far overstretched. There is also some worry that the expertise that has been built up by juvenile court magistrates, as is the case in London, will be lost. It is important to ensure that there

  1137
  are adequate resources and provisions for the training of magistrates and circuit judges before they hear cases brought under the Act.
  Another matter of concern is the amount of secondary legislation which is allowed by the Bill. As we know, such legislation tends to get a perfunctory glance from Parliament, which has little or no opportunity to scrutinise it before it is implemented. In some cases, regulations which may have major implications are not introduced. Some matters in the Children Bill which are left to the regulating powers of the Secretary of State or to the rules of court raise too many important issues to be allowed to slip by.
  For instance, should not children have an automatic right to party status in care proceedings? After all, their welfare and future lives are under consideration. Surely it should be the case that a child is not a party to proceedings only because of very exceptional circumstances. Such an event could be accommodated by some form of exemption subsection in the main clause conferring on the child automatic party status in care proceedings. That is a matter for further discussion in Committee.
  Is this not an opportune time for the Government to consider a children's charter incorporating certain rights and entitlements, which could be attached to the Bill? The general thrust of the Bill—that is, that a child's welfare should be the court's paramount concern—is welcome, but a charter outlining children's rights in relation to that welfare would help to clarify matters and act as a backdrop against which all decisions are made.
  Several groups and individuals have expressed fears about the structure of the Bill and difficulties of interpretation. The Bill needs more guidance on interpretation, particularly specific phrases as they relate to each clause. Some of the phrases I have in mind are "in need" and "standards of care". Perhaps they could be clarified. I know that the Lord Chancellor hopes that the Bill should be read as a whole, but he should be aware also that different interpretations are easily applied to a Bill of this nature. It is important that there should be uniformity among those who read and apply it.
  I am a little concerned also at the lack of attention to the need for more staff and resources. Recent reports on child abuse have shown that it is necessary to do that if we are to get right the balance between overreacting and underreacting. More and better trained social workers, foster parents, police and other groups are the key to success—
  Sir William Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a violation of the tradition of the House that an hon. Member should read his speech? Members on the Front Benches read speeches, but am I not right in saying that a Back Bencher is not entitled to read a speech?
  Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the tradition is to refer to notes but not to read from them.
  Mr. Fearn: The matter is of such concern that we should get everything right. So far, every hon. Member has read his speech and got it correct. We must be correct on the Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
  The Bill does not address important factors that contribute to the well-being of children, such as
  1138
  inadequate housing and income, general deprivation and others that are sometimes aggravated by the Government's lack of concern and their policy on local government, social security payments, child allowance and numerous other matters. The Government have the power and the opportunity to improve provisions. They should do so if they are serious about offering children protection and the good start in life that is so important. Some of the legislation, regulations and policy governing those aspects interlock with the provisions of the Bill. I should like to see more scrutiny of the effects of other legislation and local government duties and responsibilities on the provisions of the Bill, and vice versa.
  The Bill has been the subject of much lobbying in the other place. The noble Lords tabled many amendments. Very few were accepted by the Lord Chancellor, although some views were taken into account. The lobbying has continued here. The majority of the amendments that will be tabled have been carefully thought through by people with wide experience of child care.
  I said earlier that the Bill is most welcome. I believe that in general it will have all-party support and will not prove contentious. The matters it raises are serious and need careful deliberation. Time will be required to ensure that no ground is left unploughed. As other hon. Members have said, we must get the legislation right this time. Will the Government assure hon. Members that the House will be given whatever time is necessary to get it right? I hope that proceedings on the Bill in this House will show that there are times when all sides can negotiate, co-operate and reach the agreement which in this case will prove to be in the best interests of the children and of their families.
  6.22 pm
  Sir Dennis Walters: As my hon. and learned Friend the Minister explained in his clear and convincing speech, there is a great deal in the Bill which should help to improve and protect the arrangements for the welfare of children and it is much to be welcomed, as was recognised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in his thoughtful speech on behalf of the Opposition. I should have welcomed the Bill even more if it had contained a specific provision about family courts, and I agree with several hon. Members who thought that this might have been an opportunity to take that step which has been debated and written about for such a long time.
  It was my privilege to introduce the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 1986, which received Royal Assent in July that year. Inevitably, to win the support of the Government, without which no private Member's Bill has much chance of reaching the statute book, I had to jettison a number of proposals which were in the original Bill. Nevertheless, a good many others were still in the measure when it received its Third Reading. One change that I sought to achieve was the introduction of the necessary powers to ensure that in appropriate cases children could be compulsorily examined medically from time to time as a safeguard against neglect or abuse. I am pleased that provisions for medical examination of children are included in the Bill, in relation both to emergency protection orders under clause 36(4) and supervision orders under the provisions of part 1 of schedule 3.
  The legislation that I introduced will be repealed when this far more important, comprehensive and significant

  1139
  Bill comes into force, and I make no complaint about that. It is right that the law in relation to children should be gathered together in one place as far as possible. When my small measure was passed, one was looking forward to comprehensive legislation to follow it and that is now taking place. I am concerned, however, that some of the positive things achieved by my Act are being left rather vague or at the mercy of subordinate powers. The appeal provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in care cases will be repealed by the Bill. One reform that was made by my Act was an amendment to the 1969 Act to give to all parents a right of appeal in care cases. The new measure is silent about the right of appeal in care cases or in relation to any of the types of family proceedings under the Bill.
  Clause 67 gives the Lord Chancellor very wide powers and discretion as to the types of proceedings that take place in different courts and the transfer of proceedings from one court to another. There is some unease, which I share, that once the Bill is enacted those powers may be used to confine some family proceedings to magistrates courts in the interests of economy. Most people who know about the subject would much prefer that this specalist and delicate work was dealt with by professional judges and, in particular, that the very special expertise of the High Court judges in the Family Division should not be lost to this important part of our law. I hope that that will be clarified in Committee. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will refer to it in his reply to the debate. If we are not to lose the expertise of High Court judges, it is important that there should be a full and general right of appeal to the High Court and from there to the Court of Appeal. I hope, again, that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can assure us that that will be forthcoming, if not through an amendment to the Bill, by the rules to be made under it.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) spoke eloquently about grandparents. I, too, am concerned about the position of grandparents. The Act that I introduced gave grandparents a specific right to apply to become parties in care proceedings, and for them to become parties with the leave of the court within certain parameters prescribed by the rules of court. That is being repealed and the provisions of the Bill make no express reference to grandparents. I appreciate that under clause 9 there is the general possibility for any person who can show a sufficient connection with a child to apply for leave to make an application for a section 7 order. I appreciate, too, that under clause 9 (6) rules of court may at a later date enlarge the categories of persons who have an automatic right to apply for a section 7 order, and that under clause 68 rules of court may make provision as to the persons entitled to be parties to proceedings or to participate by making representations to the court. I strongly believe, however, that after the parents there is a particular and special relationship between a child and his grandparents, both emotionally and in terms of responsibility. Grandparents have a particular right to be consulted and, if they wish, to be involved in court proceedings concerning their grandchildren's future. I hope that will be incorporated in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note that considerable feeling has been expressed by Members on both sides of the House about that issue.
  Like other hon. Members, I was enormously impressed by the number of letters that I received from grandparents
  1140
  all over the country expressing the depth of their feelings and experiences, to which the hon. Member for Ogmore referred so eloquently.
  I believe that what I have asked for could easily be incorporated in the Bill, and would make it a better Bill. I hope that the Minister and the Government will take a sympathetic attitude to the points that have been raised.
  6.31 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters) and his remarks about grandparents. The hon. Member for Langaurgh (Mr. Holt) intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) concerning grandparents, and expressed the deep disquiet and distress of grandparents in Cleveland, who, when their grandchildren were taken from them, found to their chagrin that they had no recourse. The Minister said that he would listen carefully to any changes for grandparents that we might suggest in Committee. We look forward to that opportunity.
  It is proper that you, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair dealing with the Second Reading, because it was your granting of a private notice question fewer than two years ago that obliged the Minister to explain to the House what was happening in Cleveland and what he proposed to do about it. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) mentioned all those who have been involved over the years with child care. Many of us know how difficult it is to involve oneself in child care, because it is an emotive subject and whoever raises it finds his head squarely above the parapet and likely to be shot off. You, Mr. Speaker, heard the Minister announce a judicial inquiry. The recommendations of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss in that inquiry, the work of Members of Parliament, both in and outside the House, on child care, and the steady drift of recommendations in committees, have resulted in this Bill. It is a Bill that will probably lay down the child care laws of our country for many years to come. Parliament has come together, through you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, and other Front Bench spokesmen and hon. Members, to change the law of the land. That is the way in which we should be doing things in the House. In one sense, I am grateful to be part of that procedure and to see how it has worked positively in the interests of our children.
  I came to the House rather in the manner of Mark Antony, because I came to bury not Caesar but Cleveland as an issue of child abuse. In the past two years the county has suffered enormously due to a great deal of irresponsible comment. A great stigma lay across the county. That stigma has now been erased. All the major participants in the Cleveland child abuse crisis are no longer in their jobs. It is not for me to dwell on that, but there are new faces, a new broom is sweeping clean and there is a new co-operation between the police and social services in Cleveland. There is a genuine attempt to regain in the county confidence, not only in our Health Service, but in social services. Social services took a great deal of criticism for their actions—so, too, did the health authority—and, now the tide is turning, we see a genuine effort to resolve the difficulties. Multi-disciplinary proceedings are now being established between the police and social services. Those will be in the interests of the people of Cleveland. They may, in a sad but necessary

  1141
  way, lead the way for other multi-disciplinary proceedings up and down the country, which would be of great assistance to other children.
  We have seen throughout the ages that children do not get other than a raw deal. I recently reviewed a book about how children have been abandoned throughout the ages. In our own generation, we have seen Parliaments letting power slip away from them and an imbalance created between family life and the proper role of the social services.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) stated sincerely that family life remains the basis of our society. That family life has come under a fundamental and serious attack over the years. For a variety of sociological reasons, as well as others, we have seen a steady erosion of the family base. The Bill should seek to restore the balance in the family and should also clearly state the role of the local authority. We need training for social workers. They find themselves in sensitive and difficult situations. We need to share the burden among those who are involved in child care work. It should not be right for one individual to take full responsibility for a particular incident.
  In Cleveland we saw the dreadful effect of the place of safety order, which could be misused in the hands of an over-zealous authority. The place of safety order is being replaced by an emergency protection order. The House should discuss what will happen in a real emergency where a child has not been revealed to the social worker or to whoever else visits the house. With the spirit that we have in the House and the unanimity among us—not perhaps on the detail, but certainly on the structure of the Bill and its importance—we can consider all those matters in Committee and devise something special, interesting and important for those children.
  I have dwelt upon the effects of the crisis in Cleveland and the child care law in relation to Cleveland. I must do that in the interests of my constituents and all those who were involved. It has been a long haul for me, for the hon. Member for Langbaurgh who shares with me the constituency of Middlesbrough, and for the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who is not in the Chamber at present. I am reminded of the words of Winston Churchill in the 1930s, who said that the only shield of a Member of Parliament is his conscience. I refer, too, to the words of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who said that a man must do what he must in spite of all opposition, and that was the basis of all human morality.
  Members of Parliament throughout the Cleveland crisis, and who have discussed child care in the House over many years, should feel a sense of achievement. If I catch the eye of the Committee of Selection, I shall look forward to working on the Committee and modifying the law of the land for children. Children are the greatest thing that any of us have ever had and that any of us ever will have. If we can make the future better for them, we will make the world and our country better, and our democracy a stronger and safer place.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I warmly welcome the Bill on behalf of my constituents. It represents a major reform of the law relating to children and the way in which they are brought up. It also affects the substance and incidence of parental status at law.
  I declare an outside interest as I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales. I recently succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) to that post and I pay tribute to him for the long period of service that he gave to the federation and the considerable distinction with which he served it. I am glad to say that the federation welcomes the Bill and wishes to see it progress speedily to the statute book. A number of the aspects, however, concern the police and it would be helpful if my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General would comment on those when he replies.
  As other Members have already pointed out, it is noteworthy that the Bill makes no provision for family courts. The federation believes that such courts will be essential in the future. I understand that my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has suggested that the Bill will enable the law affecting children to be applied uniformly, with a single system of courts, and that the new machinery, by which cases can be transferred to the county court and the High Court, and care applications to the domestic courts, has been introduced so as to decriminalise those cases. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State referred to that earlier. However, the police believe that the concept of a family court is important. They would like to be assured that that concept has not been abandoned, especially as the Select Committee on Social Services has also commented on this issue and believes that the Government should go further with their reforms.
  At present the police and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have the right to take care proceedings. Clause 26(1) provides for a child to be placed in care or under the supervision of an "authorised person". As I understand it, the "authorised person" means the local authority and the NSPCC. The powers hitherto operated by the police are to be removed. That is a major departure from long-standing practice and the House should consider it with great care. It is unique to authorise the NSPCC, but not the police, to initiate care proceedings because the police work closely with teams of social workers. The police are the first line of complaint and should therefore retain the right to initiate proceedings. I note that the police still have limited powers under clause 38, which reduces from 28 days to three days their right to remove a child to suitable accommodation.
  It may help the House in its consideration of this matter if I quote from an excellent publication which is well known to social workers and to police officers. It is entitled "Working Together" and was published by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Welsh Office in 1988. Paragraph 4.5 says of the role of the police:
  "The police are involved in cases of child abuse as a consequence of their general responsibility for the protection of life and limb, the prevention and investigation of crime and the submission of cases for criminal proceedings. In preparing cases for submission to the Crown Prosecution Service the police work to a standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the same as the balance of probabilities on which a juvenile court must be satisfied in care proceedings. Even in cases where the police are not considering a submission in

  1143
  respect of a prosecution they may be in possession of information that is highly relevant to any decision taken about a child who may need protection from abuse."
  It would be sensible for the House to bear that advice in mind when considering the important change in the law in clause 26.
  Clause 64 will mean that the making of a care order is decriminalised as it is thought that the police no longer need to initiate care proceedings. There are cases, however, where such action could be desirable. The court can still use care orders, but not for committing criminal offences. Is that why the right of police to initiate care proceedings has been replaced by the words "authorised person"? Is that a valid reason for taking away the specific power of the police to apply for a care order?
  Clause 9 deals with the power of the court to make section 7 orders dealing with residence. It appears to exclude grandparents from having an automatic right of access to their grandchild. I accept, as has already been pointed out, that clause 29 says that parental contact may be made by
  "any other person mentioned in subsection (1) … who has obtained the leave of the court",
  but that clause does not specify grandparents as such. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters) have already raised this matter and their views have the full support of the Police Federation. I was pleased when the Minister of State said that he would consider the matter in Committee.
  Clause 18 deals with the protection of members of the public from what is called "serious injury". The police are concerned to know what is meant by that phrase and how it will he precisely defined. Would a child who, in the opinion of a social worker or of the police, may be likely to set fire to premises be covered by that definition? Does the fact that a child may not have actually committed such an offence prevent action if the threat or risk of injury is perceived? That is an important matter which must be considered carefully.
  Clause 21 deals with the use of accommodation restricting the liberty of a child. Clause 21(1)(b) refers to a child being likely to "injure himself". The question of definition is again important. What does that phrase mean? Does it mean to hurt or to damage, which is the definition given in my copy of the "Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English"? Does that definition include wounding? The police believe that the definition should be broad and clearly understood. I hope that the Committee will study that issue.
  Clause 27 is also important. In a serious case, what happens when care and criminal proceedings are involved and where the criminal proceedings must be disposed of before the care order is made? Presumably this has in the past been covered, and will continue to be covered, by interim care orders. Is it the case, in every court where the care and criminal proceedings take place in tandem, that the care proceedings are not finalised while the criminal proceedings are pending? That is another point that needs to be clarified.
  Clause 36 deals with the very important question of the emergency protection order. Once such an order has been made, it can direct production of the child for a medical or psychiatric examination. What will be the position of the local authority if it is unable to locate the child? What sanction is available against a parent who refuses to
  1144
  produce for this purpose a child in whose interests such a medical or psychiatric examination is considered to be desirable? It seems to me that no sanction is spelt out in the Bill, and I think that one is desirable.
  In clause 39(5), a local authority that is refused access to a child is required to consider whether to apply for an emergency protection order, a care order or a supervision order. Again, I ask what sanction exists in the case of parents who refuse access.
  Clause 40, dealing with sanctions, covers only the offence of perjury. But parents cannot commit perjury unless they go to court. Again, I ask what sanctions exist against parents if they refuse to hand over the child, and refuse to give information as to the child's whereabouts.
  Another point that I wish to raise concerns the difficulty of a social worker in gaining emergency admission if he believes that a child—in the words of clause 39(1)(c)—"has suffered significant harm or is likely to suffer such harm". As I understand the position, the social worker has to apply to a magistrate for an emergency protection order. But that can take time. With the best will in the world, several hours could elapse before entry was gained, via the emergency protection order, with power of entry. The only alternative would be to take a police officer along, in which case power of entry could be used without a warrant only under section 17(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. This could result in great difficulty for the social worker and for the police. Indeed, the police are reluctant to use their power under that Act to gain entry for that purpose and in those circumstances. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will look at that matter very carefully.
  Clause 5 deals with persons disqualified from being private foster parents. One of the points that the police have raised with me is whether clause 57(2)(d) applies to spent convictions under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The police and hon. Members would find it helpful to know what procedures operate in respect of people who apply to become foster parents and who, say, have been private foster parents or have worked in a private children's home. Is there adequate protection to ensure that undesirable persons are not used as foster parents? What consideration is being given to the question of incorporating the recent guidance from the Home Office and the Department on checking the credentials of those who apply for various posts involving the care of children?
  I mention these points because I think that it is important that they be clarified and spelt out clearly in the legislation. On behalf of my constituents and of the police, I warmly support the Bill and commend it to the House. I hope that it will speedily become the law of the land.
  6.52 pm
  Mr. Keith Vaz: Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the proposals in this Bill. It is a radical Bill from a radical Lord Chancellor. It will repeal seven post-war statutes and will amend many others, and it is appropriate that we should be considering these proposals at this time— 100 years after the introduction of the first statute protecting children. Of course, the immediate background is Jasmine Beckford, Tyra Henry, Kimberley Carlile and the 100 or so children who die each year in those circumstances, as well as the 40,000 children on the at-risk register at various times of the year. But the reforms have much great implications.

  1145
  I worked for almost three years as the senior child care solicitor for the London borough of Islington. I found the law complicated, confusing and inefficient, and at that stage I, like the council, regarded Islington's policy as the finest in the country. At the outset I should like to pay tribute to the social workers and the health visitors, and, indeed, even the lawyers, who work in child care. Social workers have had a very bad press recently, and the House should be aware of the great pressures that they are under in terms of the decisions they have to make and in terms of the lack of resources. It is right also that we should thank groups like the National Children's Bureau and the Family Rights Group which work voluntarily and unaided and do the kind of research that makes the task of both Government and Opposition so much easier.
  I welcome the commitment in clause 1 to general welfare principles. It is very important that when the courts consider the circumstances of a child they be able to consider that child, and not any other child, in those circumstances. But I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he replies to the debate, will tell us why, in clause 18, the local authority is placed under a duty different from that under which the court is placed in clause 1. That is a serious difference. It is extremely important that, if the courts are to consider the welfare of the child as being of paramount importance, that should be the duty of the local authority as well, because it would be seeking to obtain a care order for exactly the same purpose—to achieve what was in the best interests of the child.
  I welcome the proposed change in the grounds for care proceedings. They are exactly the same as the current grounds for those who apply for wardship—though I am sure that the judges will not admit that those are the grounds. I welcome the introduction of the emergency protection orders, but I want to express two reservations. I agree that the place of safety orders lasted for too long a period—28 days is a very long time. At the end of that period the local authority would apply either for an extension or for an interim care order, and would then get another interim care order, perhaps for the same period. I believe that it is right that a limit should be placed on the emergency protection order period, subject to the limited circumstances of a renewal. But I do not think that parents should be expected to wait 72 hours before applying for a discharge. It would be fair and proper for a parent to be able to make application within 24 hours if he believed that he had the evidence to challenge the decision of the local authority. It is quite wrong that the Bill, in the clauses concerning the emergency protection order, does not spell out the various notices that have to be served on parents. It is wrong that we have to wait until rules are produced before these matters are clarified. It is reasonable to expect these matters to be provided for in the Bill because they affect deeply the intentions of parents.
  Mr. Devlin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but I do not agree with him at all about the 24 hours provision that he has suggested. Many parents, having had their children taken away, will not know immediately where to turn and will be extremely concerned. They will have to take legal advice, and if the circumstances arise, say, on Friday evening or Saturday morning, that legal advice will not be available until the following Monday.
  1146
  Those people will not want to go anywhere near a court or a judge or a social worker, or anyone else, until they have taken advice. The hon. Gentleman, like me, is a lawyer. He will therefore know that it sometimes takes time for people to think about the advice that they are given. Surely it is right that the period should be three days.
  Mr. Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is why notices should state precisely what has happened to the child. When I gave out notices as a child care solicitor, they included the names and addresses of child care solicitors, including emergency numbers for them. If those factors were in the Bill, parents would know exactly who to turn to. They would have a detailed account of solicitors who practise in that area.
  I agree that proceedings in the courts take too long and I welcome the provision which allows the courts to draw up timetables. I have sat for many hours and days in the Highbury Corner magistrates and juvenile court after adjournment after adjournment. That was bad for parents and for children. If the court could specify a timetable, everyone would be clear about how long proceedings would last.
  I hope that the Solicitor-General will confirm that the legal aid requirements on representation will be met in full. It is important that parents and children have ready access to solicitors and to legal aid. I hope that he will also confirm that the necessary means test requirements will be waived in emergencies.
  Having welcomed some parts of the Bill, I want to draw attention to what is missing from it. I share the concern of many hon. Members about the Government's failure to honour their commitment to a family court. In July last year the Attorney-General made a pledge to come back to the House in the autumn and make a statement about family courts. On Second Reading on 6 December in another place, the Lord Chancellor said that the Bill was sufficient, but I disagree. This is an attempt to get a family court on the cheap. Clause 67 gives courts the power to transfer cases from different jurisdictions. Surely it is only a small step forward to allow a family court. The Bill creates a good legislative framework, but without the court structure to support it the Act will fail.
  I fear that the Bill does not propose a family court for the same reason given by the Solicitor-General in Committee during consideration of the Legal Aid Bill. He told me then that justice should be cost-effective. The Government care about the cost rather than the principle. That is why the Bill contains no proposal for a family court.
  I hope that we will be able to consider the placing and size of courts. Juvenile courts are not properly situated in our major cities. For example, the juvenile court in Leicester consists of one room with a waiting room twice the size of the court into which more than 100 people may be crowded. No refreshments or public telephones are available and people feel that justice is not supported.
  There should have been more in the Bill about training and the provision of more resources for the training of judges, magistrates, social workers, health visitors and lawyers. All those people have a part to play in court proceedings. One organization—I think the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—estimated that 24,000 people across London will need to be trained in one aspect of the law or another.

  1147
  I deeply regret the decision effectively to end the wardship jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 gave local authorities and parents the ultimate right to go to the High Court. As a practitioner, I felt that the best form of justice available was not that of the juvenile court where magistrates were pressed for time, but the High Court. I remember warding many children because I felt that the tribunal of the High Court offered the best chance available to bring before the court some elements of evidence that may not be acceptable. Rules of evidence and procedure made it desirable to go to the High Court. The wardship jurisdiction must be kept as a safety net for local authorities, children and parents. In Committee, we shall press the Minister to reassert his commitment to wardship.
  I am disappointed that the Bill contains no commitment to the statutory provision of education for the under-fives. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) will make that point when she sums up. It is important that local authorities should have a statutory duty to provide such education.
  In conclusion, I draw attention to three matters. First, I want to commend Leicestershire county council. Last year, the council set up the first ever child rights officer. With the assistance of the National Association of Young People in Care, a report was produced which eventually led to the appointment of Dr. Michael Lindsay—the first ever child rights officer. His purpose is to advise children in care, to hear any complaints that they make and report them to the local authority. His post and his work have been an enormous success.
  Secondly, I should have liked to have seen more in the Bill about the need to prevent children being taken into care. Figures from the Department of Social Security reveal that last year £9·1 million was spent on work to prevent the breakdown of families. Yet £434·1 million was spent on fostering and residential care. We should encourage local authorities to do preventive work. I am sad to see that section 1 of the Child Care Act 1980, which enshrines the principle of spending money in order to diminish the need to take children into care, has been tucked away in the schedules.
  The Bill will run out of money. The resources that have been allocated for it, as stated in the financial memorandum, are far too low. According to various organisations, the Bill will cost £12 million to implement.
  Finally, I favour the use of the words "parental responsibility", but I would have liked to have seen something in the Bill about state responsibility. I would have liked to have seen something in the Bill which reflects the past 10 years. It is all very well having fine words and fine sentiments about protecting children, but look at the policies of the past 10 years. During that time there has been an increase in crime, homelessness, unemployment and poverty. There has been the termination of certain benefits and the freezing of child benefit. All that has led to deprivation, with 2·2 million children living at or near the margins of poverty. That in turn has led to omission, neglect and abuse.
  Dickens said:
  "In the little world in which children have their existence, whosoever brings them up, there is nothing so finely perceived or so finely felt as injustice."
  If the Government want to do justice to children, they should use the Bill as a fresh start. They should arrest some
  1148
  of the appalling policies which have brought poverty to the nation's children. If they do that, they will have absolute and solid support from Opposition Members.
  7.8 pm
  Mr. Roger Sims: Several hon. Members have already referred to this Bill as a children's charter. It is interesting to recall that exactly that label was applied to the first legislation which went through Parliament that recognised the child's need for protection in the home; that was in 1889, just 100 years ago. It was 30 years ago that the United Nations declaration of the rights of children was signed, and later this year the United Nations General Assembly will debate the new United Nations convent ion on the rights of children.
  In retrospect, I believe that the Bill will prove to be one of the most important of this Parliament, for it deals with the welfare of children— with our future. It covers the rights of children, and the rights and responsibilities of parents and of those who care for children. The Bill will also, happily, be seen to be one of the least controversial measures to pass through the Parliament.
  The Bill's general philosophy and most, if not all, of its provisions have been welcomed by a wide range of organisations in the field, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The House will be aware that I have had the privilege of serving on the central executive committee of the NSPCC for the last nine years.
  The events in Cleveland have inevitably focused attention on sexually abused children. The NSPCC figures for 1987, based on 10 per cent. of the register total, show a 21 per cent. increase in registration for sexually abused children. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that there has been an increase in the number of such cases. The problem is that we do not know the full extent; we only know the extent to which cases come to light.
  It was interesting that Cleveland, and before that the establishment of Childline, led to a number of adults revealing that they had been abused when they were children. Child abuse is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, I have an interesting report from the director of the NSPCC discussing sexual assaults on children and whether the number is increasing— it is dated March 1925.
  Sexual abuse is only part of the problem. Children are also subject to physical abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and simply being left alone. In 1987–88, the NSPCC dealt with referrals involving nearly 43,000 children, whilst the Department of Health provisional results from the child protection register show that 40,000 children in England need protection from abuse and neglect. That is the extent of the problem that the Bill seeks to tackle. It is important that we get right the legislative framework both for intervention and for dealing with cases after they have come to light.
  However, deciding when and how the state should intervene in family life is an extremely difficult and sensitive matter. In Cleveland, perhaps social workers were prone to be too precipitate, while there has been a string of cases from Maria Colwell through to, just before Christmas, the case of Doreen Mason where, alas, social workers acted not at all or too late.
  Before I came to Parliament I sat for a number of years as chairman of a juvenile court, and I actually had to make care orders. It is one thing for us to talk lightly in this place

  1149
  about children being taken into care: it is another to have in front of one a loving but inadequate mother and her children and to have to decide that it is in the best interests of the children for them to be taken away from the mother and put into care. We have to get such things right. We have to have the correct mechanisms for assessing what is best for the child in care, whether it should be in a children's home, whether it should have foster care, and whether and when it is to be returned to its home.
  I welcome the provisions in the Bill affording flexibility in grounds for care, supervision and the new emergency protection order especially allowing intervention where there is "likely to be significant harm" to the child. In such cases, we do not have to wait until harm is actually proved. My hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised, however, if I say that the weapons in the social workers' armoury will still be inadequate as the Bill stands. He is well aware of the case for the assessment order, which was advocated by Louis Blom-Cooper in the Kimberley Carlile case; it was ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) in a ten-minute Bill about a year ago, and I have also sought to give the matter some publicity. I fear that the powers in the Bill will be inadequate for circumstances in which a social worker is unable to obtain access to a child, and an order requiring that child to be produced would fill that gap.
  There is wide support among a number of organisations and practitioners in the field for such a measure, although I am aware that this support is not shared by directors of social services. I believe that their objections are ill-founded. I hope this matter can be discussed more fully in Committee.
  I welcome the provision in the Bill for greater rights for children and parents and the involvement of others concerned. I warmly endorse the remarks made about grandparents, and other categories are also involved. For example, what should be the right of fathers in cases where there has been a separation and divorce and the mother has custody? I welcome the improved provisions for the review of cases of children in care, and I am pleased with the timetable for the disposal of cases and the increased use of guardians ad litem. In Committee, we shall need to discuss what exactly is their role, how they can be sure of their independence, and, indeed, who should be appointed guardians ad litem.
  We should look, too, more closely at the provision of preventive measures. The NSPCC is, of course, a society for the prevention of cruelty to children. Surely there should be some obligation on local authorities to provide preventive measures. The desirability of such measures is illustrated by the fact that the Minister's Department estimates that about £9 million a year is spent on preventive work. Meanwhile, maintaining children in care is costing about £400 million.
  Part of prevention is the provision of day care facilities for children under five years old. This matter should be explored further, for such facilities help the child to develop in a supportive atmosphere and can relieve pressures and tensions in the home that could otherwise lead to abuse.
  Members will have received extensive and high-quality briefing from various bodies on a number of issues which
  1150
  I will not go into and which are better discussed in Committee, now that we are subject to the constraints of the ten-minute rule.
  In closing, I point out that the NSPCC was founded in 1884, and had its royal charter in 1895. Since 1933 it has had the right uniquely—as my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) said—to initiate care proceedings, but it does so only because the legislation states that such proceedings can be initiated by a local authority or "authorised person" as designated by order of the Secretary of State. The NSPCC has been so authorised for 55 years, and has established its credentials beyond doubt. Perhaps it would be appropriate recognition of the work done by this society over 100 years if such authority, rather than being given by regulation, could be written into the Bill.
  Although this is a good Bill, aspects of it are capable of being improved and others would benefit from clarification. I look forward to a constructive and fruitful discussion in Committee, from which I hope will emerge an even better Bill.
  7.18 pm
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: For many years I have worked for children's rights, so there are several matters that I would like to see included in this important Bill. However, since time is restricted to 10 minutes, I shall confine my remarks to the question of the responsibilities of local education authorities in the matter of the employment of children of school age.
  I first began to be concerned about the employment of schoolchildren—in both waged and unwaged work—when I began teaching. Often girls were absent from school because they were caring for younger children, allowing the mother to go out to work when the usual child minding arrangements fell through. Other children's mothers had early morning cleaning jobs or evening jobs, and then my pupils would have the daily responsibility of looking after their younger siblings. Arrangements of this sort had a deleterious effect on their education and their lives. It does not take much imagination to conjure up the pitfalls of such arrangements when emergencies arise.
  Most people in this country think that it does children good to do a job to earn a little pocket money, but many times I have tried to teach pupils who are half asleep, having been delivering newspapers since the small hours, in the dark and cold. They had regularly started work much earlier than the legally permitted time of 7 am. My pupils were often afraid of being attacked by dogs or strangers, but they wanted money for their own needs—because it would give them a degree of independence, enable them to buy clothes, and to keep up with their friends. In very poor families, children's pay is often important for the family's very survival.
  Most people assume that regulations exist for properly protecting children in employment, but one third of all children in work are subject to accidents. That is a dreadful figure. Sadly, some work is so dangerous that children are killed doing it. Even if children like doing some of the jobs that they do, far too often they are exploited as cheap labour to the benefit of their employers. In theory, sections from eight different Acts govern child labour, but there is no specific legislation, except that relating to entertainment, which says that children aged below five years can work for up to two hours per day, and may attend the

  1151
  place of entertainment for up to five hours. Some of the charming babies who right hon. and hon. Members see in television advertisements may have been kept working for much longer than the public realise.
  In 1973 a private Member's Bill, the Employment of Children Bill 1973, was presented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It passed through all its stages but was never implemented. Its purpose was to introduce a national system giving local education authorities throughout the United Kingdom powers to oversee and control all employment by children in a trade or occupation carried on for profit, whether or not the child received a reward for the work undertaken. Local authorities would have been given powers to demand details of the type of work, place of work and hours worked. They would have been able to prohibit such employment, even if it were not unlawful but appeared to be unsuitable for the child by reference to his age or state of health, or because it would be prejudicial to his education. That Bill was passed in 1973—one and one half decades ago. Times have changed and the proposed penalties for which that Act provides are now very out of date. Increased adult unemployment has brought increased exploitation of children as cheap labour. It is even more vital today that the present patchwork of regulations is replaced by comprehensive, uniform national regulations to protect working children, and that those regulations are given teeth.
  I commend to right hon. and hon. Members the booklet "School Age Workers in Britain Today" by Caroline Moorhead, published by the Anti-Slavery Society, which explodes many of the comfortable assumptions that most people make. The harsh fact is that about 2 million children work illegally in this country. No really effective mechanism exists to enforce the existing regulations. That is the task of education welfare officers, but there is only one for every 1,000 children of secondary school age, and so theirs is an impossible job. One authority that has taken the matter seriously is the Inner London education authority, but it is being abolished. In 1987, the ILEA appointed 10 new employment officers and a principal child employment officer to examine the problem.
  Children working illegally are unprotected in every way. There is no insurance for them. There is no legal minimum wage for adults, so children's pay is very much less. A survey of children employed in the midlands reveals that some boys and girls work for as little as 30p per hour, but in central London pay can be very much higher. Outside all the safety nets are the increasing number of children living on the streets of London who have lost contact with their families and who are open to all kinds of exploitation and danger.
  All Governments have failed to address the problem properly. Clear protective legislation must be put on the statute book to replace the existing mystifying patchwork of regulations that are honoured in the breach, and money must be made available to local authorities so that they can employ more child welfare officers to monitor and enforce the law. The Bill provides an opportunity to put right a dreadful situation. Our children are our stake in the future, and it is our duty to protect them from exploitation of all kinds.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Holt: Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) rebuked the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for reading his speech. I have no notes because I lived through Cleveland, and anyone who lived through that does not need notes to make a speech in the House on that subject.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) and myself—as well as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who is unwell and unfortunately not present—worked very hard together on the whole Cleveland scenario. Was there ever a child abuse crisis in Cleveland? The statistics show that the number of cases dealt with prior to the advent of Dr. Marietta Higgs was fairly consistent. The graph showed about 30 cases per month. It continued much as it had always done, which is probably true of every other part of the country—be it affluent Buckinghamshire or the less well-heeled areas in the east end of London.
  Suddenly, for three months in Cleveland, children were being taken away from their parents—very often on the most specious grounds. It took the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, my hon. Friend and myself to bring that matter to the attention of the House, and for the House to react, before anything was done. One wonders how long that situation would have continued had it not been for the sharp eye of a newspaper reporter who noticed what was happening in the statistics for Cleveland and first raised the matter in a small paragraph in the Middlesbrough Evening Gazette.
  The Bill now before the House is a consequence of that development. How is it that, from the days of Barnardo and Shaftesbury right through to the present—in future, perhaps the name of Bell will be mentioned—Parliament still cannot get it right? The answer is that we are trying to legislate for human nature, and however hard we try, we shall make mistakes. Parliament will always make mistakes. However, the Bill is a genuine and honest effort, in the light of what has occurred over the past three, four or five years, to put on the statute book legislation that is an improvement on the status quo.
  The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has not only the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in respect of grandparents but mine as well. In the child sex abuse cases with which I have dealt, I frequently found that the grandparents came off worst. They first lost their own children. In one case, that was because of a suicide. We all know about the situations that arise. When children are taken into care and subsequently adopted, their grandparents—who have done absolutely nothing wrong, and who may have nurtured and loved their grandchildren —are left with no access to them and no rights. They cannot even send their grandchildren a birthday present. That cannot be right in this country today. My hon. and learned Friend had better take that point on board. If he does not, I am sure that the Committee, on which I hope to serve, will make sure that it is taken into account.
  That child was taken into care and subsequently adoped. The mother committed suicide. The grandparents had the children of the first marriage; one of the two children of the second marriage had been adopted, and the

  1153
  other was with the father. The father did not get on very well with his in-laws, who loved the child but were not allowed access to it.
  The father tried to knock down a bus and was killed, so the child was put in care. The grandparents immediately asked if they could bring the child up along with its half-brother and sister, but they were not even allowed access. The child is to be adopted and they will have no rights at all. That is wrong.
  A note was passed to me today about another family caught up in the Cleveland child sex abuse case. Three children were taken into care, under the care orders that we are to abolish, following medical examination by the discredited Cleveland doctors. It took the parents more than a year to take the case to court so that they could get their children back. There are two girls and a boy, all alleged by someone to have been sexually abused. That allegation, however, was completely disproved by the courts, and the parents were exonerated.
  As a result, the parents have been given back the two eldest children, who are girls; the youngest, a boy, has been forcibly adopted. Those parents have lost their son. But they did nothing wrong. They may not have been the greatest parents in the world, but that is no reason for parents to lose their children. According to the note passed to me today, they have now moved to another part of the country—thanks to the help of one of my colleagues—to start a new life with the two daughters who are left, because they were afraid that they might lose them as well under the present law.
  Many case histories have arisen out of Cleveland, as we know from the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Middlesbrough. I am sure that we shall deal with them all in Committee, but we should also examine aspects of the problem that are not dealt with in the Bill, such as the methods used to interrogate small children to determine whether—in someone's opinion—they have been abused. I find it almost incredible that small children have sometimes been faced with full-sized inflatable rubber dolls and, as a result of some action that they may or may not have taken, have been alleged to have been sexually abused.
  I agree with those who say that there must be training. People should not be allowed to interfere in families' lives in this way unless they have been properly trained and assessed and we know that they are capable of making the right decision in 90 per cent. of cases. No one, of course, can always make the right decision—no one is perfect—but 90 per cent. is far better than the Cleveland average.
  The Bill is only one step towards ensuring that matters continue to improve. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough said, in Cleveland we are now trying to put all that has happened behind us, and a lead has been given by the Earl of Stockton. Last week three of us went to a disco in Cleveland. It was a Friday afternoon, and 1,700 children were enjoying themselves. That is the sort of image that we want—the image of a loving and caring community. We want to get rid of the image that the Cleveland case created. The Bill will go a long way towards achieving that, and I hope that I will be present to help it.
  7.34 pm
  Miss Joan Lestor: I do not want to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), except to make one comment. The hon. Gentleman asked why Parliament gets it wrong, and answered that it is because we are dealing with human nature, but I do not believe that we are—I do not think that it is in the nature of the overwhelming majority of people to abuse their children. In my view, we are dealing with the behaviour of a minority. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, and to others who may use that phrase, that whatever the outcome of the Cleveland case—whatever rights emerge from it, and whatever is said in discussion about it—we must not lull ourselves into believing that we have discovered all the cases of child sexual abuse in this country. We must accept the lessons of Cleveland, but we must also plead for more money, research and training for those who deal with such matters, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
  As has already been said, we are debating the Bill in the context of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. One such right should be a child's right to live with his parents whenever possible, but if that is to happen many parents will need far more support than they receive now, or will receive under the Bill. According to some of the briefing that we have received, children who are taken into care are mainly the children of the poor. I am not sure that that is true. Children who are ill-treated are not necessarily the children of the poor, although such children are often discovered to have been ill-treated because they are already known to the agencies. We would be deceiving ourselves, however, if we believed that children in materially well-endowed homes or in professional homes are not suffering as others are, although they are a minority.
  We must also distinguish between children in long-term care and those in short-term care. Many children who go into care leave within six weeks, and often there is no repetition of the difficulties that put them there. In the main, we are concerned with children who go into long-term care. Those children's families—whether they have broken down, are poor, or are cruel—have failed them, as indeed society has failed them.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) blamed what she called the permissive attitudes of Roy Jenkins. I have nothing to praise Roy Jenkins for, but if I could produce one factor that I believe has contributed to the break-up of families it is the current housing policies. The matters dealt with in the Bill must be taken in conjunction with a number of other issues.
  Whatever we are talking about, however, we want to keep our children out of care. As Baroness Faithfull so eloquently put it in the other place recently, children who come into care are vulnerable children, they are frightened children, and they are often emotionally disturbed children. They are suspicious, mistrustful, unhappy and usually very lonely. They are not like the children of the family that will care for them if they go into a foster home. I am glad that the 1955 regulation which talks of people treating a child in care as though it were their own has been relaxed. Many children who come into care have contact with their parents, and it is now the policy of many agencies to continue that contact, for various reasons. Of the seven children whom I fostered for many years, only one had no parental contact.

  1155
  That brings me to a point that was lost in the other place, and I hope that we shall put it back into the Bill. Why should a child in care be subject to any form of corporal punishment? How can people say that such punishment is wrong in a residential home but right in a foster home? According to the survey done in Dartington, 83 per cent. of the children surveyed who were in long-term care had more than one foster placement and 56 per cent. had more than three. What sort of relationship will be built up if we defend the concept of corporal punishment for children in local authority care who are housed with foster parents? The concept that we should encourage parents to pay for their children in care is also wrong. It would be difficult to implement and it might do enormous damage if the parents are poor and already in need.
  I referred earlier to the degree of support that will be needed if many of the provisions in the Bill are to work. Some hon. Members have already referred to the sad army of little children who have died as a result of one form of neglect or another—Jasmine Beckford, Kimberley Carlile, Maria Colwell, Tyra Henry and others. I do not know enough about the details of those cases to enable me to suggest what more ought to have been done. If, however, the aim is that children should stay with their families so that families can be kept together, they will need a great deal more financial support than is provided for in the Bill. The families to whom I referred—and many others—broke down because of a lack of the variety of support that is needed by such families. That support is crucial.
  Children in care should have the right to complain about their treatment. When this matter was debated in another place the Lord Chancellor said that he would consider providing some means by which children would have a right to complain about their treatment. The Children's Legal Centre and the Voice for the Child in Care have argued strongly in favour of such a procedure. Children in care are vulnerable. They are often frightened about making complaints. A means must be provided by which they can make complaints.
  I was glad to receive a letter that advocated that if children run away from home they have a right to be protected and should not be returned to the place from which they came. It has been impossible for me to obtain confirmation from a Government Department that there are 75,000 missing children, but that is the figure that has been given by the Children's Society. The society explained to me in a detailed letter how it had arrived at that figure. If it is accurate, it is an absolute disgrace that 75,000 children and young people are missing. Most of them will be between the ages of 14 and 16. I welcome the statement that safe houses will be provided, but we must find out why such a large number of children disappear from home and what can be done to assist them.
  Reference has already been made to young people who leave care. The assistance and support that they need is crucial if they are not to end up on the streets of London—I have seen some of them—begging for support. The suggestion that young girls who have babies in order to get homes should be given the worst possible accommodation is absolutely unbelievable. If we do not want that pattern or cycle of deprivation to be repeated in a few years' time, that is exactly what we must not do. Those young women want homes and protection. They should not be blamed for the situation in which they find themselves.
  We should also provide greater protection for children over the age of five who are being cared for after school.
  1156
  The regulations that apply to the employment of people known to have maltreated or abused children do not yet apply to the voluntary sector. I understand that a pilot scheme is being run, but greater protection is needed for children being looked after outside the home, whatever their age may be. That should apply to private fostering, too, which is not adequately provided for in the Bill. More information should also be made available to people who employ private nannies. That is a growing area of abuse.
  I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms. Gordon), who referred to working children. I have the honour to be chairman of the United Kingdom branch of Defence for Children International, which has published a document on working children as a result of a survey carried out in east London, and I can confirm everything that my hon. Friend said.
  Another omission from the Bill that both I and Defence for Children International think should be rectified is the growth in the illegal adoption of children in many parts of Europe. The Council of Europe published a report on that practice. The House must consider how to deal with it before too long.
  Although the Bill deals with a number of matters, there are still many omissions which suggest that we need an ombudsman for children and possibly a Minister for children who could deal with all the needs of vulnerable children and make sure that their interests are taken seriously.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Sometimes I wonder whether the British really like children. Some of us sentimentalise them. Some of us, alas, brutalise them. Many of us strive, like parents anywhere, to cherish and nurture them. However, British society has a distressing record of undervaluing its children and young people.
  Virtually all the reports of our schools inspectors point to the fact that schools expect far too little of our children. It is typical, but surely it is a source of shame, that this week it has been reported that there is not a single football club in the English League that enables its supporters, most of whom are young people, to play any part in the organisation of the club. Far too often, discussions that directly affect the lives, fortunes and future of children and young people appear to be dialogues between extinct volcanoes while those who are the subject of the dialogues stand on the sidelines, with no involvement and almost totally unnoticed.
  I was interested when the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to a children's rights officer. We pay far too little attention to the opinion of children about their lives and future. We have an ambivalent attitude towards parents and families. I welcome the marginally increased scope for grandparents to play their part. However, I believe that the wider family as a whole ought to be more carefully provided for in the Bill. Research shows that placements with relatives are a great deal more successful, on the whole, than other placements. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) referred to the Dartington research, which highlighted the fact that many children who are placed in local authority care have several placements.
  Fathers have rights, too. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) was absolutely right. We shall do women no good service if we assume that in practice they

  1157
  will be able to exclude a child's father from access if there is a family break-up. In that context, it is worth asking how many cases of abuse start with stepfathers.
  We are making a serious mistake by not proceeding more rapidly with the establishment of children's courts. I have mentioned before to my right hon. Friend the value of the French system. The juge d'enfants is usually much younger than the average judge on the bench. He is a practising solicitor or advocate who leaves his practice for five or six years in order to preside over a special court for children.
  I am not confident that a judge's training is the best preparation for making decisions about children. The Kilbrandon principle in Scotland is absolutely sound. The adversarial system may be effective in eliciting the truth. A judge's training allows him to adjudicate, but the adversarial system is appallingly corrosive of human relationships. The sooner that we introduce effective mediation, reconciliation and discussion of the appropriate outcome for a child—a procedure that has made great progress in children's hearings in Scotland—the better.
  Turning to day care, when it is perfectly clear that there will be a huge demand for day care from commercial firms and others, I understand the Government's desire to allow a thousand flowers to bloom and for a market place to develop without too much Government interference. I should declare my interest in the British Franchise Association Ltd. I believe that one of the ways forward in the development of day care is to introduce the concept of franchising. One of the advantages of the franchising system is that the franchisor has a commitment regularly to inspect his franchisees to make sure that they are achieving adequate standards. That doubles the amount of inspection because there is private and public inspection. Perhaps it is a good idea to charge companies and large providers of day care a fee for inspection. At present there is a huge bottleneck in the registration and inspection of existing day-care nurseries because of the huge expansion in such provision. The Bill should contain clear criteria as to when day care is not adequate because one of the present problems is that the inadequacies of the criteria make it extremely difficult for people to strike out inadequate day care because nobody knows the grounds on which that should be done.
  More day care at every level of income and at every level of provision is absolutely necessary. Day care can give women a genuine choice about their careers, and for single women trying to bring up a family it is indispensable to the family income.
  As for social work training, I believe that there still runs through social services departments a clear misunderstanding of the Seebohm report. The concept of the generic social work department has been misinterpreted as a generic social worker. I am appalled that the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work can tell us that social workers are allocated to child care cases in their first year of fieldwork never having undertaken any child care work during their training. That is ridiculous. There is no point in considering pre-entry training in isolation from management practice among employers.
  On the question of the resources available to social workers, there is scope for a considerable increase in the
  1158
  number of volunteers who would like to help and who could be useful. I have spoken on the subject before, and I believe the use of volunteers in child care work diminishes the dangers of assault for the social worker whom they accompany, increases the opportunity to visit families at times when it will be unrealistic and unreasonable to expect a statutory worker to attend and allows for the development of friendships between client families and volunteers which would be quite impossible for a professional to allow.
  From my own experience and from the observation of others, most children over 16 come home when they want their laundry done and to get a good square meal at weekends. How many children leaving local authority care would love to be able to do that? I believe that there is scope for imaginative development as many older people living isolated and lonely lives would welcome the opportunity to develop a friendship across the generations and perhaps provide laundry or a meal at the weekend in return for friendship. Obviously there are risks involved and that suggestion will have to be considered, but it may prove useful.
  We all know that the child is the father of the man and that patterns of parenting are passed down from one generation to the next. The figures provide distressing evidence that my generation has passed down a poisoned chalice. The Bill is the response to the working of that poison and a determined step towards the long-awaited antidote. I thank the Government for producing the Bill and for their willingness to continue to improve it. As many hon. Members have said, there is nothing more important than getting the protection of children in the legal system correct and ensuring as best we can that our families are enabled to bring up their children in ways which will make the Bill unnecessary.
  7.54 pm
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes: I welcome the Bill as a well-thought-out and constructive attempt to remedy an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I also welcome the fact that there has clearly been considerable consultation with various groups that represent children, and their views have been taken into account. I particularly welcome the replacement of the place of safety order with the eight-day emergency protection order, the reasonable access of the parents to the child and the attempt to avoid taking children into care who may have been abused by making arrangements for the abuser to leave home. I reiterate the comment I made in the debate on the Cleveland case. When that is not possible and when a child is taken into care at short notice, arrangements should be made to allow the mother to accompany the child so that the separation of young children and their mothers is not as dramatic and horrendous as it has been recently.
  I should like to draw attention to a number of omissions from the Bill, and to some improvements that could be made. I should like there to be a child assessment order whereby the medical inspection of a child at home could take place if there were grounds for concern but they were not sufficient to justify further steps. In the case of Kimberley Carlile who hon. Members have mentioned and who was from the Ferrier estate in my constituency, had such a child assessment order been available to the health visitor who was particulary concerned but unable to insist on a medical inspection, that child would probably be alive

  1159
  today. While I recognise the difficulties involving liberty, interfering with parents' rights and social workers trying to build up good working relationships with parents, we have to put the child's safety first.
  I regret the exclusion of children over five from regulation in regard to child minding, school holiday provision and private fostering. In recent months we have come to regret the lack of safeguards that existed in the past, and we omit those provisions at our peril. We are beginning to recognise that there is an unfortunate group of people in society who gravitate towards children for the wrong reasons. If we allow children to be preyed upon by such people, ultimately we shall find ourselves discussing an emergency Bill following a tragedy. I should like to prevent that instead of waiting for the sacrificial victims.
  I shall raise an aspect of the Bill with which I am particularly concerned following recent events in a Greenwich children's home. I should like to make it clear that I am not using parliamentary privilege to describe anything, which is not already known, but simply to use what is happening as an example to show why there should be a crucial change in procedures and in the Bill. The White Paper specifically requested that local authorities should provide a procedure with an independent element for children in care to use if they have a complaint. The specific requirement for an independent element is lost in the Bill and I would like to see it restored.
  A number of bodies involved with young children in care have called for its restoration, including the Voice for the Child in Care, the Independent Representation of Children in Need, and the National Association of Young People in Care. All of them have had experiences of children who have become the victims of the social services, rather than being supported by them. Again, I want to make it clear that I am not attacking local authorities or social workers. But I am saying that there have been abuses of children in care by social workers—sometimes by senior social workers. Obviously, it is difficult for the colleagues and employers of such social workers to be the judges of what has happened.
  I have a particular example of that in a children's home in Greenwich, where a key worker was disciplined for serious offences and was ordered to be demoted and transferred. Very much against the wishes of the principal of the second children's home, which was for severely disturbed teenaged girls, but on the direct instruction of the director of social services, the worker was placed in the second home. Within a short time, one of the girls in the home alleged that she had been raped.
  There is a potential conflict of interest if that case is investigated by the director of social services, who has been responsible for the placement of that employee in that particular home. I am asking for a provision in the Bill that would make it possible for a girl in such a case to ask for an independent investigation. That would not always be necessary because there will, of course, be many more mundane and routine complaints in which ordinary investigations by the local authority concerned would be wholly appropriate. But we must remember, as has already been said today, that those girls are vulnerable and afraid, and have often been severely abused for most of their lives. They do not expect to be believed and if they make an accusation and are not believed they will fear recrimination from the people whom they have accused because they will still be at their mercy. I want such girls and boys to know that if they have a complaint and wish
  1160
  it to be investigated by people who are not responsible for their future maintenance and well-being, they will have someone to whom they can turn.
  Several other hon. Members have mentioned today the guardian ad litem system. I want to reiterate the need to strengthen that service and, again, to make it more independent. It is often the case that a social worker in one authority will be a guardian ad litem to the charge of a friend of hers in another authority, or vice versa. There should be some distancing, so that children in need know that there is one person who will be independent of the rest of the network that surrounds them. We must take that seriously. The Children's Legal Centre has said:
  "At present, children in care, unlike every child in the country, cannot go to court under wardship, if their parent—the local uthority—mistreats them."
  They must have independent and, where appropriate, legal redress.
  A new procedure has been initiated in Greenwich and it includes an independent element at the start of the inquiry. However, it states how the progression will go if the complaint is not resolved and it is gradually sucked back into the heart of the social services department. The final opportunity for the complaint to be heard is with a case review within the local authority and the decision of that case review is binding. I would like to see that procedure eliminated so that any children in care who have serious complaints can be sure that they are heard by people who will listen fairly, who will not disbelieve them and who will have no motive for wishing their version of events not to be true. Children need such independent representation.
  We are considering cases of potential tragedy. We need to ensure not only that tragedies are unlikely to occur—although they will certainly occur sometimes—but that no longer shall we never know about many of them. Children in care who have been in care for most of their lives, especially those who end up in secure units, have had a difficult life. It is interesting that, following the Cleveland affair, many adults have come forward and explained how they were abused as children but had nowhere to turn. The girls and boys I have described will be in the same circumstances and may be damaged for ever. We must ensure that they have someone to turn to who will give them a fair and independent hearing.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: I want to join other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill, which has a big job to do. It emphasises the important role of the family and of children within the family, but it also highlights the important role of local authorities. We have seen far too many examples of failure in the performance of local authorities in this area and they must improve their performance. The Bill provides a legal framework in which people can work and it will mean that there will be far fewer excuses for failure of performance in the future.
  I want to deal with four aspects of the Bill. My first concern is with the under-fives, a group spoken about at length by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), who pointed out the growing demand for services for the under-fives. The growing demand is not being met by facilities sufficient either in quantity or, more importantly, in quality. Parents are demanding higher quality and we should insist on a sufficiently high standard of care for under-fives in particular. In the Bill, the priority

  1161
  should be day care services for under-fives. We have heard examples of provision in the rest of Europe compared to this country and more must be done in the enforcement of standards and the registration of facilities. The Home Office has said that we can expect amendments on those matters and I look forward to seeing them. It is true to say that the character of a child can be largely formed by the time the child is five, so that is the most crucial stage of a child's development in ensuring that matters go well thereafter. The Bill is much concerned with what happens if matters do not go well.
  I join with other hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), who have said that they are in favour of assessment orders. I support that and I am much swayed by arguments put forward by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. The objections made to assessment orders are bureaucratic objections. Assessment orders will be much to the advantage of children in the grey areas in which it is difficult to legislate, but in which it is obvious that more powers are needed. The Kimberley Carlile case is an example of a case in which an assessment order was needed. I hope that provision for assessment orders can be brought forward.
  In Bolton, we have just had a major investigation into child abuse. Eight children were made wards of court and a further eight children were also involved. One of the parents of the children involved has been in touch with me and he asked me to put it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health that he should carry out an investigation of the way in which Bolton social services carried out the inquiry. I have written to my right hon. and learned Friend to ask him to consider the need for a full investigation.
  There is also great concern in Bolton about the question of juvenile offenders. It is welcome to see the improving trend nationally. The number of children in care has declined from 82,000 in 1983 to 66,000 in 1987. The number of offenders aged 14 to 16 has come down from 114,000 in 1981 to just under 100,000 in 1987 and the number of juveniles in custody has dropped from 8,000 to 4,000.
  Although no one wants juveniles to be put in custody—the subsequent careers of those placed in custody are often difficult, with a pattern of continuing returns to custody—there is no doubt that there is a need for places in secure units in cases where discipline has broken down. In Bolton there has been great concern about persistent offenders who have been arrested time and time again by the police. One 14-year-old was arrested 23 times. The police feel that it is most frustrating for them simply to arrest someone who is then allowed to repeat the offence. More care is needed in this area, either to impose the course of last resort, which is to put a child in custody, or to make sure, if that course is not followed, that an effective course is followed whereby the child is kept properly under control.
  Today I have received a letter from the clerk to the magistrates court in Bolton, saying that the magistrates in Bolton feel that the court should have extra powers. The clerk said that he would like the present situation to be improved, stating:
  1162
  "The situation therefore is that if the Local Authority chose not to submit a report to the Courts, the Magistrates have no power to certify the young offender unruly and he has to be remanded into the care of the Local Authority."
  I understand that the court wants a provision
  "to the effect that if the Local Authority is required by the Court to provide a report for the purpose of the Certificates of Unruly Character (Conditions) Order 1977, it shall be under a duty to do so".
  I hope that when the Bill is under further consideration, my hon. and learned Friend will give thought to that point so that the Bill can be amended suitably because such provisions would be welcomed.
  Problems with children who have not had the right upbringing in their own family can be ameliorated to some extent if they can be placed in the care of a suitable foster family. I encourage more families to come forward to carry out a fostering role, although it is not an easy job at the best of times. When I spoke to Bolton council about this, I was told:
  "This is a tough job, requiring experienced, mature, resilient, sympathetic and unshockable parents".
  I call on the Government to reconsider the scale of the fostering allowances available to such parents. Payments to such families can be about £125 per week, but the amount varies from place to place and, generally speaking, falls short of the amount recommended by the National Foster Care Association.
  The alternative—a child being placed in a local authority home—is unsatisfactory. A child should be within the love and care of a family and, if not in its own natural family, in a suitable loving and caring foster family. If a child is placed in a local authority home, the cost will be between £200 and £300 per week. If discipline is so lacking that the child has to be placed in a secure centre, I understand that the bill to taxpayers could amount to in excess of £500 or even £1,000 per week. However, it is not so much the cost that we should be concerned about as the fact that that sort of care is so inferior to the proper care that a child needs and its need to be in a family.
  I call on the Government to have another look at the scale of allowances provided for fostering to see whether more support could be given to the campaign by the National Foster Care Association for a generous national scheme of adoption and fostering allowances.
  Those are my main points in welcoming the Bill. More resources will be needed, but I stress that those resources must be used more effectively by the local authorities in the true interests of the child and of the society in which those children will grow up and become adults.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome the general principles encompassed in the legislation but echo points that have been made by hon. Members of all parties that there are several glaring and important omissions. I hope that the Government will be prepared to listen to Members of Parliament during the process of this legislation and amend the Bill accordingly.
  It is important to learn the lessons of previous child care legislation and to avoid this legislation being simply a narrow reaction to any particular issue. I am referring, of course, to the Cleveland question. With respect to those hon. Members who are no longer in their places, and who have been concerned with Cleveland, they are doing no service to future generations of children if they see the Bill

  1163
  as purely and simply a reaction to Cleveland, because a wide range of issues need to be addressed that are not directly concerned with what happened in Cleveland.
  I begin by addressing several issues relating to social work practice. I am very much aware of the no-win situation in which social workers find themselves, especially in child abuse cases. I know of that personally because I spent nearly 20 years in social work before becoming a Member of the House. I remember vividly being a team leader in Leeds when one of the social workers for whom I was responsible was responsible for the care of a baby who died at the hands of its mother. I will never forget that case as long as I live because we had to deal with the problems arising from it and to have on our consciences the death of that baby.
  I am worried by the fact that some politicians who have spoken in this debate thrive on social worker bashing and have little insight into the problems faced in social work practice, especially in child abuse cases. I do not need to give examples, but perhaps the industrial placement scheme that is used to give Members of Parliament experience in industry should be extended to place certain hon. Members in social services departments because they might then have a different view of the difficulties that are faced every day by those people who work in the social services under the stress that I have experienced personally.
  The central dilemma of social work is whether or not to intervene. I have found from past experience in social work that, whatever one does, one ends up in trouble in someone's eyes. Social workers were criticised in the Beckford, Henry and Carlile cases for their failure to intervene, and were criticised in Cleveland for unwarranted intervention. Social workers simply cannot win. On the one hand, they should respect the privacy of family life and the rights of parents and children in their own homes, but on the other hand they must ensure that the children do not suffer serious harm from those same parents or guardians.
  From my experience in this place, I would say that there is little understanding of the fact that in some instances there is a need to take a risk with children and to take the decision, "We believe that it is in the best interests of this child to take a risk and to leave the child in its home where we do not think that there are any risks." I am worried that the legislation does not seem to recognise that. Indeed, some hon. Members do not seem to recognise that one of the most precious and important skills in social work is risk-taking. I commend those local authorities which have set up policies and produced detailed written documents stating their set policy on risk-taking and which have said that they will support the risks that occasionally have to be taken where a child is remaining in a home about which questions have been raised.
  If social workers did not sometimes take a calculated and properly thought-out risk, every child referred to a social services department, to the NSPCC, to the police or the caring agencies would end up being removed into care, and that is not the answer. I hope that more politicians will understand the need for risk-taking. That is why in addressing myself to some of the Bill's omissions I highlight the fact that there is no mention or recognition of the need for a properly thought out policy on risk-taking in child care and child protection. We should support and encourage local authorities in drawing up such policies.
  1164
  I should like to highlight another area in which there is a glaring omission from the Bill. I refer to the lack of provision in this legislation or in other legislation for the removal from the home of the alleged perpetrators of an abuse. When working in Leeds I had the experience of removing from their home, on a place of safety order, a 9-year-old girl and her sister on the basis that the 9-year-old girl had made allegations that the mother's co-habitee had had intercourse with her. I recall vividly going to that house to remove the girl's 12-year-old sister on the basis that she too was at risk, along with ump teen policemen, who surrounded the house, and going in and removing not the alleged perpetrator but the child. That was absolute nonsense. The person who should have been removed in those circumstances was the person who was alleged to have done the damage to the child.
  We are doing nothing in this legislation about that issue and I earnestly hope that the Government will look in Committee at the possibility of addressing it.
  If I had had more time I would have liked to talk about the civil liberties aspect of the issues that concern me in relation to the policing aspects of social work. I have been very worried about the way in which, in some instances, parents' rights have been eroded when case conferences have taken place and the parents have had no right to know what was being said behind their backs. As someone who has been on the practice side and is now a parent, I feel very strongly about that.
  I feel that many other issues have been omitted from this Bill, some of which have already been mentioned—for instance, day care provision, the family courts question, the need to look, possibly, at the children's panel system in Scotland, provision for care leavers, the issue of social worker training, which is absolutely essential to proper child care protection, and the proper resourcing of facilities.
  It is not possible to push through Bill after Bill, Act after Act, and not increase resources. At the same time as Acts have been passed in the last 10 years—and I could name quite a number of them—resources have been cut by about 20 per cent., so local authorities have fewer and fewer resources with which to deal with the issues they are required to tackle.
  Of most importance—and this has not been touched on in any great detail in the debate so far—is the need to examine the real causes of child abuse and what I believe are the wider political issues that have to be addressed. The DHSS guidelines issued last year set the main priorities for child protection as effective surveillance, decisive intervention and individualised assessment. The accepted model of child abuse which is projected by the DHSS and the Government is one of individual pathology. It is a disease model, but it is the individual child, the individual abuse, on which we need to concentrate.
  I reject that as an approach to dealing with child abuse because it largely ignores the very important economic and social context in which parenting takes place. There is a grave danger in portraying the skills and responsibilities of parenthood as a private set of activities independent of the social and economic context in which those activities take place. As other hon. Members have said, there is a need to address the question of poverty. One third of all children live in low-wage, low-income households or very-low-income households.
  We must also address the question of preparation for parenthood. I have two children. I was never prepared for

  1165
  parenthood in any way. The education system has not prepared me and I suspect that that is the case with many other hon. Members. What do we do to prepare young people for the parenthood about which we romanticise? We encourage young people to get married and become parents but give them little guidance about the problems one faces as a parent.
  I would argue in particular that nowhere is the individual pathology model more questionable than with regard to sexual abuse. If hon. Members are interested in looking at the research on this issue, I would commend the work being carried out at the moment by Christine and Nigel Parton in west Yorkshire. In a paper to be published shortly, Christine Parton makes the point that:
  "The roots of child sexual abuse are not so much in deviant family and sexual values but in normal ones."
  The essential point that she is making, with which I concur, is that the sexual norms and values of society lead directly to child abuse.
  I should like to give the House a few examples before I sit down.
  We have a society in which judges excuse men who have had sex with children on the basis that their wives were pregnant. Judges excuse that kind of behaviour. That says something about our values. We have women blamed for male sexual violence—women, not men. The Cleveland report gave the impression that the responsibility for protecting children from male sexual violence was the mother's, not that men in society should address these issues.
  What we need in this place is more working-class mothers, not more lawyers; we have heard lawyers all night, with all due respect to some of them, who have made good speeches. We need more working-class mothers who have had experience of the problems of bringing up children on low incomes and of many of the issues that are faced in parenthood.
  We need to address in particular male socialisation, sexual attitudes and expectation of women and the portrayal of women in society. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made some very important points about how women are portrayed in the media. It would be a good starting point to stop women being portrayed as they are in the tabloid press because it creates in men a certain expectation of women. These are issues that we need to address.
  I have said that I broadly welcome this legislation, but it is important to make it clear that a simple legal tidying-up measure will not resolve the very deep and serious questions concerning the welfare of children about which we are all concerned. We need to tackle the political and moral issues that should be addressed in this situation. We need to tackle the question of how men treat women and how rich treat poor in our society. Above all, we need to tackle the moral bankruptcy, selfishness and greed that have underpinned the political example set by the present Government over the past 10 years.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I very much welcome this Bill and the opportunity to speak in what is a very important and, speaking for myself, fascinating debate to have sat through and listened to.
  1166
  There can be very few issues as private and sensitive as the question of child care. Parents pride themselves on knowing best how to bring up their children. They resent any intrusion into or criticism of that activity. I suppose it is only criticism of one's driving style that can be taken as personally or is as likely to give such offence as criticism of how one brings up one's children.
  For those of us who dearly love and cherish our children, as I am sure all of us in the House do—my children are the very reason that I come to this place—it is indeed difficult to comprehend the attitude of mind of parents and others who wilfully, and often with premeditation, set out to abuse and ill-treat innocent and helpless children. We run the risk of judging others by our own standards because there can be very few parents who at some stage in parenthood have not felt their self-control beginning to slip and have stopped just in time before slapping a bit too hard or using language that is a little too strong. Such incidents, of course, are followed instantaneously by horror and self-rebuke, but those actions are the nearest we can come as loving parents to understanding the sorts of situation that give rise to the problems behind this Bill.
  From the debate so far this evening it is clear that there are a number of unresolved issues, many of which have been the subject of undertakings by the Lord Chancellor in the other place to introduce amendments in this House. I look forward to them and I want to address myself to a few of them. First, however, I wish to deal with one or two other aspects of the Bill.
  A point has been raised about the Bill moving firmly towards increased parental responsibility. I welcome that. We hear a great deal these days about rights but much less about the responsibilities which must go with those rights. The Bill sets out to balance that responsibility about the primary interests of the child. Furthermore, the Bill is written in language which is clear to all involved in child care. It makes it a lot easier for those of us who are not lawyers to understand what the Bill is saying. It may not be quite up to the standards of a plain English award but the Government should be congratulated on producing a piece of legislation which will be easily understood by all those who have to implement it as well as those who may hope to serve on the Committee and understand the amendments.
  I particularly welcome the changes in what are currently called custody orders, which are to be replaced by residence orders, contract orders and the like. There can be very few of us who have not been through a divorce or have not got a close relative or friend who has. The tug of war that can take place between parents who are divorcing will often destroy the last vestiges of trust and security for the children caught in the middle. The proposals in this Bill make it quite clear that the responsibilities of parenthood are not to be monopolised by one parent or to be thrown away by another like some discarded empty bottle. Once a parent, always a parent, and with that goes parental responsibility.
  Some issues which have been debated in the other place are still to be resolved. There were attempts by some noble Lords to amend the proposals for parents to withdraw their children from voluntary care without notice. The Lord Chancellor rejected those amendments, but I hope that they can be given more attention during the Bill's passage in this House. We should understand—again, there is the risk of judging others by our own standards

  1167
  —that although the vast majority of reasonable, sensible parents would give notice, a tiny minority, perhaps even drunk, might, on the spur of the moment, turn up to retrieve their child, regardless of whether he wishes to go, whether he is awake or asleep, or whether the other parent agrees with the action. Obviously, we do not want to discourage parents from using voluntary care—it is a sensible objective—but we must look at that matter again. A useful article in Social Work Today referred to that point.
  In his opening remarks, my hon. and learned Friend referred to the harbouring of those who have run away from home or from local authority homes. There is still a point to be cleared up, and I hope that we can get some clarification. When the Lord Chancellor replied to the debate in the other place, he referred to safe houses and said that amendments would be introduced in this House along the lines of what was in the White Paper. The sentences in the White Paper are acceptable to everybody. I do not have time to read them, but they are contained in paragraph 50 of the White Paper. What is slightly confusing is that they appear under a heading concerned with local authority homes. I hope that the arrangements to permit the Children's Society to continue its work will not be restricted to those who have run away from local authority homes.
  On 20 December 1988 the Lord Chancellor announced that amendments will be forthcoming to the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948. We are still awaiting them, and we have heard the reasons for the delay. However, the problems go much further than simply reforming that Act. Many factors now point towards a need for a full policy on the care of children by people outside the family when the children are not at school. Obviously, such a policy should not be a straitjacket, nor should it impinge on the parental responsibilities that we are rightly enshrining in the Bill. The matter overlaps the responsibilities of the Department of Education and Science.
  We cannot escape the fact that more and more women want and expect to return to work soon after childbirth. However wrong I as an individual might think that that is—I make no bones about it; it is wrong—I have no right to make that judgment for others. We know that there is a great lack of day care facilities, whatever the form of pre-school care and even out of school hours care, for children aged over five.
  In the debate on clause 16 in the other House, proposals were made to require local authorities to provide day care for all under-fives. The Lord Chancellor resisted that, and I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to resist it. The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong), who assented to one of my earlier comments, will not agree now. I do not think that the right way forward is to require local authorities to do that. It must be remembered that there is a substantial voluntary sector which must be harnessed and enhanced. There are ways in which it can be improved. I do not pretend that it is perfect. There is a need for greater professional training and greater control and regulation of those involved. That is the way forward. That is the way we should set out our stall.
  Putting young children into a local authority system which, by its nature, is bound to be somewhat institutionalised is not the right way forward. If we can involve the voluntary sector even more than it is at the moment we will also involve parents. That is significant. If
  1168
  we can involve the parents at that stage, it will set a pattern for their involvement throughout their children's schooling. The Government have been trying to do that with other legislation. That environment needs to be regulated and supplemented by local authorities. Let us not have the blanket approach which was suggested this evening.
  I shall return to those points if I am fortunate enough to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee. It is a great pleasure to be able to take part in a debate which is not full of political hype. We have heard a few highly party political comments, but the debate has not contained the political hype and propaganda which characterise many debates in this place. I am sorry that more hon. Members have not been present to hear the debate. They would understand that this is the House of Commons at its best. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak about such an important Bill.
  8.35 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the debate about the law relating to children. We should remember that this is not just a post-Cleveland Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) said. It is far more general and covers a longer perspective than that. Many aspects of the Cleveland debate are disturbing, such as the way in which the popular newspapers rushed to judgment against individuals and used it as a general attack on social workers. People made instant responses to matters which they could barely have had time to investigate.
  Anyone who has examined the traumas, the unpleasantness and the sordid side of the abuse of children in our society will know that the most difficult decisions are often those which must be made by welfare workers of any description—social workers, the police and many others. They are all extremely difficult decisions. Whatever one does, one gets it wrong, because one is wrong in somebody's eyes. The only thing to do is to err on the side of protection of the child. If one gets that wrong, one will obviously lose everything in the long run. It is an extremely difficult matter. I hope that there will be some caution in attitudes towards social workers in future and that there will not be cheap attacks on them by press reporters who have not bothered to understand the difficulties in which they must work in the first place.
  I shall concentrate on day care provision for under-fives. Although some hon. Members have mentioned it, it has not been referred to extensively. There is an awful lot of idealising about bringing up children. There is the ideal of the nuclear family in the semi-detached, three-bedroomed house with a garden in some pleasant suburb, who are always available to ensure that children have a decent upbringing. For many children that is not the case. The reality of life for many children in our society is not growing up in that sort of environment; it is growing up in an overcrowded flat, sometimes shared with other families, in a high-rise development with little open play space. Even if there is open play space, parents are afraid of children using it unless they are supervised. If there is no supervision and parents are unable to go out and look after their children, there is no play for them.
  Many children are growing up in such environments. Many children are growing up in poor environments.

  1169
  Without dramatising what I am saying, many children are not getting enough to eat, and, in many cases, not of the right food, because their families are so hard-up.
  The problem of child poverty was serious in 1979, and it is catastrophic in 1989. I ask Conservative Members who willingly and slavishly supported the Government's economic policies over the past 10 years to look to themselves on the 10th anniversary of Thatcherism and consider the lot of many children in our society and the resurrection of malnutrition and diseases which many thought had been banished after the slump of the 1930s. That is the consequence of a slavish endorsement of the market forces argument and market forces policies.
  Clause 16 deals with the provision of day care for children. One welcomes it. At least we have something in legislation. Clause 16 states:
  "Every local authority shall provide such day care for children in need within their area who are—

  (a) aged five or under; and

  (b) not yet attending"

  primary schools managed by local education authorities
  "as they consider appropriate".
  Obviously, I, along with anybody else with any sense, welcome the fact that that there is to be day care provision for children in need. I take issue with the fact that we have a narrow definition of children in need as a requirement for a local authority to provide day care, and in doing so we are saying that other children who are not within that narrow definition will not receive day care.
  When one starts to question what is available in day care provision, one is horrified. When visitors from overseas come to my community in Islington, those who are interested in local authority matters or social problems often ask about day care provision. The borough of Islington scores pretty well in the national average in its provision of community day nurseries, play centres, nursery schools and classes, playgroups and many other forms of informal day care. It scores well because the Inner London education authority and the borough of Islington give a high priority to day care provision. Yet even now the borough is under-funding many services. The borough and I both recognise that. There is a long waiting list for day nurseries. It is almost impossible for many parents to get their children into day nurseries.
  The 1976 Select Committee report on the problems of children recommended a massive increase in the provision of day care facilities. I understand that the Prime Minister, when Secretary of State for Education and Science, made a rash promise of 700,000 places for the under-fives. We are still a long way short of that. Indeed, we have very poor provision.
  The differences throughout the country in the provision of nursery places for children aged three to five are astonishing. Some local authorities manage as high as 85 per cent. Others, such as West Sussex, are below 10 per cent. Is that caring for the under-fives, or is it saying that we will throw the problem back to the parents and ignore the fact that many of them may be living in unsuitable accommodation and cannot afford to send their children to private nurseries?
  Provision in the United Kingdom is very poor. The statistics provided by the House of Commons Library show that the number of places available in local education authority nursery schools and classes for the
  1170
  zero-to-four population is only 9.4 per cent. I realise that not all children under four are eligible. One might argue that only children aged three and four should be eligible. One finds that local authority day nurseries provide only 32,000 places in the whole country.
  The changes in the past few years show an even more astonishing position. One would have hoped that, with the growing recognition of the need for children to be able to go to good day care facilities, such facilities would have expanded, but there has been hardly any expansion. Between 1985 and 1987, places in local authority day nurseries did not increase at all. There was only a substantial increase in the number of children in registered places with child minders. I applaud the work of child minders, but many local authorities and child minders recognise that that is not the ideal answer, because better facilities are needed for children to extend themselves and to develop their individuality and personality.
  When we compare the provision of local authority and other pre-school facilities in this country with the provision in other countries in Europe, we see what an appalling mess it is in. If West Germany can manage 60 per cent. provision for children aged three to five and if Spain can manage 66 per cent. provision, why can Britain manage only 44 per cent.? Because of political will and political priorities, the Government do not regard it as important to provide those facilities.
  Where there is local authority provision, in some cases it is expensive—indeed, sometimes, prohibitively so. Where parents are sending children to private day nurseries and private pre-school provision of various sorts, the cost is astronomical. I spent part of yesterday at a National Union of Students conference on the provision of day care for the under-fives. The delegates were asked about the cost of nursery facilities provided in institutions of higher education. It is important that nursery facilities are provided in such institutions. If they are not, how can women get back into education? All institutions of higher education are pleading with women to come back. The cost of nursery facilities may be as high as £70 per week, which is totally prohibitive for poor women.
  I make one simple plea. I hope that an amendment will be moved in Committee, and accepted, to introduce a statutory requirement for the provision of pre-school educational places, be they nursery, day care or whatever. There should be proper monitoring of the facilities nationally. We should not forget that we are ignoring the real needs of a large number of children who are living in great poverty, distress and difficulty, and who cannot experience the joy of socialising with other small children, of learning how to play together and of developing properly. We are starting discrimination in the cradle because of the Government's economic policy and the lack of social provision for children.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: When the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) spoke of Cleveland, my mind's eye filled with the picture of a small boy, returned home to his parents, who sat silently, withdrawn into himself, refusing to speak to anyone, staring straight ahead. His mother, who was worried sick, said that he had had 14 or 15 nightmares that week but that he refused to say anything. He had been seen by Dr. Higgs, warded, and later de-warded and sent home. I

  1171
  cannot recall whether he was one of the children who were carried off by social workers late at night, perhaps at 2 o'clock in the morning. Anyway, he had been taken away under a place of safety order obtained from a magistrate who worked in a local hospital. He had not been abused sexually but he was abused by the system. So, too, were all the other children who were taken away in Cleveland in 1987. So were the two men who committed suicide. So were the families who were irreparably split by allegations made in that great wave of zealotry.
  I recall specifically a man arriving on my doorstep with a letter telling me what had happened to him and his family. He came along on Sunday, 14 June, two days after I was elected to the House. That letter was impossible to comprehend. We assume that such things cannot happen in a civilised society. Here was a professional man, well able to safeguard his own interests, totally crushed by a system of law and so-called welfare which had completely removed all his rights and responsibilities.
  This welcome Children Bill will immeasurably improve the position. We have to legislate for all our children, and for the sake of all our children. Millions of children live normal, happy lives. However, each year thousands are injured, abused or neglected by adults. For the sake of my constituents and the community at large, we must go further than the provisions of the Bill.
  The Bill is an excellent one for simplifying the law, and for defining properly the rights and responsibilities of parent and child. It is long overdue that the declaration of the rights of the child 1959 and the European convention on human rights should find expression in English law. The sweeping away of the long discredited place of safety order will also receive a wide welcome, as will the introduction of the emergency protection order and the simplification of the provisions relating to wardship and guardianship.
  Careful consideration must be given in Committee to various points such as notification about emergency protection orders, the training of social workers, the under-fives, written agreements relating to children in care and especially the independence of guardians ad litem. If the Government wish, I will gladly serve on the Committee to support them in dealing with all those matters.
  It is crucial always to hold in mind what we are about fundamentally. We are seeking the best welfare for the nation's children because a halfway house will not do. It is not sufficient to build the front half of the vehicle to Rolls-Royce standards and then try to weld a Skoda body at the back. Unfortunately, that is what the Government are seeking to do by refusing to follow the logic of their own arguments all the way to a system of family courts.
  I have no doubt that, in framing his reply, the Solicitor-General has already thought of a quip about Rolls-Royce costs, but this matter is too serious for quips. Perhaps we should consider not whether we can afford a system of family courts, but whether we can afford not to establish one.
  The Finer committee on family law reported in 1974. Fourteen years later, no argument against the system proposed has yet been advanced. Fourteen years have elapsed, with no progress. To put that time in context, it is fair to say that in the past 140 years, since the Infants Relief Act 1874, there has been an average gap of nine years between major pieces of legislation relating to children. The last and the most important Act was the
  1172
  Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The Minister said that he thought it would be a long time before another such piece of legislation came before the House.
  If we profess to be the party of the family, we can hardly be prepared to wait another nine years to establish family courts. If we read the Bill thoroughly, we can see that it is almost as if the new system is already presumed to be there. The present structures are plainly inadequate to deal with the new law that is proposed. We need a non-adversarial system of law in family matters. We need compulsory reference to conciliation in many cases of family break-up. In New Zealand, for instance, where all divorce cases are referred to conciliation, after conciliation 19 per cent. of couples resumed the marriage, 39 per cent. reached full understanding, 16 per cent. came back for further guidance, but only 26 per cent. reached no agreement. Consider the savings that would be made in legal aid under that system.
  Passive child abuse, such as allowing a child to view pornography or adult acts, might be prevented at an early stage and on a low-key basis by a simple reprimand from a court guidance counsellor, backed, as he would be, by the full authority of the court.
  In order to speed up court cases, there must be a mechanism to introduce cases at the most appropriate level of court as soon as possible. I urge the Government to enhance the system, which was pronounced by the Finer committee and adopted in New Zealand, by including a judge as the chairman of the court in a way similar to industrial tribunals. The judge and tribunal should have power to call witnesses, to call for evidence and to instruct that parties be represented.
  I find it quite unbelievable that in this country one must go to a judge to seek an interim injunction—and give undertakings in damages and other matters in case one is wrong—in order to freeze a man's bank account, yet in order to take his children away one only has to go to a magistrate and say that one has a suspicion that the child might be in danger. That shows how this country has its priorities so terribly wrong. I look forward to the Bill putting that priority right.
  I respectfully submit that it is not sufficient to remove the most obvious shortcomings of the present system. The real point is that, in order to make sure that the system provides justice, we need a root-and-branch reform of the court system. I suspect, in the words of Mark Antony, that
  "I tell you that which you yourselves do know."
  This is a good Bill. It has the potential to become a great milestone in the history of child care law. The potential lies in clause 67, which the Lord Chancellor described in the other place as a "marker" to be eventually much more extensive in its effect. If that is not the case, the provisions of the Bill will be too strong for the court system that it will have to work within. It would be a great mistake and a tragedy for our people if this reform were to be presented half-finished.
  The Lord Chancellor has sent us a well-drafted and cohesive Bill. When introducing it elsewhere, he showed that he represented all that is best in our party. His intention is to leave the country with an enduring mark of its compassion for the most unfortunate and vulnerable people in our society.
  We should bear in mind the image that I conjured of a child who was shattered by what has happened to him. Whether that child's life was ruined by state intervention,

  1173
  by abuse or by divorce, it is imperative that we recognise that no provision is too good or too expensive for us to enact.
  A hundred years after Lord Shaftesbury campaigned for better working conditions for children, we still remember him. We can emulate his reputation with this Bill. I should be very surprised if the Government were to grant my request tonight. All I seek at this stage is an undertaking from the Solicitor-General or from the Government that they will consider whether the Bill can be the vehicle for a comprehensive reform of the law on children by introducing family courts. That should be considered carefully before the Bill leaves the House. Many hon. Members, and concerned people and organisations outside, agree that we now need a family court. I ask the Solicitor-General and the Government to give us the tools and let us finish the job.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I, like many other hon. Members, welcome the opportunity to participate in the Second Reading of this important Bill, which touches on some of the most emotional and sensitive issues in our society. I am sure that we all agree that it is difficult for any statutory framework to deal effectively with complex human relationships, especially those within families.
  Shortly after my election to the House, the Cleveland issue was highlighted. I felt at that time that it would have been wrong of me to intervene, because my intervention, however well-intentioned, would have been made without all the facts. However, I had the distinct impression that the emotions aroused boiled over. That may have been natural, indeed unavoidable, but that also effectively underlines the need to deal sensitively with matters affecting children. Despite my earlier remarks, we must have a statutory framework that takes into account so far as possible the experiences of recent events.
  Prior to my election to the House, I was a practising solicitor and I had had some experience in general practice of dealing with family law. I welcome in broad terms the provisions of the Bill that deal with custody and access on marriage breakdown. The removal of the terms "custody" and "access" and any steps that remove the conflict in such cases and make it easier for parties in marriage breakdowns or in the breakdown of family relationships to resolve their difficulties should be welcomed. Many of us who have been advocates in such matters have seen time and time again the terrible situation of children being used as emotional blackmail in family disputes. Unfortunately, many were in such a serious situation that they saw the gaining of custody of the children as a prize to be won in legal proceedings and did not consider that the interests of those children should be given paramount consideration. Therefore, anything that goes towards removing such a conflict should be welcomed.
  The amendments to the care proceedings are very much overdue. The historical piecemeal approach to the law relating to children was much to be deprecated. Over many years, we saw provisions in the Children Act 1975 fail to be implemented time and time again. The courts were hampered, because they had inadequate provisions to deal with those matters effectively, although some of them were already on the statute book.
  1174
  The rights of parents to be parties in care proceedings are important. I have never understood why that has not been introduced earlier. In care proceedings, of course, the child is represented, and on many occasions I myself have represented children. However, the parents have a large and important interest, too. They should be heard and should not simply be interested parties.
  The creation of emergency protection orders is welcomed. The eight-day initial order will meet some of the objections of the place of safety orders, and will give parents rights to challenge after 72 hours. That has resource implications, not least for the legal aid fund. I hope that the Government will allow sufficient resources to be made available to the legal aid authorities to ensure that parents and children, and all the other interested parties, can be properly and legally represented, where necessary. I also welcome the tighter timetable for interim care orders contained in the Bill. I am sure that the Solicitor-General is aware of the old maxim "delay defeats justice", but where children are concerned that delay is even more intolerable.
  This has been a fruitful debate. Much has been said about how to strike the right balance between acting quickly to prevent abuse and identifying those cases where intervention would not be justified. We all agree that we cannot legislate for perfection. However welcome the new provisions may be, we also need to encourage the agencies involved in such decisions—social workers, doctors, the police, voluntary bodies and, on occasions, probation officers—to work closely together. Because there are misunderstandings between those agencies and, let us be honest, jealousies, tragedies can occur. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the voluntary agencies outside the framework of the law work effectively together.
  In common with other hon. Members, I believe that there are some omissions from the Bill. The most glaring is the failure to introduce family courts. I welcome the provisions in the Bill so far as they go and, as the Minister of State said earlier, some people see them as the means to set up embryonic family courts. I welcome the establishment of family panels as part of the system in magistrates courts. Juvenile courts were never the right place to deal with children involved in care proceedings, and family panels will now address some of the relevant issues.
  The right answer is the establishment of family courts, but, despite the overwhelming support of hon. Members and interested organisations for their introduction, the Government appear to be determined not to introduce them. I fail to understand why, unless it is because of a lack of resources. I commend the words of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) who said that it was not a case of whether we could afford them, rather that we could not afford not to have them.
  Family courts are important because the adversarial nature of magistrates courts, and sometimes of other courts, destroys the possibility of any decency in the proceedings. That adversarial nature does a disservice to family law, and we must reconsider the introduction of family courts. The aim of family law should be to resolve conflicts without bitterness. One cannot remove bitterness entirely, but it can be significantly reduced.
  The Solicitor-General and other Front-Bench spokesmen will be aware that concern has been expressed about the resource implications of the Bill. The Association of Directors of Social Services is particularly concerned

  1175
  about the resource implications for training and the appointment of guardians ad litem and so on. The Government should not delay the introduction of the Bill's major provisions because of lack of cash; rather, they should make it clear that the resource implications will be met in full. There should be no skimping.
  I also trust that amendments will be made to the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 in relation to private nurseries. An undertaking was given about that in the other place and I trust that the Government will act upon that in Committee. Yesterday, I led a delegation to see the Lord Chancellor whom I admire. He is an honest and sincere man who listens carefully to the points put to him.
  The Bill is welcome in so far as it goes, but it could go much further. We all have the responsibility to make the Bill into an Act which is a true children's charter. I hope that the Government will respond positively to any constructive idea proposed to strengthen the Bill during its passage through the House.
  9.4 pm
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Earlier I was struck by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), who is a lawyer specialising in children's law. He drew attention to the extraodinarily complex and confusing nature of the law which surrounds children in our society. I believe that the Bill, with its 83 clauses and the wide range of issues that it attempts to encompass, is a further reflection of the complexity of that law.
  The complexity in the law has arisen largely because we tend to think that children have different rights from adults. Having read the Bill, I have the distinct impression that children are still viewed as the property of parents rather than as individual citizens in their own right. I accept that they do not vote and that they are small and often inarticulate, but by definition they are people. In our anxiety for their welfare we sometimes lose sight of that fact, and we have set up institutions that have impinged upon children's rights.
  Adults may not be subjected to physical medical examinations against their will, but in Cleveland children were subjected to inspections which almost amounted to abuse. There were not only inspected, but photographed in that act by third parties. They were subjected to appalling humiliation, but because they were small and inarticulate they were deemed suitable for such treatment. That is awful.
  When we take a child into care, what we are really doing is inflicting compulsory custody on the child. That cannot be inflicted upon us as adults unless the police have a good case against us. Even then, we are protected by the writ of habeas corpus and the police have to bring the case before a court within seven days. A child may be taken away and held for 28 days before the relevant order comes back to the magistrates courts for extension. Again the child is treated in a lesser capacity than an adult. When the child is suspected of being abused it is removed, but the abuser is often left in the family home. The child is subjected to a trauma which should perhaps rightly be inflicted on the person suspected of perpetrating the crime. Instead, however, the victim is taken away. That represents another trauma on top of the abuse already suffered.
  1176
  I question some parts of our social security system. If one studies the cases of physical abuse against children, one often discovers that the children were in happy foster homes but were then reclaimed by their mothers, who were setting up homes with new partners. The children represented points in the housing game. In other words, the child is taken back not because it is wanted but because it is a valuable commodity. In The Lancet this week a paediatrician described a case in which parents refused treatment for a handicapped child because they believed that the operation, which the paediatrician thought necessary, might end the child's life. In the paediatrician's words, the child was worth £200 to the household in allowances. Again, the rights of the child were subjugated to the financial interests of the adults.
  I could go on, but time is limited. My point is that the Bill tends to perpetuate the idea that powers given to professional workers to protect children are necessarily a good thing. I do not think that that is always so. The hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) stressed the need for children to have an outside, independent source to whom they can speak. She pointed out that several children's organisations support that idea. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) pointed out that when the Bill was going through the House of Lords, that principle was rather lost. I wish to reinforce the idea that it should be included, and that the point should be made very strongly.
  I should like to see emphasis placed again on what I would call the natural neighbourhood networks of protection for children—the teacher, who often suspects that something is wrong; the neighbours, who perhaps do not report things as much as they used to because the social worker is supposed to be doing that job; health workers, who often know a lot more about what is going on but perhaps tend to refer cases to the so-called professionals in the field. I should like to see the police involved to a much greater extent because they are not only trained in these matters but also circumscribed in their activity by very specific parameters. They cannot take people away and lock them up for 28 days without producing them in the courts. I hope that, as the Bill goes through its Committee stage, more emphasis will be placed on the need for the community to keep an eye on and take charge of its children.
  I was struck by one thing in the admirable book written by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) about the Cleveland case. An experienced paedietrician—talktng about the so-called disclosure sessions at which children were almost bullied into giving the evidence that the social worker wanted in order to carry the case forward—pointed out that children very rarely tell lies in these cases, that most children are truthful, and that if one listens to them one gets the truth. I hope that as the Bill goes through its various stages a great deal more attention than is currently being shown will be given to children as independent citizens with the right to speak up in their own defence.
  9.12 pm
  Mrs. Llin Golding: This Bill is a landmark in children's legislation. Many burning issues and many needs will be brought to the surface during its passage. Some of those needs will be met, and many of the issues will be passionately debated, but, however good the provisions of the Bill turn out to be, however good the law,

  1177
  all the passion and all the debate will have been to little purpose if the training needs of those who have to implement it are not met.
  Children have special needs. Their whole future is finely balanced. So much depends on the knowledge and accurate judgment of the professional people involved. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, police, teachers, carers, the clergy all become involved with children in need of care and protection. But central in this area of child care and protection are the social workers. It is in their hands that the needs of children at risk are placed. Their knowledge of the roles and responsibilities of other professional groups is so important in helping these children and their families. On their shoulders is often placed the ultimate responsibility for success or failure.
  The evidence from two Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work surveys—"Protecting Children" and "The Law Report"—indicates that students are leaving their one-year and two-year qualifying training ill-equipped to handle child care protection work. As has already been mentioned, some students receive their qualifications without ever having worked on a child care case. In May of last year the Government rejected the council's proposal that social workers' basic training be extended by a year. This would have allowed time both for basic training and for specialist training in any one of a number of fields, including child care. The Government have recognised the need for remedial training for existing social workers. They should supply the money that is necessary for basic and specialised training not only for social workers who deal with children but for all those who deal with children. I quote from the explanatory and financial memorandum:
  "The full annual cost of the Bill will … be between £4 million and £11 million of which £4 million will fall to local authorities and between £0 and £7 million to courts administration and legal aid. There may also be one-off training costs for local authority staff training."
  The memorandum also says:
  "None of the other provisions of the Bill is likely to have substantial financial effect. The sponsoring departments may have to make modest provision for monitoring the effects of the changes."
  That is not good enough. More money should be—must be—provided. Our hopes for this Bill rest with those people who have to implement its provisions.
  In conclusion, I have to say that we as legislators cannot sit back and think that we have done our duty by children in passing a Children Bill if we do not include in it provision for training and for monitoring its effects. Children are our future and the future of this country; we should not be counting pennies when counting the cost of our duty towards them.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Max Madden: I am most grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly in the debate on this Bill, which I welcome. I reinforce strongly all that my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) have said during the course of the debate.
  I want to emphasise the need to give grandparents rights under this Bill. I refer to a constituent of mine—the grandmother of two young children—who wrote to me saying:
  1178
  "At all times up until September 1988 I enjoyed access to the children, with whom I had a very good relationship. I was then notified by the council"—
  I should say that the council referred to is not my own local authority—
  "that they were terminating my own access rights, which they had allowed me up until then … I understand from the barrister who has advised that there is currently a gap in the law that means that, as a grandmother, I have no clear rights to commence proceedings against [the council] to enable me to take up access. Clearly, I take the view very strongly that there is some fault in the law."
  As many hon. Members have said, that fault is very clear. I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General, in his winding-up speech, would make clear very precisely what rights grandparents have under this Bill. What locus will they have in the various proceedings that are spelt out? Will legal aid be available to grandparents to enable them to take proceedings if they so wish?
  This debate takes place against the background of child benefit having been frozen for a considerable period—perhaps the most major attack against children and families in this country.
  Let me cite another part of the background against which the debate takes place. In the city of Bradford, which I have the honour to represent, children are the victims of a vicious campaign of Conservative dogma, which clearly represents the worst aspects of extreme Thatcherism. There are 9,000 school children whose parents are either unable or unwilling to pay school meal charges, which have almost doubled since last October. There have been major cuts in the funding of the voluntary sector, and these have hurt organisations serving children and families. I think that the meanest of those cuts relate to toys and equipment supplied to child minders in the district.
  I think of the single parent with three young children who is buying a house, described as being in a shocking condition, on a rental purchase scheme at 22 per cent.-plus interest. She is a young, vulnerable and quite inarticulate woman, the youngest of whose three children suffers from epilepsy. I have a letter from the citizens advice bureau in Bradford, which has been trying desperately to assist her. It says:
  "I am still trying to get money through another community care grant for repairs which Environmental Health deem necessary and for which a nine day order has been issued. Again I find it unacceptable to be told by Social Fund Officers 'to put a lock on a cellar door' as an answer to sewerage and silt problems in the cellar; and to their apparent naivety or possibly unwillingness to respond to matters of urgency. It is now Friday. The order was issued last Friday. Three telephone calls to DSS, one application form explaining the urgency and now another letter has gained no response other than flimsy excuses and insensitive suggestions."
  That is the reality of the attack that is being made on children and families in Bradford.
  We know that 2 million children live in poverty or near the poverty level. In Bradford, many children are living in poor, overcrowded homes. They go to old under-equipped schools, badly in need of repair and renovation, and live in communities which lack basic community facilities, are run-down and strewn with litter, graffiti, waste and rubbish. Is it any wonder that 15-year-olds now represent a major criminal class in Britain?
  The Government's response is to threaten to punish still further the parents of those children rather than dealing with the cause of the problem which, as has been said so

  1179
  often today, is the problem of poverty, deprivation and disadvantage, which can be so starkly seen in Bradford and other inner cities in Britain.
  The Prime Minister does not believe in society. But after 10 years of Thatcherism, the need for our nation's wealth to be shared more equally is more urgent than ever before. It is all very well to build a framework which we hope will protect children more effectively than has been the case in the past, but the Bill will be no more than words on paper unless we ensure that Britain's children and families receive a fair share of the wealth that they have been creating over the years.
  9.21 pm
  Ms. Hilary Armstrong: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. We have anxiously awaited the Bill, having read of its progress in the other place, but those working in child care have been anxiously awaiting such a major Bill for at least 10 years. In 1968 we were promised another Bill in the not too distant future because it was recognised then that the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 had not dealt with everything that it might. I remember that fairly vividly because at that time I was training as a child care officer and we were arguing strongly for the introduction of family courts.
  I have been struck today by the number of hon. Members who have supported the case for a family court. That support has been almost unanimous across the Floor of the House. I hope that Ministers have heard that. It is now 20 years since legislation was promised in 1968 and I hope that the House will not tolerate such a delay again.
  We are looking to the Government to move much more quickly—I hope during the passage of the Bill—towards a family court structure. Many of the good things in the Bill cannot be achieved under the current structure. The Bill moves towards recognising the rights of children and their right to be represented properly in court. The adversarial system simply cannot deal with that effectively. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look at that.
  Many hon. Members have welcomed the Bill but have recognised that in some areas it is profoundly disappointing. They have dealt with those points that are missing from the Bill and those aspects of it that do not assure us of the general or the specific protection that our children need.
  The subject with which I am most concerned is that of day care. The Government have a problem because they have adopted targeting in every other policy, but tonight the House is asking them to recognise that targeting will inevitably miss some children who will have to live with the effect of that for the rest of their lives.
  Hon. Members have talked about training. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) put forcibly the case for a proper initial training for all workers in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) made a good and thoughtful speech. He paid tribute to the work of those in the voluntary organisations and the local authorities. Far too often, they are the people who bear the brunt of our anger and frustration when systems laid down by the House fail.
  I was trained in the late 1960s and I practised in the early 1970s, and in those days it was almost unthinkable to remove children from their home. We were trained and encouraged to do whatever we could to keep children in
  1180
  their home. That was the mood of the time. However, as the tragedies happened, so the public's mood, frequently reflected in the House, was that social workers should have removed children at risk much earlier. That is the climate within which the Cleveland crisis arose. We should remember what happened before Cleveland and, in particular, recognise that social workers were asking for legislation long before that crisis arose. Therefore, no hon. Member can absolve himself or herself from responsibility for what happened.
  We cannot look at the Bill in isolation. The past 10 years have been a bleak experience for many of the nation's children, many of them faring worse than the children of some of our European neighbours. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has produced figures which demonstrate that Britain's poorest 4 million households have seen their living standards fall by an average of 6 per cent.—more than £2 a week—under the Government. Britain's poor are now poorer than they were in 1979, and Britain has more of Europe's poor now living within its boundaries. Britain used to have the second lowest rate of population in poverty in Europe, but now we are sixth. In 1979, 480,000 families depended on supplementary benefit, but by 1986 that figure had increased to 1·140 million. Many, many children are involved in that number, and it is they whom we are concerned about tonight.
  In drawing together some research from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, from Strathclyde and from the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, a study by Becker and MacPherson in 1986 concluded that, whilst the causal link association between poverty and abuse or neglect required further detailed research, there was both quantitative and qualitative evidence to suggest that there was a link.
  I take very seriously the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) that many children who are not in this category of a poor family nonetheless suffer neglect and abuse. Nonetheless we are putting at risk many of our children simply by condemning them to life in a poor family. A 1984 Select Committee said that children who came into care were the children of the poor. That reflects what my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles was saying—that those are the children who end up in care; they are the children identified.
  I am not trying to say that poor people abuse and neglect their children. However, we need to understand the social processes by which children end up as victims. Poverty and all it means in our society does have an effect and for this House to neglect that fact is to neglect the needs and aspirations of many people in our society.
  Many hon. Members and organisations active in child care have great concern about the situation of young people leaving care, and that matter has been addressed by hon. Members today. Some of the stories that I have heard, as a member of the general committee of the National Children's Home and from other organisations, paint a very depressing picture. I have heard of young people left with as little as 12p a day after paying accommodation costs. Young people are being made homeless or forced into prostitution and other illegal activities in order to survive.
  The broad brush approach of the Government is simply not meeting the needs of the most vulnerable, and the recent social security changes are affecting these children particularly.
  Mr. Devlin: This is not a partisan Bill.
  Ms. Armstrong: I am dealing with what the Bill does not cover and with aspects of the Bill that are linked to other pieces of legislation. Conservative Members may not like the fact that other pieces of their legislation are making children victims. I am saying that this House has the responsibility to ensure that this does not happen.
  In the Committee in another place, my noble Friend Baroness David moved an amendment calling for an estranged young person's premium under the social security system. In rejecting the amendment, the Lord Chancellor said that this was the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Security. However, in the view of many of us and many groups working with these most vulnerable young people, the Secretary of State for Social Security is not fulfilling his responsibility to them.
  The noble Baroness Faithfull moved an amendment after the Secretary of State for Social Security had announced that some concessions would be made to a small group of 16 to 17-year-olds. On Third Reading, the noble Baroness said:
  "Although we are grateful to the Minister for the extra help to 16 and 17 year olds under the Social Security system, we feel that it is quite inadequate."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 1989; Vol. 505, c.380.]
  Such matters will have to be addressed in Committee because we know that these young people, through no fault of their own, have become victims. That is part of our concern in considering this Bill. If deals partially with children who have become victims, who have little control over actions taken against them, and few defences to counter neglect.
  We all recognise our responsibility for developing more effective means of identifying neglect and abuse and for intervening to stop it. However, we must also work towards providing support for all children, so that fewer of them become victims. Anyone who works with damaged children knows that that damage lives with them and will affect them throughout their lives. Without appropriate support, it can also affect their own behaviour as parents.
  We argue that society has a responsibility to offer all children opportunity, and that opportunity is an effective way of ensuring that as few children as possible become children in danger. Services for families with young children should provide a powerful means of support for all children and not just for the most vulnerable. The Government are afraid that if they ensure the provision of services for all children, somehow that will undermine the family. In the first decade of this century, there was considerable argument about that matter, but significant advances were made in legislation affecting children. Universal health screening at school and school dinners were instituted. Members of Parliament at that time felt that that would in some way undermine the family, and that if the state stepped in and took responsibility for examining the child's health or for feeding him, millions of mothers and fathers would feel no sense of responsibility for their children. Those politicians were proved wrong.
  In Committee, we shall seek to ensure that local authorities have a duty to provide day care themselves or in partnership with the voluntary and private sectors. We shall assert a statutory duty to offer nursery education to all children. Children enjoy attending pre-school centres and benefit from doing so. The effects are long-lasting, and their parents benefit from short-term relief from the full-time job of caring for their children. They also benefit
  1182
  from the ability to work if they wish, and from the increased confidence that is a consequence of involvement in nursery and pre-school centres.
  Limiting local authority day care to children in need is shortsighted. It stigmatises the children and their families at an early stage. Targeting in that area, as in others, does not work.
  The Government's response to date is woefully inadequate. The statement from the ministerial group last week gives no hope for the future. The people of this country are looking for a national, co-ordinated child care policy that will ensure that many fewer children become vulnerable. We shall argue for extending child rights to all children and not just to those facing emergencies in the knowledge that such support strengthens parents in caring for their children and demonstrates a responsible Government attitude for the future.
  We want to open up opportunities for all children, because we want as few of them as possible to end up victims. The Government must not think that women who go out to work pose a threat to the family unit. That is one way which the family survives, and it can also be a way in which the family grows in a completely new and different direction. Family life has changed. It has moved on and become very different. We must ensure that those changes are recognised and that we work with families as they are.
  I hope that we have flagged up some of the issues. I particularly want the Minister to address the question of quality of care. The Government have been promising since last November amendments to the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948, and they have been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members tonight. We are concerned that out of school schemes should be recognised and continue to be registered. If they are deregistered, as rumour suggests, older children—many still young and vulnerable—would be left without statutory protection, in terms of both standards of care and the personnel providing that care. Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes), have outlined the potential problems, and I urge the Government not to go down that road. I ask the Solicitor-General to tell us tonight when the amendments will appear, so that we can ensure that we have plenty of time to consider them.
  I have tried to cover some issues that are in the Bill and some that are not. The Minister told us at the beginning of the debate that this would be our last opportunity for many years to put matters right. We welcome much of what is in the Bill, but we urge the Solicitor-General to recognise in his reply the importance of matters which are not in the Bill but which are central to ensuring that we offer opportunity, support and security to the children of the future—and to the children of today, so that the country will have a future.
  9.40 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): This has been, on the whole, an exceptionally thoughtful and constructive debate. There can hardly be a subject more important to any of us in the House, or in the country as a whole, than the subject of children—particularly those afflicted by family breakdown or by any one of the various circumstances of difficulty, distress or danger for which the Bill seeks to provide a new framework of law and thereby, we hope, the route to a remedy and a better life.

  1183
  The Bill has two main aims. The first is to gather in one place and, we hope, in one coherent whole all the law relating to the care and upbringing of children and the provision of social services to meet their needs. The second is to provide a consistent set of legal remedies which will be available in all courts and all proceedings. Those seemingly simple aims are more revolutionary than most people realise: they have never been achieved before. Child law, perhaps more than any other aspect of family law, has developed piecemeal to provide particular remedies at particular times for what appear at the time to be particular needs.
  The Bill represents the first attempt to establish a unified and consistent code of law covering the care and upbringing of children in both the private and the public domains. It is the result of a number of studies, starting with the report "Children in Care" produced by the Select Committee on Social Services during the 1983–84 Session and including the Law Commission's valuable report on guardianship and custody, published last year. Let me pay a special tribute to the Law Commission's invaluable work in this regard.
  "Children in Care" gave rise to the interdepartmental review and consultation report entitled "Review of Child Care Law" in 1985, and that in turn led to the White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services" early in 1987. There then followed, as we all know, the tragic events in Cleveland which led to the setting up of the statutory inquiry under Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. The delay has meant that it has been possible to incorporate in the Bill the lessons learned from that valuable report.
  The debate has rightly welcomed the three basic principles that run through the Bill. The first is the improved statement of the welfare principle governing court decisions in respect of children—namely, that the child's welfare must always be the paramount consideration—and the fact that all courts in reaching all decisions about the care and upbringing of the child must do what is best for that child. Secondly, there is the major reform of the law governing parental responsibility, guardianship, and the court's power to make orders in respect of the children in family proceedings, which rightly lays so much emphasis on the primary function of parenthood and the right and obligation of parents to care for their children and to bring them up properly. Thirdly, there is the re-statement of the powers and duties of local authorities to provide services to children and their families in a way which emphasises partnership with parents and pays regard to the needs of children.
  This finds expression in the concept which runs like a golden thread through the Bill, that while intervention where necessary is provided for, the courts and public authorities should seek to intervene in the normal arrangements of family life only where it is necessary in the interests of the child to do so and that, when they do, they should ensure that it is done in an appropriate and sensitive way.
  Against that background, there was such a large number of constructive and thoughtful contributions that I shall be unable to deal with them all. However, the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) began to draw the threads together when he referred to safe houses for runaway children, family courts and grandparents—a point that was so fully and eloquently developed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) and that was picked up by many of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member
  1184
  for Monklands, West also referred to a new clause on child protection and to the important question of the implementation of the Bill.
  The objective is not to allow the problem to drag on year after year, as has happened under all Governments during the last few decades. We shall seek to implement the Bill within about 18 months. However, there are complex details to be worked out if this all-important subject is to be fully dealt with in the Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) asked about runaway children. I repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said earlier: that we shall seek to meet the concerns of the Church of England Children's Society and to achieve the right balance. That will include my hon. Friend's concerns. We shall also seek to exempt the appropriate organisations, thereby taking into account the anxieties of the Children's Society.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston referred to the meaning of "children in need" and drew a distinction between the duty to provide for children in need and the power to provide for other children in a local authority's area. She need have no worries about that. There will be a continuation of the existing power.
  I intend to deal in detail with the point about grandparents that was taken up by the hon. Member for Ogmore and also by my hon. Friends the Members for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) and for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt), the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Sir D. Walters) who explained that he could not stay until the end of the debate.
  The Bill will provide grandparents with significant new rights. If the child has lived with them for three years they will have an automatic right to be party to any proceedings. What is more important, if those with parental responsibility agree, grandparents can automatically be brought into the proceedings. Furthermore, with the leave of the court, they may also be brought into the proceedings. The Bill provides that their rights may be extended even further, if that is thought to be necessary.
  We have approached constructively the rights of grandparents. We want local authorities to consider the placement of children with the wider family, including grandparents, when parents cannot adequately look after their children, subject to such a placement being in the best interests of the child. In addition, the Bill provides that grandparents can apply for a contact order. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) for referring to the direct language of the Bill. It is saddening and disgraceful if grandparents have to resort to the subterfuges described by the hon. Member for Ogmore. They will be able to apply to the court for a contact order, if that would help the child in question. All those provisions represent a marked step forward in assisting grandparents in the way that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish.
  Mr. Holt: My hon. and learned Friend has just said that grandparents may apply to the courts. Will such provisions be liberally interpreted by the courts when they make such applications?
  The Solicitor-General: Of course that is a matter for the court and court practice at the time, but we are

  1185
  encouraging local authorities to view that approach constructively as the proper way to treat a child in those circumstances.
  The question of family courts has been raised by many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), my hon. Friend the Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth and passionately by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). I studied the subject carefully some years ago. While there is a huge weight of opinion behind the concept of the family court, there are almost as many opinions as to the meaning of that concept. The Bill contains some constructive steps towards a sensible family court and I shall quickly enumerate some of them.
  First, as my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor has constantly and rightly emphasised, if we are to have a sensible family court, first we must get substantive family law right and that is the primary objective of the Bill. As for the concept of a unified family court, we are not going the whole way, but the Bill consolidates all proceedings relating to the child and his family. All the remedies under the Bill are to be available in all family proceedings. That is a great step forward for anyone who has practised in this field. The Bill provides for each case to find its way to the right court—that has been a problem—on the application of a party, or if the court decides that the case needs to go to a higher court or sometimes to a lower court it can make that transfer. All parties, or those who believe that they should be parties, have a right to apply to be joined in those proceedings. As nobody wants a multiplicity of proceedings, that right is likely to fall on receptive ears.
  The Bill is a beginning of a rolling programme of reform which will link the reform of the substantive law with procedural and jurisdictional reform. It is a major move in the direction which those advocating a family court have been urging which we can examine in further detail in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) raised questions about protecting children in local authority care. The Secretary of State will be able to make regulations governing the placing of children with local authority foster parents. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston was particularly concerned about that. Everyone is anxious that that immensely valuable service, provided with such dedication by so many people, should not be tainted by placing children with those who are unsuitable.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, East raised a number of very thoughtful points. He asked a rather technical question about the difference between the welfare duty of the courts in clause 1 and local authorities' duties in clause 18. But it is clear that the duty of the court is to the particular child before the court. Therefore, of course, one considers the best interests of that child. But the duty of local authorities in clause 18 is wider and more general and applies to all children in that category so the duty is sensibly and inevitably framed rather differently.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who was putting not only his own concerns as a constituency Member of Parliament, but those of the Police Federation, which he now represents—and I
  1186
  congratulate him—spoke of some of the anxieties of the police about the enforcement of powers and the sanctions against a parent who might refuse to produce a child or to allow access. A person who refused to do either of those would be ordered to come before the court, if it were one of the higher courts, and if he refused to obey he would be subject to all the penalties available for contempt. In the magistrates court, failure to comply would lead to a fine or imprisonment under section 62 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
  A number of hon. Members raised questions about wardship, including the hon. Member for Leicester, East. Wardship is no longer to be available as an alternative to care proceedings and that must be sensible. In my recollection, it was in some ways disruptive, but it may be of comfort to the hon. Gentleman, who is shaking his head, if I remind him that the more complex care cases will be transferred to the county court or the High Court and there is always an inherent jurisdiction in the High Court, which will remain available for serious cases in which there seems to be no statutory or satisfactory remedy. That provides a safety net and it is better that wardship should be used thus than in the rather wide way in which it tended to be used in the past. Again, we can discuss that point further in Committee.
  Many hon. Members expressed interest in the child assessment order. It is a most complex and important matter and was dealt with earlier by my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State. The connections of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children are long-standing. To him and to the hon. Member for Greenwich, (Mrs. Barnes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), I must say that we look forward to discussing those matters more fully in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Eccles took up the point made by a number of hon. Members about the suggested abolition of parental contribution. That sounds friendly and attractive when initially suggested and one wonders why parents should contribute, but the suggestion is for the abolition of a long-standing practice. The Bill follows the recommendation in the review of child care law consultation document that the current two schemes should be brought into line. It goes on to emphasise the aspect of reasonableness when it comes to considering which families are capable of paying and properly should pay and which should not.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Solicitor-General give way?
  The Solicitor-General: No, because I have only three minutes left, so please forgive me.
  The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) talked about excluding the alleged abuser, which is an important matter. In practice, it will be open to a person who obtains an emergency protection order to leave the child at home if the alleged abuser agrees to leave. We are considering whether a special exclusion order in addition to the emergency protection order may, in some instances, be helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East and the hon. Member for Greenwich were concerned with the possibility of introducing amendments in Committee to modernise the provisions of the Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948 relating to day

  1187
  care for the under-fives. We have it in mind to make the registration duty placed on the social services departments of local authorities simpler to operate and easier to enforce, in line with the proposals of the 1987 White Paper. However, we are considering, in response to suggestions made in the other place, whether the registration duty should apply to day care facilities for children up to the age of eight. Those provisions will be disapplied in relation to facilities for older children, but we intend to provide for the regulation of residential holiday activities, again in line with the White Paper. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East that the voluntary sector has an important part to play in all this work in co-operation with the statutory sector.
  In conclusion, in whatever way the many matters on which hon. Members of all parties have commented are ultimately formulated, the Bill as a whole represents the most comprehensive and far-reaching reform of child law. It links for the first time the strands of private law on the upbringing of children and the public law on local authority services, compulsory intervention and private arrangements for caring for children to produce a single code of consistent principles of practice which will pave the way for further reform of family law and procedure. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Ways and Means Resolution may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords] [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified
  Ordered,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

  (a) any sums required for the payment by the Secretary of State of grants under the Act;

  (b) any other expenses of the Secretary of State under the Act;

  (c) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other enactment.—[Mr. Maclean.]

  CHILDREN BILL [Lords] [Ways and Means]
  Ordered,
  That in the Children Bill [Lords] it is expedient to include provision—

  (a) with respect to the financial provisions applicable on the cessation of controlled or assisted community homes or on the disposal of premises used for the purposes of such homes;

  (b) authorising the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State under the Bill.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Attendance Allowance
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Maclean.]
10 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for choosing this subject as the Adjournment debate for this evening. In speaking on the Adjournment of the House, I wish to draw attention to the plight of one of my constituents, Mrs. Moran, in claiming the attendance allowance. In so doing, I wish to refer to three heroes. The first is obviously Mrs. Moran herself who, over the past six years, has attempted to gain the full rate of attendance allowance. The second is Mr. Moran, who has given such an extraordinary degree of love and attention to his wife. The third is Nick Warren. I am unique in having a legal unit in my constituency which helps me with my constituents' legal grievances. That in itself would be worth bringing to the attention of the House, but the fact that that unit is staffed by the most talented welfare rights lawyer makes it doubly so and, I am sure, a pleasurable pain in the flesh of the Government.
I begin by recalling some facts about Mrs. Moran. First, however, I must say how pleased I am to see my neighbour, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), in the Chamber. My constituent, Mrs. Moran, has suffered from epilepsy since she was 17. She now also suffers from Parkinson's disease and part of her life is spent in hospital. She is also in danger from wounds and bears on her face severe burns. However, she is lucky in having the support of her family and especially of Mr. Moran. It is not going too far to say that Mr. Moran's care and attention has ensured that Mrs. Moran is alive today. Despite all those facts, however, Mrs. Moran has been refused the higher rate of attendance allowance, although there is no lack of medical evidence to support her claim.
Tonight I share one of the Minister's advantages, in that I have a prepared brief from Nick Warren to which I shall pay careful attention in presenting the details of the case to the Minister and to the House. In 1983 the attendance allowance board sent a Dr. Husain to interview Mrs. Moran. He reported back that she could not safely be left at night because she might have a fit and choke. About a year later the board sent another doctor, Dr. Mann, who agreed with the first doctor sent by the attendance allowance board.
Dr. Raymond, the family's general practitioner, has reported to the attendance allowance board in the following terms:
"This lady has the most severe and least well controlled epilepsy of any patient on my list, and I am quite sure that she requires the full time care and supervision provided by her husband."
Dr. Chadwick, a consultant neurologist at Walton hospital in Liverpool, has also examined Mrs. Moran and has expressed the following opinion:
"It would seem irresponsible to underestimate the anxiety generated by her problem for a caring family. Their desire to be able to provide round the clock supervision is entirely understandable and, in my view in this particular instance, entirely reasonable."
The doctor who took the decision for the attendance allowance board also accepted that a risk of substantial danger attended any and every fit which was accompanied

1189
by a loss of consciousness and that during her fits, of which she had no warning, Mrs. Moran needed supervision to avoid danger.
What does the law say on this point? Why did that doctor not award the higher rate of attendance allowance? Following general attendance allowance board guidance, he refused the higher rate because he did not accept that a person who was merely on standby, ready to take action when a fit came on, could be described as giving supervision. Mrs. Moran challenged that interpretation of the law and was successful in the Court of Appeal in March 1987. The court sent the case back to the attendance allowance board for a fresh decision according to law. Regrettably, the Government chose to reverse the court's decision so far as it concerned night-time supervision by section 1 of the Social Security Act 1988. Fortunately, however, the old law still applies to Mrs. Moran's claim and to all other claims and reviews prior to the Royal Assent. The Minister who is here now and who answered that debate made it very clear in the House and in Committee that that was so, and I am grateful to him for that.
One might have hoped that that would have been the end of the story when the case was sent back from the Court of Appeal and that the board would have seen the error of its ways and awarded Mrs. Moran the full attendance allowance, but it did not do so. Looking at the case again, it altered its doctor's previous finding that there was a risk attached to an epileptic fit and decided that the risk of any harm coming to a person from an epileptic fit at night was so remote as not to be worthy of attention. That was, to put it mildly, an odd conclusion. Most hon. Members will have had the experience, unhappily, of constituents with a relative who died in a fit. The decision ran contrary to medical evidence which I mentioned earlier, and it ran contrary to the view that the board had expressed previously in relation to all claims involving people with epilepsy. It also contradicted the evidence of Mr. Richard Pugh, the director of social work for the British Epilepsy Association, who told the board in a statement that a rough search through his files for the past two years had produced 12 examples of people found dead in bed as a result of epileptic fits.
Mrs. Moran has appealed against the decision of the attendance allowance board. There is no appeal from the board's decision on questions of fact—a point to which I shall come in a moment. Only if there is an error of law can the social security commissioners intervene. Fortunately for Mrs. Moran — and, I believe, fortunately for justice —the decision was littered with errors of law. A tribunal of commissioners last month set aside the board's decision due to various breaches of the rules of natural justice and errors of law in the board's approach to the question of what risks should be disregarded—a point that lawyers describe as remoteness.
There are now some important questions for the Minister which relate not just to Mrs. Moran's case, important though that is, but to the general performance of the attendance allowance board.
First, I want to put to the Minister the claim of Mrs. Moran herself. This has now been referred back to the same attendance allowance board which wrongly refused her twice. This time it intends to hold an oral hearing of the
1190
case, and the Secretary of State will be represented at that hearing. The finest words that the Minister could say today are that the Secretary of State's representative at that hearing will invite the board to award Mrs. Moran the 24-hour attendance allowance for life—I accept that the Government's representative cannot himself award the allowance, but he can support Mrs. Moran's claim. Will the Government do that?
Secondly, this case highlights the difficulties that claimants face when there is no appeal on questions of fact against the attendance allowance board's decision. At the hearing before the social security commissioners it was said that the board considered that there was no risk of death from an epileptic fit at night. The only evidence produced to support that extraordinary assertion was a study in 1979 of eight people with epilepsy in one district of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. No evidence from this country was presented at that hearing, and only two of the eight were recorded as having died in bed. It is shocking that a general policy should be overturned on such slender evidence. The board might not have been in such a hurry to reach that conclusion had it known that there was an independent right of appeal on questions of fact and that its findings would have to be justified by the evidence.
The Minister should introduce a right of appeal on attendance allowance decisions to the social security appeal tribunal, which consists of a lawyer and two ordinary members of the public who are well used to weighing medical evidence. Perhaps equally important, they are used to having oral hearings at which a patient or carer can explain the case in ordinary language. The attendance allowance system of adjudication is practically unique within the DSS in hardly ever offering the citizen a chance to explain his or her case in person. The appeal would do precisely that.
The third question is perhaps more immediate: what about the other cases involving people with epilepsy which have presumably been decided by the board or its delegates in the same erroneous way? I am pleased to say that several cases were held back by the Government pending the first Moran decision. Will the Minister check the files and invite and support late applications for appeal by claimants who have or may have been wrongly refused the allowance?
Fourthly, the problem is wider still because the decision of the tribunal of commissioners has cast doubt on the guidance that the attendance allowance board has given to doctors who take decisions concerning the legal question of remoteness. In paragraph 5.12.4 of the guidance, the board has told doctors that they can disregard hazards which are unlikely to occur. That is unlawful, because it takes no account of small risks with disastrous consequences. An event might be unlikely in the sense that it has, say, only a 5 per cent. chance of happening, but if that 5 per cent. chance involves someone else's or one's own death it would be sensible and reasonable to take precautions against it. It appears, therefore, that many other cases have been wrongly decided on the issue of remoteness since the board issued its guidance last June. It follows that the benefit has not been hitting its target—a particular aim of the Government's social policy. What does the Minister intend to do in such cases?
I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances that Mrs. Moran will win her private fight for justice. I hope that he will also give an assurance that the files will

1191
be searched to ensure that justice is done in other cases. I hope that the Minister will give the further assurance that there will be change in future.
I end my speech with one last question. It is not my question but that of Mr. Moran who is closely following the debate. I asked him what one message he wished me to give the Minister before the Minister replied to the debate on the long battle that Mr. Moran's wife had been fighting for the attendance allowance. Mr. Moran's question can be put quite simply. He recalled, as I have recalled, all the events—including going to the Court of Appeal where he and Mrs. Moran went in their fight for justice—and his question was, "Where else do we have to go for justice?" I hope that the Minister will answer that question and start giving justice to Mrs. Moran.
10.13 pm
Mr. Barry Porter rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) have the agreement of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the Minister to speak?
Mr. Frank Field: Yes.
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Yes.
Mr. Porter: I share two things with the hon. Member of Birkenhead (Mr. Field). First, we both live in Birkenhead. He has the privilege of being my Member of Parliament. He has made a powerful case in respect of Mrs. Moran. I do not wish to repeat what he has already advanced. His case does not seem to create a precedent which would involve enormous public expenditure. It would involve justice, which the Government should accept. It would not involve the Government in any great difficulty.
Secondly, I have the privilege of sharing with my Member of Parliament a trusteeship arranged by Mr. Nicholas Warren who deals, in Birkenhead and in appropriate places, with all sorts of difficulties that people have with the Department of Social Security. The trusteeship has been an enormous success. I pay tribute to my Member of Parliament and to Mr. Warren, a solicitor who does not need a large amount of money to do anything.
It is important that justice is seen to be done and that the Government show compassion. That can be done without great expense to the public purse. Surely, on the arguments advanced by my Member of Parliament, the difficulty can, should and, I trust, will be overcome.
10.15 pm
The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) for raising this case. It has been in the frame, as it were, ever since I assumed my present responsibilities. I have talked to a number of holders of my office and to those who were Parliamentary Secretaries in the Department. They recall the long-running issue involved in Mrs. Moran's claim for a higher rate of attendance allowance. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) has weighed in behind the hon. Gentleman.
Like the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I cannot but pay tribute to Mrs Moran and to Mr. Moran, who, as he said,
1192
is following the debate with great interest, for the way that they have sustained their case. I also pay tribute to Nick Warren, despite the difficulties that he may from time to time have caused for those in the Department with responsibility for these matters. He has a high reputation in this area.
The first thing I have to say will be disappointing, but I cannot think that it will be any surprise to the House to know that, whatever sympathy I have for Mrs. Moran—the hon. Member for Birkenhead knows of my sympathy—I cannot make any decision on her claim. We have a system of attendance allowance claims, in common with claims for all other social security benefits, based on independent adjudicating authorities. The allowance is awarded, or disallowed, by an adjudication officer who is wholly independent of Ministers and civil servants in the Department.
Claimants who are dissatisfied with the decisions of adjudication officers can appeal to a social security appeal tribunal and thence, with leave, to the social security commissioner on a point of law. It is important for the House to realise that the adjudication officer and the SSAT can award an allowance only for the period and at the rate specified on a certificate of attendance needs issued by the attendance allowance board or by a medical practitioner who has been delegated to act on behalf of the board. We have to accept that those basic rules cannot be altered by a Minister, however sympathetic he may be towards an individual case.
Review decisions of the board or its delegates are themselves subject to the same rights of review as initial decisions. Review decisions can also be challenged by way of an appeal on a question of law to the social security commissioner. We cannot decide claims, nor can we alter or try to affect decisions given by the board or its delegates about whether the medical criteria for the attendance are satisfied in individual cases.
The hon. Gentleman raised the record of the hoard. I believe that the record of achievement of the attendance allowance scheme over the years has vindicated Parliament's decision to entrust those decisions to the board and to the various appeal procedures that are available to claimants.
The board has the duty of applying the criteria in individual cases and to use its expertise and judgment. It is made up of eminent clinicians, expert in various fields of medicine, as well as lay people with interests and insight into the needs of disabled people. Its delegates are usually practising or retired general practitioners who, of course, have practical experience of the effects of disability in all its forms on the daily lives of disabled people.
I shall set Mrs. Moran's case in the wider context. The decisions of the board have been instrumental in the award of attendance allowance to more than 2 million people, and some 65 per cent. of all initial claims made since 1E971 have been favourable. Today, about 760,000 people are in receipt of attendance allowance. I am certainly not claiming at this Dispatch Box that the board always gets it right first time, or that the needs of individual disabled people do not change over time. That is why the arrangements for the review of the decisions on the medical criteria in individual cases must take account of both those eventualities.
On the face of it, one could say that the number of occasions when changes have been made to that initial decision—approaching 20,000 cases over the years—looks

1193
a lot, but it represents only 6·4 per cent. of the number of decisions on new attendance allowance claims in 1987. For the board and its delegates to have given decisions on initial claims which satisfy over 90 per cent. of claimants is a remarkable achievement. It is all the more remarkable when one bears in mind that claimants are encouraged to seek review if they are dissatisfied when details of the decisions of the board and its delegates are sent to them.
There is rightly every incentive for dissatisfied claimants to exercise that right and to seek review. Attendance allowance is well worth receiving in its own right. It is a well targeted benefit. It provides welcome help with the extra costs arising from long-term disability, but it also provides a passport to the income support disability premium and severe disability premium and a passport through the disablement test for severe disablement allowance; and, of course, it is a precondition for payment of invalid care allowance. It is therefore an important passport. There is every incentive for those who may be turned down to seek a review. I do not complain about that at all, because I am anxious to ensure that all those who are entitled, either to the lower or to the higher rate, get that entitlement.
The relevant change of circumstances reviews are an important part of the process. Reviews on that ground relate exclusively to people who have been awarded the lower rate allowance and whose attendance needs have changed, which is relevant to Mrs. Moran's circumstances. In 1987, relevant change of circumstances reviews resulted in some 24,000 decisons being changed. There is therefore no automatic tendency on review to turn down cases which are raised and for which reviews are asked. We all know that the needs of disabled people are not fixed. Their circumstances genuinely change from year to year, and, indeed, over even shorter time scales. It is right that there should be a system that makes it possible to review the changes and to see whether the higher rate allowance may be appropriate because of the changed circumstances.
One of the most important points raised by the hon. Gentleman was that the board had somehow changed its position on the risks attached to epileptic fits, which especially applies to Mrs. Moran's case. Perhaps, in response, I could quote what I believe to be an especially relevant passage from the recent decision of the tribunal of commissoners explaining why that was a reasonable thing for the board to do:
"Now had the factual situation as found by the Board remained as it was at the time of the Commissioner's decision of 30 April 1986 then, in the light of the guidance of the Court of Appeal's judgment, the claimant might reasonably have expected her claim to succeed.
In those circumstances it would be entirely understandable for the claimant to feel that the Board have to use a colloquialism 'moved the goalposts'. But of course that would be an entirely wrong way to look at it. It is the function of the Board to use their accumulated medical knowledge and expertise objectively to assess each case before them, and it is their right and, indeed their duty, to take account of any advances and other changes in such knowledge so that the opinions they express reflect the most up-to-date established thinking."
However, the relevant paragraph goes on to explain the commissioner's view that this principle should be subject to an obligation on the board to explain why it revised or modified a long-established approach. In that connection, I shall pick up the question put by the hon. Member for
1194
Birkenhead about the American evidence which was quoted by the board in support of its contention about the risk of death in bed from epilepsy.
The board may wish to respond to the commissioner's view about the need for explanation when it comes to review Mrs. Moran's case once again. I understand that doctors often have to interpret published scientific evidence, which may not be conclusive in the light of their own clinical experience, when deciding on the management of their patients. In those circumstances, references may be quoted more by way of illustration than as conclusive proof. In that respect, the board is no exception in reaching a view on the risks attached to epileptic fits in bed at night.
That leads me to give the only answer I can give to the two other questions posed by the hon. Gentleman. It is because we have appointed the board as a source of expert advice, based on accumulated experience and the ability to interpret medical experience, that, despite the hon. Gentleman's understandable plea for the Secretary of State to be involved in the next hearing, it would be inappropriate for my right hon. Friend to express to the board the simple and unequivocal support for Mrs. Moran's claim as proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
I do not believe there would be any point in securing the service of expert advisers and adjudicators if one then told them what to do in their sphere of expert judgment. For similar reasons, I doubt that it would necessarily serve the claimants' interests to seek to put one set of experts on top of another. There is already provision for appeal to the commissioners on matters of law and I do not believe it would necessarily improve matters to impose a higher tier of medical adjudication.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the commissioner's comments on the board's guidance to its delegated doctors and about earlier cases decided under these guidelines. The board will undoubtedly be reconsidering those guidelines in view of what the tribunal of commissioners said in its recent decision. In the event that the board revises those guidelines, it will obviously be necessary for consideration to be given to the implications for the previous cases to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention.
I recognise that Mrs. Moran's case has been at issue for a long time. I hope that the hon. Member for Birkenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South will recognise that that is the result of fundamental questions that have been raised in the course of that case. Whatever sympathy I have for the particular circumstances of Mr. and Mrs. Moran—I assure the hon. Gentleman of my sympathy—it was inevitable that that case would be protracted because of its importance to the claimant and to the Department. Therefore, some delay and an extension of the consideration of the case was inevitable. The Department and the independent adjudicating authority have all been involved in that.
Let us consider the circumstances in which it will be for the attendance allowance board again to reconsider Mrs. Moran's case in the light of the guidance on relevant legal issues that has been handed down by the Appeal Court and the social security commissioners. I understand that, at present, the board is discussing with Mrs. Moran's representatives a suitable date when it might be able to hear her case. I am confident that everyone present in the Chamber hopes that that hearing, combined with guidance from the courts and the commissioners and the board's expertise on the medical issues involved, and the

1195
subsequent decision—I cannot prejudge what it will be —will he instrumental in bringing Mrs. Moran's case to a satisfactory conclusion.
1196
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  South Africa
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for his policy towards South Africa of the report on the rights of detainees and other matters, by the Black Sash women's rights group of South Africa; and if he will make arrangements for a copy of the report to be procured for his departmental library.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We regularly receive information on human rights issued by Black Sash. The March issue of the Black Sash magazine is devoted to an overview of the current state of human rights in South Africa. We condemn all abuses of basic human rights wherever they occur.

  United Kingdom Embassies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries at present do not have a United Kingdom embassy; what is the reason for the absence; and what steps are being taken to establish an embassy in each case.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As all the information necessary is not immediately available, a further reply will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  India (Missiles)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any representations to the Indian Government over the implications for stability in the sub-continent of the planned programme of flight testing the Agni intermediate range ballistic missile in Orissa state.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No.

  Soviet Submarine (Sinking)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what detailed information was received from the Soviet Government, at what time, and through which channels, to assure Her Majesty's Government that the sinking of the Mike class Soviet nuclear submarine provided no radiological hazard to the North sea and Arctic ocean.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A message from Mr. Gorbachev to the Prime Minister informing her of the accident was passed on in the early hours of 8 April. In it he assured her that there was no leak of radioactivity and that none was expected. Detailed information to the same effect was passed by the Soviet permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to that 594
  body at about 0545 BST on 8 April. This information was relayed to London through the British permanent representative's office at 0645 BST.

THE ARTS

  "The Northern Region: Making Ends Meet"
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consideration he has given to the findings of the report published by the National Campaign for the Arts "The Northern Region: Making Ends Meet;" and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: The funding of regional arts associations is a matter for the Arts Council. I understand that the chairman of the Arts Council has already written to the National Campaign for the Arts about the report.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Pension Fund
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council when the Government Actuary's valuation report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund will be laid before the House.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In accordance with section 5 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972, the Government Actuary's valuation report on the parliamentary contributory pension fund is being laid before the House today. The House will have an opportunity to debate the report and the Government will not take any decision on its recommendations until after that debate. The report includes a recommendation that the standard contribution for Members should be about 20 per cent. of salary, of which the Exchequer should contribute 11 per cent., while the Member's contribution should remain at 9 per cent. This compares with the position previously when the Exchequer contribution was set at 13 per cent. with a 5 per cent. supplement, during which time a substantial surplus has built up in the fund. This surplus would by convention normally be used to reduce the employers' contribution. The Actuary therefore recommended that the Exchequer contribution from April 1989 should fall to 4·4 per cent., returning to 11 per cent. from April 1997.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  "The Inland Revenue and the Taxpayer"
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to initiate legislation, or consolidate legislation, as a consequence of the Board of Inland Revenue's consultative document entitled, "The Inland Revenue and The Taxpayer" published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office on behalf of the Board of Inland Revenue in December 1986.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Legislation was included in the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 and the Finance Act 1988. Further clauses are contained in this year's Finance Bill which will substantially complete the legislation arising out of the proposals in the Inland Revenue's consultative document.
  595
  Consolidation of statute law is the responsibility of the Law Commission. A Bill consolidating the laws relating to capital allowances will be ready for introduction in the 1989–90 Session of Parliament. Work on further consolidations of tax law will then be put in hand.

  Small Businesses (Tax Concessions)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in the Official Report the tax concessions specifically directed at small businesses since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In line with the Government's policy of encouraging enterprise, tax changes intended to benefit small businesses have been introduced in each Budget since 1979. Details are as follows:

  1979 Budget
  Small companies' profit limits raised to £60,000 and £100,000.

  1980 Budget
  Venture capital scheme introduced;
  costs of raising business loan finance allowed as tax deduction against trading income;
  small companies' profit limits raised to £70,000 and £130,000;
  small companies' corporation tax (CT) rate reduced to 40 per cent.;
  capital gains tax (CGT) exemption limit increased to £3,000;
  removal of double charge to CGT and capital transfer tax (CTT) on gifts;
  CTT threshold doubled to £50,000;
  introduction of small workshops scheme;
  relaxation of conditions for tax relief for interest paid on money borrowed for investment in, or lending to, a close company;
  close company apportionment rules abolished in respect of trading income;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  percentage limit on retirement annuity relief increased and abolition of ceiling on premiums qualifying for relief;
  measures to encourage employee share ownership;
  easing of administrative burden on sub-contractors tax deduction scheme;
  pre-trading revenue expenditure allowed as deduction against trading income.

  1981 Budget
  Venture capital scheme extended;
  Business Start Up Scheme introduced;
  small companies' profit limits raised to £80,000 and £200,000;
  extension and relaxation of interest relief on money borrowed for investment in a partnership co-operative;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  threshold for tax relief on redundancy payments increased to £25,000;
  introduction of pilot loan guarantee scheme.

  1982 Budget
  Expansion of business start up scheme;
  no advance corporation tax (ACT) or income tax charge on certain purchases of own shares by unquoted trading companies;
  small companies' profit limits raised to £90,000 and £225,000;
  CGT exemption limit increased to £5,000 and indexed for future years;
  CGT indexation of gains introduced;
  CTT threshold increased to £55,000 and indexed for future years, rate bands extended;
  beneficial changes to interest relief rules for investments in close companies made by working managers;
  596
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  deduction for VAT paid on supplies of services to VAT registered traders before registration;
  limits of retirement annuity relief for older contributors increased;
  qualifying period for tax relief for pre-trading expenditure increased to three years;
  business contributions to local enterprise agencies to be tax deductible;
  extension of small workshop scheme for very small workshops;
  extension of pilot loan guarantee scheme.

  1983 Budget
  Introduction of business expansion scheme (BES);
  small companies' CT rate reduced to 38 per cent.;
  small companies' profit limits raised to £100,000 and £500,000;
  CGT exemption limit raised in line with inflation;
  CTT: threshold increased by more than inflation, longer period for paying tax on business assets without incurring interest charge;
  further measures to encourage employee share ownership;
  de minimis limit for assessment of investment income apportioned to members of a close company increased to £1,000;
  interest relief extended to employee buy-outs;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  extension of loan guarantee scheme.

  1984 Budget
  small companies' CT rate reduced to 30 per cent.;
  further measures to encourage employee share ownership;
  CGT exemption limit raised in line with inflation;
  CGT rollover and retirement reliefs extended to furnished holiday lettings—enables landlords of such properties to claim same deductions as traders;
  highest rate of CTT cut to 60 per cent., rates for lifetime transfers reduced to half those on death;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  self-employed required to live in job-related accommodation given mortgage interest relief for purchase of own home elsewhere;
  National insurance surcharge abolished;
  relaxation of conditions for interest relief applied to employee buy outs;
  Investment income surcharge abolished;
  retirement relief doubled to £100,000.

  1985 Budget
  Tax relief on half class 4 NIC;
  extension of BES;
  reform of capital gains retirement relief, reducing qualifying age and introducing ill-health relief; extension of indexation to give full relief for assets held since 1982;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation, extension of bad debt relief.

  1986 Budget
  small companies' CT rate reduced to 29 per cent.;
  BES extended and targeting improved;
  Inheritance tax (IHT) replaced CTT, thereby abolishing tax charge on most lifetime gifts;
  Increase in CGT small part-disposals relief unit;
  VAT registration and deregistration thresholds raised broadly in line with inflation;
  Enterprise allowance scheme expanded;
  Employee share schemes: improved access for unquoted family companies, employee controlled companies, worker co-operatives;
  Loan Guarantee Scheme extended an premium halved.

  1987 Budget
  Small companies' CT rate reduced to 27 per cent.;
  package of measures to lighten VAT burden on small businesses including: cash accounting and annual accounting for businesses with turnover of up to £250,000, period in

  597
  which businesses obliged to register extended to 30 days, simpler schemes to be more widely available for small and medium sized retailers;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  standstill in fuel duties and most vehicle excise duty rates;
  BES changes to reduce effect of investment bunching in last quarter of tax year;
  small companies' rate of CGT reduced to 27 per cent. with ACT offset against liability on gains;
  ceiling for capital gains retirement relief increased to £125,000;
  IHT business relief increased from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. for minority holdings over 25 per cent. in unquoted companies;
  IHT threshold increased by more than inflation;
  introduction of tax relief for profit related pay (PRP);
  new simplified occupational pension schemes will help small employers set up own schemes;
  personal pensions introduced with improved, age related contribution limits.

  1988 Budget
  small companies' CT rate reduced to 25 per cent.;
  small compamies' CGT charges reduced to 25 per cent.;
  BES targeting improved to help smaller and newer businesses;
  CGT retirement relief considerably extended, 50 per cent. relief introduced for gains between £125,000 and £500,000;
  CGT rollover relief extended to milk and potato quotas;
  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation;
  abolition of capital duty;
  major changes to rules applying to unapproved employee share schemes;
  simplification of IHT: flat rate of 40 per cent., threshold increased by more than inflation;
  exemption for capital gains accruing before April 1982.

  In addition, the following proposals are contained in this year's Finance Bill:
  small companies' profit limits raised to £150,000 and £750,000;
  simplification of pensions rules and substantial increases in personal pension contribution limits;
  improved tax reliefs designed to encourage employee participation in PRP and employee share schemes (including ESOPS);
  abolition of close company apportionment rules;
  extended relief for pre-trading expenditure;

  VAT registration threshold raised broadly in line with inflation:
  CGT gifts relief retained for business assets.
  And, of course, small businesses will also have benefited from the major reductions in the rates of income tax since 1979.

  Old Ships
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to remove the balancing charge under which a British ship owner when disposing of old ships pays to the Treasury one third of the proceeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion. Balancing charges are made to recover tax relief for depreciation given in excess of the depreciation actually experienced. Whether such a charge needs to be made and, if so, the amount of the charge depends on the particular circumstances of each individual case.

  Investment Statistics
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in tabular form the amounts invested(a) in United
  598
  Kingdom shares and (b) in foreign shares by (i) pension funds, (ii) insurance companies and (iii) unit trusts for each month from January 1979 to date.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information on the investment of financial institutions in United Kingdom and overseas company securities is published regularly in "Financial Statistics"—for pension funds in table 7.14, for insurance companies in table 7.13, and for unit trusts in table 7.11. The figures published show the market value of investments at the end of each calendar year, and the cash value of net acquisitions (purchases less sales) in each quarter. There is no monthly information.

  Gilts
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount of Government gilt edged securities sold by unit trusts, pension funds and insurance companies in each quarter since October 1987; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information requested is published in "Financial Statistics"—for unit trusts in table 7.11, for pension funds in table 7.14, and for insurance companies in table 7.13.

  EC Banking Directive
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the Council of Finance Ministers in considering the second banking directive; if it is the general purpose of the draft directive that banks approved by their own state should be permitted to seek deposits, to offer loans and to engage in the full business of retail banking in another member state; and if he will make a statement on the position of Her Majesty's Government on the directive.

  Mr. Lilley
  The draft second banking coordination directive, which the Government have welcomed in principle as an important step towards the creation of a single market in financial services. It will give credit institutions (broadly, banks and building societies) the right to establish a branch in, or provide cross-border services into, another member state on the basis of their home state authorisation. This right will extend to a wide range of banking services including those mentioned. The directive is currently under detailed consideration in a Council working group of representatives from the member states and the Commission. The Commission has recently made revised proposals for a reciprocity provision in the directive. The Council of Ministers had an initial discussion of these new proposals on 17 April, and they are being considered further.

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Neil Hamilton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the notes on those clauses of the Finance Bill to be taken in Committee of the whole House will be made available to hon. Members.

  Mr. Major
  Yes. The appropriate notes on clauses were placed in the Vote Office earlier today.

  Computers
  Miss. Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many instances have been detected in the
  599
  Inland Revenue computer system of computer (a) hacking, (b) viruses, (c) logic bombs, (d) Trojan horses or (e) other types of computer misuse, whether perpetuated by authorised or unauthorised users of computers; and how many unsuccessful attempts have been recorded.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: It is not the policy of this Department to make public details and circumstances of computer security incidents, their perpetrators and their success or failure, since such information would be of assistance to potential attackers.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total income tax payment for(a) a single person on £40,000, (b) a married man with no children on £40,000 and (c) a married man with two children on £40,000 with no other allowances apart from the basic allowances; and what would be the total payments in each category if the standard rate of income tax for those earning £40,000 were raised to 50 per cent.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 20 April 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Income tax liability1 1989–90 on income of £40,000

  Category

  Assuming 1989 Budget proposals £ p.a.

  Assuming single rate of tax of per cent. £ p.a.

  (a) Single person

  11,781·00

  18,607·50

  (b) Married man with no children

  11,145·00

  17,812·50

  (c) Married man with two children2

  10,391·00

  17,058·50

  1 Assumes no other allowances apart from the basic personal allowances.

  2 Deducting child benefit of £7·25 per week per child.

  Double Taxation (Ireland)
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement indicating whether there have been any reviews of, or amendments to, the Treasury or Inland Revenue's interpretation of functions of a governmental nature covered by article 18(I) of the double taxation agreement with the Republic of Ireland; and if he will detail the date, content and status of any guidelines issued to Inland Revenue officials on such interpretation on and since the introduction of the double Taxation Agreement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: There have been no reviews. The article concerned is common in form to many of our double taxation agreements and guidelines on it have been available for many years to officials. Any matters of particular difficulty are handled centrally.

  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement listing the functions of a governmental nature covered by article 18(1) of the double taxation agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 18 April 1989]: Where services are rendered directly to the Government or
  600
  a local authority they are considered to involve the discharge of functions of a governmental nature. Where, however, services are rendered by employees to an agency, board or other statutory body, they are considered to render services to that agency, board or statutory body and not to the Government or a local authority.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  West Bank and Gaza Strip
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 20 April, columns 241–42, as to the aid over the last five years to the West Bank and Gaza Strip from (a) other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, (b) other European Economic Community countries and (c) other sources.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information on other donors' aid to the West Bank and Gaza is scarce. Our understanding is that France, Germany, Italy and Spain have programmes broadly comparable with that of the United Kingdom; that the United States of America provides substantially more; and that some other western donors maintain small programmes.

  Outside the OECD and the European Community the eastern bloc and Arab donors provide some assistance, the former mainly through training awards. Among Arab donors Jordan was particularly active in the occupied territories until last year.

  Among multilateral donors the European Community provided the equivalent of £5 million from 1981 to 1986 and some £2 million in each of 1987 and 1988. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees provided US$174·5 million in 1986, US$208·8 million in 1987 and US$216·4 million in 1988; these figures also include expenditure in Lebanon and refugee camps elsewhere in the region.

WALES

  Siemens Printers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Siemens ND3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  My Department does not have any Siemens ND3 printers. Contracts which my Department has with private companies do not specify that particular printers should or should not be used.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress he has made, in conjunction with the Welsh Language Board, in discussing the changes to legislation with regard to the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has already taken action via the Local Government and Housing Bill to allow local authorities in Wales to adopt the Welsh
  601
  version of their official title. The Welsh Language Board has made good progress in considering a number of other areas where difficulties have arisen with regard to the use of Welsh in the past and my right hon. Friend will consider its proposals as they emerge.

  ESA Payments
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether ESA payments to farmers in Wales are made to those who are farming the relevant land whether as tenants or owner occupiers or to the landowners.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  ESA payments are made to the applicant who will usually be an owner-occupier or tenant of the land. Joint applications can be accepted from landlord and tenant.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has issued any guidelines on the effect on agricultural rents of ESA payments; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No. Agricultural rents are a matter for negotiation between landlord and tenant.

  Specialty

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembro ke-shire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Number of operations by specialty—19851

  General medicine

  913

  870

  1,557

  251

  1,391

  379

  2

  1,182

  2,794

  Paediatrics

  140

  2

  231

  176

  522

  2

  2

  788

  213

  Chest diseases

  242

  267

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  380

  2

  Dermatology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  96

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Neurology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  75

  357

  Cardiology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  966

  2

  Rheumatology

  78

  2

  2

  2

  2

  22

  2

  2

  56

  Geriatrics

  2

  2

  2

  2

  98

  74

  2

  2

  64

  General surgery

  10,071

  5,039

  7,315

  5,652

  7,608

  2,177

  51

  7,276

  5,298

  ENT

  2,863

  1,478

  2,508

  899

  2,932

  2

  2

  3,193

  1,841

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  4,190

  1,593

  2,815

  1,749

  3,979

  968

  2

  4,100

  2,906

  Ophthalmology

  1,520

  812

  852

  1,024

  1,443

  2

  2

  932

  692

  Radiotherapy

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2,637

  907

  Urology

  2

  2

  1,470

  2

  1,609

  2

  2

  2,041

  1,296

  Plastic surgery

  2

  2

  3,402

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Thoracic surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  272

  2

  Dental surgery

  891

  208

  933

  367

  959

  2

  2

  1,797

  1,035

  Neurosurgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  305

  689

  Gynaecology

  4,378

  1,895

  5,230

  2,551

  5,653

  1,212

  2

  4,960

  5,793

  Obstetrics

  4,338

  1,895

  5,155

  2,200

  5,737

  1,363

  2

  5,709

  5,161

  Special care babies

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  75

  2

  Cardiac surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  393

  2

  Burns

  2

  2

  178

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Neurology radiologist

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  193

  2

  GP Maternity

  2

  2

  798

  75

  120

  52

  516

  2

  2

  GP Medical

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  861

  2

  2

  GP Dental

  140

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other specialist units

  125

  2

  179

  2

  751

  2

  2

  111

  2

  Orthodontics

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  94

  2

  2

  2

  Intermittent haemodialysis

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  89

  Acute geriatrics

  266

  2

  59

  2

  2

  2

  2

  157

  280

  Haematology

  166

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  412

  372

  Short stay units

  341

  2

  73

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other/not known

  108

  124

  160

  52

  38

  37

  92

  146

  134

  Number of operations by specialty—19861

  General medicine

  1,417

  1,025

  1,749

  363

  2,172

  402

  2

  1,288

  3,008

  Paediatrics

  178

  2

  311

  191

  646

  2

  2

  1,152

  285

  Chest diseases

  207

  421

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  384

  2

  Dermatology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  133

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Neurology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  52

  435

  Cardiology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  788

  2

  Rheumatology

  55

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  95

  Geriatrics

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  103

  2

  2

  330

  General surgery

  10,029

  6,550

  8,122

  5,646

  9,849

  2,857

  2

  7,171

  4,719

  ENT

  2,753

  2,023

  2,436

  951

  3,016

  120

  2

  3,573

  1,575

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  3,558

  2,074

  2,946

  1,908

  4,428

  1,492

  2

  4,069

  2,890

  Ophthalmology

  1,576

  935

  1,233

  1,063

  2,020

  2

  2

  1,091

  835

  Health Service
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each health authority the percentage of consultant hours in each specialty which are contracted to(a) the National Health Service and (b) private practice.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by health authority the average number of National Health Service operations done by consultants in each specialty in each of the past three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  The information shown in the following tables relates to the number of operative procedures performed in NHS hospitals, by specialty.
  603

  Specialty

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Pembro ke-shire

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Radiotherapy

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2,927

  1,110

  Urology

  2

  2

  1,482

  2

  1,637

  2

  2

  2,065

  1,722

  Plastic surgery

  2

  2

  3,466

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Thoracic surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  266

  2

  Dental surgery

  970

  207

  823

  304

  1,086

  2

  2

  3,027

  1,214

  Neurosurgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  279

  876

  Gynaecology

  4,576

  2,212

  5,058

  2,673

  5,873

  1,667

  2

  5,994

  5,810

  Obstetrics

  4,689

  1,851

  5,071

  2,263

  6,853

  1,356

  2

  5,102

  5,356

  Special care babies

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  55

  2

  Cardiac surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  317

  2

  Burns

  2

  2

  86

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Neurology radiologist

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  411

  2

  GP Maternity

  2

  2

  632

  70

  81

  53

  504

  2

  2

  GP Medical

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  803

  2

  2

  GP Dental

  89

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other specialist units

  2

  2

  2

  2

  796

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Orthodontics

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  248

  2

  2

  2

  Intermittent haemodialysis

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  178

  Acute geriatrics

  299

  88

  173

  2

  2

  2

  2

  173

  188

  Haematology

  103

  90

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  330

  358

  Anaesthetics

  60

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  208

  2

  Short stay units

  509

  2

  262

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other/not known

  143

  155

  193

  43

  160

  48

  97

  180

  55

  Number of operations by specialty—19871

  General medicine

  1,432

  1,353

  1,762

  684

  2,572

  349

  2

  1,277

  3,260

  Paediatrics

  210

  2

  206

  209

  292

  2

  2

  1,222

  265

  Chest diseases

  180

  618

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  339

  2

  Dermatology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  125

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Neurology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  386

  Cardiology

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  903

  2

  Rheumatology

  2

  2

  91

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  99

  Geriatrics

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  99

  2

  2

  752

  General surgery

  10,110

  6,930

  8,379

  5,617

  11,464

  2,883

  2

  6,928

  5,266

  ENT

  2,635

  2,310

  2,256

  995

  2,975

  114

  2

  3,457

  2,014

  Trauma and orthopaedic

  3,859

  2,209

  3,257

  1,923

  4,902

  1,409

  2

  4,058

  3,421

  Opthalmology

  1,906

  1,045

  1,222

  1,232

  2,912

  2

  2

  957

  957

  Radiotherapy

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2,773

  1,537

  Urology

  378

  2

  1,999

  2

  1,707

  2

  2

  1,950

  1,622

  Plastic surgery

  2

  2

  3,371

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Thoracic surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  267

  2

  Dental surgery

  1,024

  245

  766

  240

  1,052

  2

  2

  3,045

  1,285

  Neurosurgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  271

  1,001

  Gynaecology

  4,909

  2,323

  4,688

  2,671

  8,238

  1,675

  2

  6,365

  6,180

  Obstetrics

  4,960

  2,011

  5,104

  2,293

  7,194

  1,424

  2

  5,623

  5,693

  Cardiac surgery

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  268

  2

  Burns

  2

  2

  197

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Neurology radiologist

  60

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  280

  2

  GP Maternity

  2

  2

  555

  112

  2

  2

  494

  2

  2

  GP Medical

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  811

  2

  2

  GP Dental

  85

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other specialist units

  2

  2

  2

  2

  260

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Orthodontics

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  253

  2

  2

  2

  Intermittent haemodialysis

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  78

  Acute geriatrics

  325

  172

  132

  2

  2

  2

  2

  256

  2

  Haematology

  130

  131

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  125

  365

  Anaesthetics

  115

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  217

  2

  Short stay units

  572

  2

  278

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Other/not known

  143

  157

  218

  48

  217

  98

  31

  173

  227

  1 A number of non-operative procedures; may also be included

  2 denotes that fewer than 50 operative procedures were performed; where applicable such figures are included in the specialty 'other/not known'

  Teachers
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish statistics for every local education authority in Wales showing the number of supply teachers registered for casual cover and showing what incremental point on the main professional grade for teachers' salaries a well-qualified and experienced supply teacher may progress to.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Information about the numbers of supply teachers registered with local education authorities 604
  is not held centrally. However, the numbers of teachers employed in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools for periods of less than one month on an occasional or short notice basis as at January 1988 are shown in the following table:

  Number

  Clwyd

  173

  Dyfed

  90

  Gwent

  225

  Gwynedd

  74

  Mid Glamorgan

  139

  605

  Number

  Powys

  68

  South Glamorgan

  191

  West Glamorgan

  54

  These figures exclude supply teachers with contracted employment of one month or longer.

  LES's have discretion to pay supply teachers up to the maximum of the main scale and may also award them incentive allowances, subject to the requirements contained in the school teachers pay and conditions document 1988.

  Local Education Authorities (Finance)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the capital allocation to each local education authority and (b) the capital allocation to each local education authority as a percentage of the bid of that local education authority, in each of the last six years.

  Capital allocations

  £'000

  1984–85 Total

  1985–86 Total

  1986–87 Total

  1987–88 Total

  1988–89 Total

  1989–90 Total

  Clwyd

  12,014

  12,249

  14,092

  16,649

  16,797

  12,840

  Dyfed

  9,110

  11,396

  16,615

  16,594

  15,455

  16,948

  Gwent

  21,437

  13,000

  17,582

  21,466

  18,479

  24,019

  Gwynedd

  8,354

  11,528

  8,565

  9,197

  7,907

  7,903

  Mid Glamorgan

  19,985

  17,102

  22,708

  24,077

  23,126

  26,648

  Powys

  3,730

  3,904

  6,950

  7,111

  6,055

  6,110

  South Glamorgan

  14,068

  23,008

  26,764

  32,411

  31,357

  18,132

  West Glamorgan

  11,071

  14,389

  19,233

  20,124

  18,163

  22,247

SCOTLAND

  Forestry Projects
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of forestry projects currently taking place in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 the Forestry Commission has, under its grant schemes, approved 4,390 new applications for planting grants in Great Britain.

  Electronic Companies
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors have contributed to the recent growth in Scottish-based electronic companies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A range of factors have contributed to the success of electronic companies in Scotland. These include the availability of a highly skilled labour force, backed by a strong higher education system, a diversity of established electronics companies and products which has led to the development of a supply infrastructure, low operational costs, good industrial relations, and the support and encouragement of the Scottish Office, the Scottish Development Agency and Locate in Scotland, the joint inward investment arm of the Scottish Office and the agency.
  606
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The capital allocations (for all services) for the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 are shown in the following tables. Since 1985–86 capital allocations to Welsh local education authorities (counties) have not been hypothecated to individual services and have been based on formulae agreed with the local authority associations.

  Details of bids and capital allocations for education, together with allocations for 1984–85 as a percentage of bids that year are shown in the following tables.

  1984–85

  Education capital expenditure bids

  Education capital allocation

  Education allocation as a percentage of bids

  Clwyd

  8,122

  3,797

  46·75

  Dyfed

  6,477

  3,054

  47·15

  Gwent

  9,571

  4,344

  45·39

  Gwynedd

  2,087

  1,628

  78·01

  Mid Glamorgan

  8,892

  5,513

  62·00

  Powys

  2,747

  1,682

  61·23

  South Glamorgan

  6,683

  3,646

  54·56

  West Glamorgan

  9,014

  3,398

  37·70

  NHS Reform
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many letters he has received from general practitioners, either direct or via hon. Members(a) supporting and (h) opposing the Government's proposals in the White Paper on new contracts.

  Mr. Rifkind
  It is not possible to supply the information in the form requested. About 1,000 letters have been received either from GPs or through hon. Members about the White Paper "Working for Patients" and the new contract for GPs. Many of these letters were written before the new contract proposals were issued in Scotland; and many are based upon a misunderstanding of the proposals in both documents. Some items in both documents are supported; others are queried or opposed.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his estimates of the numbers of potential first-time voters in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee who failed to submit their names and addresses for entry on current electoral registers.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The estimated numbers are approximately 2,200 in Glasgow, 1,800 in Edinburgh, 1,000 in Aberdeen and 1,000 in Dundee. These 6,000 represent 29 per cent. of the estimate of 16 and 17-year-olds eligible to be included in the registers for those cities. This is the same percentage as in both 1988 and 1987.

  Highland Health Board
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will show for each of the members of the Highland health board their experience, expertise and background.

  Highland health board

  Member

  Background

  Appointed to 31 March 1991

  Mr. G. Bruce

  Company Manager; Former Chairman Caithness Local Health Council; Chairman Caithness Chamber of Commerce

  Mr. M. Cumming

  Principal Teacher of Mathematics

  Dr. R. S. C. Fergusson

  General Medical Practitioner; Former Chairman, Highland Area Medical Committee

  Mrs. C. B. Fraser

  Retired Registered General Nurse; Director Red Cross (Ross and Cromarty Branch); Involvement with many voluntary organisations

  Dr. C. A. S. Galloway

  Consultant Paediatrician; Member or Executive Member of various medical organisations

  Mr. W. G. Johnston, JP

  Accountant/Managing Director of Transport Company; Former Regional and District Councillor

  Mrs. V. Maclver

  Member Highland Regional Council and Ross and Cromarty District Council; Former Member Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Mr. A. K. Robertson

  General Dental Practitioner; Member and Former Chairman, Area Dental Committee of Highland Health Board

  Mrs. C. Thomson

  Former State Registered Nurse; Former Member Ross and Cromarty Local Health Council

  Appointed to 31 March 1993

  Mrs. H. E. Betts-Brown

  Senior Physiotherapist; Founder member/Former Chairman Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped (Sutherland Branch); Chairman East Sutherland Council of Social Service

  Mr. J. Forbes JP

  Farmer; Member Highlands and Islands Development Consultative Council; Governor North of Scotland College of Agriculture

  Mr. J. G. Ligertwood

  Retired Bank Manager; Treasurer of many charitable organisations at various times

  Mr. B. A. Merchant

  Solicitor; Former member Inverness Local Health Council

  Mrs. S. M. C. South

  Housewife; Former Chairman Badenoch and Strathspey Local Health Council; Secretary Local Branch Age Concern

  Mr. R. R. W. Stewart

  Health Board General Manager

  Mrs. S. G. H. Stone

  Managing Director of Highland Fine Cheeses Ltd.; Founder, Ross-shire Health Protection Trust

  Miss I. Urquhart

  Registered General Nurse; Member Management Committee of Crossroads (Ross and Cromarty); Member Highland Nursing Advisory Committee

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether special Government assistance to local authorities will be made available in the light of the floods and storms of February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I indicated to the House on 14 February that I had invited local authorities and others to provide details of the damage which had occurred and of the remedial costs. I made it clear that in considering whether special Government help was needed, particularly to local authorities, the same principles would be applied as in the past. Highland regional council, the worst affected, Inverness district council and 43 housing authorities have responded. I have also received a number of representations from hon. Members, the National Farmers Union of Scotland, Scottish Landowners Federation and from individuals.

  Having reviewed the information now available to me, I am pleased to announce that the financial scheme to
  608
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows:

  assist local authorities in emergencies—the Bellwin scheme—will be made available on this occasion on the same basis as it operated in England and Wales in 1987. This will ensure that special financial assistance goes to those local authorities which, as a consequence of the emergency, would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in providing relief and carrying out immediate works to safeguard life or property. Prudent authorities have long provided in their budgets for contingencies and emergencies and the scheme therefore requires authorities to meet the first tranche of expenditure on emergency work up to a threshold. I am setting the threshold at a level equivalent to that used in 1987 which is 0·32 or a penny rate product. Eligible expenditure above that will attract 75 per cent. Government grant. My Department is writing today to all Scottish local authorities explaining how the scheme operates and it will be up to any authority that considers itself eligible to apply to the Department. The scheme does not cover losses that are insurable.
  609
  On housing, 33 out of the 43 authorities which replied have estimated some additional housing revenue expenditure but only in one case (Lochaber) above the Bellwin threshold. Local authority capital expenditure is not covered by the Bellwin scheme. However, five authorities also reported a compelling need for increased housing capital expenditure and in the final housing capital allocations for 1989–90 I announced on 29 March I included extra capital allocations totalling £1·7 million for these authorities. Concerning other capital expenditure it would appear that authorities can manage within the capital allocations for 1989–90 which I increased by 16 per cent. over the previous year, but any unmanageable items can, if necessary, be included in their financial plans they will be submitting later this year and which will be carefully considered.

  On the flooding of land and agricultural damage, grant-aid is available under the farm and conservation grant scheme. for those farmers who already have plans under the agriculture improvement scheme (EC) or agriculture and horticulture development scheme my officials will consider as sympathetically as possible any applications to vary the plans in order to remedy damage caused by the floods. It is clear that the main problem caused by the flooding and high winds has been the breaching of agricultural floodbanks. Grant for these works is already available at 50 per cent. in the less favoured areas and 40 per cent. elsewhere. Given the seriousness of the problems caused I am satisfied that additional aid is justified and am therefore proposing to increase these grants by 50 per cent., i.e. to 75 per cent. and 60 per cent., for a six months period from today in order to encourage riparian owners and fish farmers to carry out the necessary work. In making available this enhanced assistance, I am particularly conscious of the problems of those in the Conon area. I have consequently called for a more detailed report covering not only the agricultural interest of the area but the public safety aspects associated with the A832 and Conon village. In the light of that report I will review whether any government assistance is necessary.

  On forestry, I have received advice from the Forestry Commission from which I have concluded that while a number of individual estates have suffered significant wind blow the scale of damage is not beyond existing harvesting resources and that there is likely to be little overall effect on the timber market. Almost 4 million cu m of timber were lost in the south in 1987 and timber prices were badly affected. The February storms damaged 0.3 million cu m and there has not been the same effect on timber prices. Planting grants are already available. There does not seem, therefore, to be a need for any special measures in this sector.

  On private property the same principles that have applied in the past will apply on this occasion, namely that the Government cannot meet damage to private property which is normally insurable, otherwise few would take out insurance.

  I have also considered assessments of damage and cost from other public services and utilities for which I am responsible. The physical damage and other repair costs will be found from within my resources.

  The measures that I have announced will, I hope, be welcomed as providing both short-term assistance to those local authorities who undertook emergency work as well as assistance with repair in the longer term.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list all the organisations and individuals who have responded to the 1989 consultation document on the transitional arrangements for non-domestic rating; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a consultation paper on 15 February setting out the Government's proposals for transitional arrangements to introduce gradually in England and Wales the changes resulting from the revaluation and introduction of the uniform business rate in 1990. We have made it clear that although the magnitude of the changes will he less in Scotland in 1990, Scottish business ratepayers will benefit from the same level of protection against any significant increases in rates bills. The detailed arrangements for implementing this phasing will be the subject of consultations later this year.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest cost estimate for the collection of community charge as a proportion of the costs of collection of the rates.

  Mr. Lang
  Based on the latest estimates provided by regional and islands councils, the cost of collection of the community charge as a proportion of the cost of rates collection is 1.9:1.

  Clyde Port Authority
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland upon what statutory basis the Clyde port authority is founded; what is the productive acreage held by it; and what acreage of property it has available for development.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Clyde port authority is a trust established by the Clyde Port Authority Order Confirmation act 1965. Questions about the authority's land holdings are for it to answer; the Department does not have this information.

PRIME MINISTER

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will introduce legislation to require private secretaries to Cabinet Ministers, and chief departmental press officers who have lodged their accounts of departmental business for safe keeping in bank vaults to transfer such accounts after a three-year period to departmental records.

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  STUC
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Environment
  Sir Hugh Rossi
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the quality of the environment.
  611
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the quality of the environment.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the quality of the environment.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations, many of which echo this Government's concern to maintain and improve environmental standards.

  Training Schemes
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the operating of training schemes for those seeking employment.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the quality of training schemes for those seeking employment.

  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations she has received regarding the operating of training schemes for those seeking employment.

  The Prime Minister
  I receive many comments about YTS and employment training, both of which are successful in training people for jobs.

  Bournemouth
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Bournemouth.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will now visit the Settle to Carlisle railway.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  MV Perintis
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister if, following the foundering of the MV Perintis, in the channel on or about 13 March, with its cargo of the pesticides Permethrin, Cypermethrin and the organochlorine Lindane, Her Majesty's Government have any proposals to put to the international community concerning the implementation of a hazardous and noxious substances convention; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom is one of four states developing alternative approaches for a future hazardous and noxious substances convention. These alternatives will be considered by the Internation Maritime Organisation's legal committee at its meeting in 1990. The Department of Transport is to host a meeting to discuss the common elements of the four alternatives in May.

  European Community
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policy on the European Community.
  612
  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom is an active and committed member of the European Community. We want a prosperous, competitive and united Europe, open to enterprise and so creating more wealth, more jobs and more consumer choice. That is why we strongly support the 1992 programme, and believe it will benefit Britain, the Community, and the world trading system.

  East Anglia
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Prime Minister in the light of the all-day seminar on climatic change and global warning, what interdepartmental plans will be prepared to safeguard the coast of East Anglia.

  The Prime Minister
  Most coastal flood defence work in East Anglia is carried out by Anglian water authority. This authority is already taking account of the possibility of rises in sea level in the design of future flood and sea defence works, and has plans for a major programme of renewal and improvement work along the east coast. Increased Government funding for flood and coastal defences was announced in the Chancellor's Autumn Statement, and a major part of this extra funding has been earmarked to assist the authority in carrying forward this vital work.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 27 April.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report his best estimate showing the value of output of finished manufactures in the United Kingdom for home consumption and export for the years (a) 1970, (b) 1979 and (c) 1988, together with the percentage estimates of (i) imported service manufactures and intermediate finished manufactures and (ii) imported basic materials.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It is not possible to estimate a split between production for export and for the home market with any confidence because of lack of data on the very substantial entrepot trade. The closest available figures are as follows:
  613

  Gross output of finished manufactures

  1985 prices

  £ billion

  1970

  129·5

  1979

  144·5

  1988

  156·6

  Imports of:

  Semi-manufactures (SITC 5 + 6)

  Intermediate finished manufactures (part of SITC 7+8) £ billion 1985 prices

  Basic materials (SITC 2 + 4) OTS basis

  1970

  9·9

  2·8

  6·1

  1979

  17·8

  7·0

  6·0

  1988

  28·0

  18·3

  6·5

  Proportion of United Kingdom exports finished1 manufactures going to United States of America

  Ratio of United Kingdom to United States of America export unit values of manufactures2

  National currencies3

  United States dollars4

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  1970

  11·3

  100

  100

  1971

  11·4

  103

  105

  1972

  12·7

  106

  111

  1973

  12·8

  109

  112

  1974

  11·6

  113

  110

  1975

  9·9

  121

  111

  1976

  10·5

  135

  102

  1977

  9·4

  152

  111

  1978

  10·7

  157

  126

  1979

  10·7

  148

  131

  1980

  10·9

  150

  145

  1981

  11·4

  143

  120

  1982

  11·3

  144

  105

  1983

  12·8

  155

  98

  1984

  16·1

  165

  92

  1985

  18·2

  172

  93

  1986

  17·7

  173

  106

  1987

  17·4

  176

  120

  1988

  15·2

  5176

  5130

  1 Standard International Trade Classification (STIC), Rev 2 Sections 7 and 8

  2 SITC. Rev 2, Sections 5 to 8

  3 United Kingdom index in sterling compared with United States of America index in United States dollars

  4 United Kingdom and United States of America indices both in United States dollars

  5 First three quarters only

  Sources: United Nations, Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report his best estimate of the number of cars assembled in the United Kingdom from imported components in 1970, 1979 and 1988 which would not qualify for free movement within the European Economic Community if the imported components were not of European Economic Community origin.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  None. Under European Community rules, cars are regarded as having EC origin notwithstanding the origin of imported components provided that the last substantial manufacturing process is undertaken within the Community. All cars assembled in the United Kingdom since our accession to the Community in 1973 have qualified for free circulation on that basis.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report his best estimate of the value and proportion of
  614
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing for each year since 1970 (a) the proportion of United Kingdom exports of finished manufactures sent to the United States of America and, (b) the ratio of United Kingdom to United States of America export unit values for manufactures, based on 1970 equals 100.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The available information is in the table. The relationship between the export unit values has been derived both in common currency, the US dollar, and in national currency terms.

  United Kingdom exports of manufactures which have been (a) assembled in the United Kingdom from imported components and (b) imported for re-export in the same state, in the years 1970, 1979 and 1988.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Information on which to base the required estimates is not available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will publish in the Offical Report a table showing production, imports and exports of intermediate finished manufacturers, as defined in the monthly review of external trade statistics for the years 1970, 1979 and 1988 in terms of current prices, 1988 prices and as a percentage of United Kingdom production of finished manufactures in each year.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Figures for production of intermediate finished manufactures comparable with the trade statistics
  615
  as defined in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics" are not available. The remainder of the figures requested are as follows:

  Imports of intermediate finished manufacturers (£ billion)

  Imports1

  Current prices

  1988 prices

  1970

  0·7

  2·8

  2·2

  1979

  4·9

  6·9

  4·8

  1988

  17·9

  17·9

  11·7

  1 Intermediate finished manufactures as per cent. of production of finished manufactures.

  Exports of intermediate finished manufacturers (£ billion)

  Exports1

  Current prices

  1988 prices

  1970

  1·5

  8·5

  5·9

  1979

  7·3

  13·0

  8·0

  1988

  16·0

  16·0

  9·1

  1 Intermediate finished manufactures as per cent. of production of finished manufactures.

  Israel
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report a breakdown by type of the trade between the United Kingdom and (a) Israel and (b) the West Bank and Gaza Strip in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  United Kingdom trade with Israel, broken down by standard international trade classification divisions, is published in the annual volumes of the Overseas Trade Statistics for 1984 to 1987 and the December volume for 1988 (tables II— imports, V—exports). Copies of these are available in the Library. United Kingdom trade with the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not separately identified.

  Inter-Industry Agreements
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the inter-industry agreements on machining centres and numerically controlled lathes from Japan, referred to in his answer of 30 March 1988,Official Report, column 478, are still in operation.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Following a second annual review of the inter-industry voluntary restraint arrangements with Japan on numerically controlled lathes and machining centres, I have told the Machine Tool Trades Association that the Government see no case for these arrangements to continue after 30 June 1989.

  Gas
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Government will implement the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on gas (Cm. 500) that British Gas should be required not to contract initially for more than 90 per cent. of deliveries from any new field within the United Kingdom continental shelf.

  Mr. Maude
  The Government accept the objective of the MMC recommendation, but believe that it can best be achieved in a modified way. They have therefore set as a target that 10 per cent. of the gas coming forward from 616
  new gas fields should be supplied to the market by suppliers other than British Gas. This target, which covers gas both on the United Kingdom continental shelf and imported, includes gas carried both by British Gas on a common carrier basis, and by any new dedicated pipelines that may be built by carriers other than British Gas. For the purposes of this target, all gas supplies contracted from producers after 31 May 1989 will be taken into account. However, a small number of large deals involving limited classes of customer will not of itself secure the early development of competition for the benefit of industrial and commercial contract customers for gas which is required. During the first two years in which the target operates the Government will monitor the position closely and will pay particular attention to the level of sales contracted into the general industrial and commercial gas market. The Department of Energy will publish the outcome against target for the years ending 31 May 1990 and 31 May 1991 and, within that, the level of sale to industrial and commercial contract customers achieved.

  I was attracted by the possibility of placing a ceiling of one or 2 per cent. on each contribution towards the target from a single customer's usage at a single site but decided against such a specific ceiling lest it distort the development of the market. However, when the arrangements are reviewed in July 1991, attention will be focused particularly on the size and diversity of gas users no longer solely dependent on British Gas. If progress towards the establishment of a competitive market is not satisfactory by that time, I may resort to order-making powers under the Fair Trading Act which flow from the adverse findings in the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

  I am inviting the Director General of Fair Trading to seek an undertaking from British Gas under section 88 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 actively to facilitate the efforts of gas producers towards achievement of this target both in its contracting arrangements and, in particular, by agreeing as appropriate to carry the relevant quantities of gas as a common carrier.

  In addition the Government will continue to explore all means of developing competition in supplying gas to business users.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made towards obtaining reimbursement for those affected by the British based and Gibraltar based elements of the Barlow Clowes organisation; what initiatives have been taken by his Department in the last six months; what initiatives he will now take to seek a speedier resolution of outstanding problems; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 1989, c. 259]: The 19 FIMBRA members referred to as subject to disciplinary action include both the Investment and Pensions Advisory Service and the Investment and Pensions Advisory Service Ltd. These two firms had close connections but were separate entities. However, in referring to the number of firms which had been suspended they were inadvertently treated as one. The correct comparison therefore is that of the 19 members subject to disciplinary action, four, not three, have been suspended.

  Blue Arrow
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he intends to appoint inspectors under section 432 of the Companies Act to investigate Blue Arrow and the Peter de Savary deal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1989, c. 257]: On 26 April Blue Arrow announced that it intended by the middle of May to send to its shareholders a circular dealing with this transaction. The loan facility and its circumstances are principally a matter for Blue Arrow shareholders, but my Department is being kept fully informed and I trust that the company will meet the deadline it has set itself for briefing them. The International stock exchange is concerned with disclosure requirements and it has confirmed to me that it will require a circular which gives full details and a full explanation of the loan facility.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  "The School Difference"
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make available in the library a copy of the report commissioned by his Department from the Policy Studies Institute entitled, "The School Difference"; and if he will make a statement on its findings.

  Mr. Butcher
  The Policy Studies Institute is expected to publish its report on multi-racial secondary schools, entitled "The School Effect", in July. I shall then place a copy in the library.

  The major findings of this report are that there were striking differences between the schools surveyed in what they did and how they did it; and that the level of achievement of pupils of similar abilities, regardless of their ethnic or social background, varied markedly according to the school they attended.

  The findings will be of interest to all who share the Government's concern to improve standards and ensure that pupils of all ethnic groups have equal opportunity to benefit from what schools can offer.

  Teachers
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Crosby of 13 April,Official Report, columns 630–32, he will publish a further table showing an analysis by age and sex of all such leavers below normal retirement age for each of the years ended March 1984, 1985 and 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Figures of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England leaving full-time service in the maintained sector at ages under 60 are as follows:

  Year ending March

  1984

  1985

  1986

  All leavers aged under 60

  13,350

  14,620

  15,150

  Men leavers aged under 60 of which, number aged:

  4,590

  5,270

  5,810

  less than 30

  870

  850

  960

  618

  Year ending March

  1984

  1985

  1986

  30–34

  860

  930

  1,000

  35–39

  670

  810

  900

  40–44

  350

  470

  570

  45–49

  320

  370

  370

  50–54

  520

  620

  710

  55–59

  1,010

  1,210

  1,300

  Women leavers aged under 60 of which, number aged:

  8,760

  9,350

  9,340

  less than 30

  2,510

  2,470

  2,140

  30–34

  2,490

  2,500

  2,330

  35–39

  1,150

  1,340

  1,470

  40–44

  640

  750

  920

  45–49

  470

  530

  610

  50–54

  600

  720

  810

  55–59

  910

  1,050

  1,050

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England left full-time service in the maintained sector at the normal retirement age in each of the years ended March 1984, 1985 and 1986.

  Mr. Butcher
  The numbers of full-time teachers in maintained secondary schools in England leaving full-time service in the maintained sector at age 60 or over in the years ending March 1984, 1985 and 1986 were 2,310, 2,250 and 2,090 respectively.

  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment his Department has made of the extent to which the statistical evidence on secondary teacher resignations, given at table 21 of Cm. 625, "Second Report of the Interim Advisory Committee" is reliable; what comparable statistical evidence is available from his Department's database of teacher records; if he will make a statement on the extent of the apparent trends in numbers of secondary resignations shown by the evidence of table 21 for 1987 and the evidence from his Department for 1984, 1985 and 1986 given in reply to the hon. Member for Crosby,Official Report, 13 April, columns 630–32; when he expects to have a report on secondary resignations for 1987 from the database of teacher records; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  Table 21 of Cm. 625 is based on a survey carried out by the Local Authorities' Conditions of Service Advisory Board (LACSAB). It shows the number of secondary teacher resignations in the calendar year 1987 analysed by teaching subject and destination. The Department's database of teacher records (DTR) cannot readily yield data for this period, not does it contain information on either of these aspects. It is not possible therefore to derive from the DTR analyses that are comparable to (and so could test the reliability of) those in table 21, Cm. 625.

  No inferences can be drawn from the difference between the DTR estimates for 1984 to 1986 in Official Report, 13 April, columns 630–32 and the LACSAB data for 1987 in table 21, Cm. 625. The DTR estimates relate to teachers leaving the maintained sector, the LACSAB data to those resigning from schools (many of whom may merely be moving to other schools within the maintained sector).

  Estimates from the DTR for the year ending March 1987 are expected to be available shortly.
  619
  Mr. Kirk wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the implications for his policy on university finances of the Association of University Teachers pay dispute.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) on 23 March, at column 684. That is still the position.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish statistics for every local education authority in England showing the number of supply teachers registered for casual cover and showing what incremental point on the main professional grade for teachers salaries a well-qualified and experienced supply teacher may progress to.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information about the numbers of supply teachers registered with local education authorities is not held centrally. However, the numbers of teachers employed in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools for periods of less than one month on an occasional or short notice basis on 21 January 1988 are shown in the table. These figures exclude supply teachers with contracts of employment of one month or longer.

  Local education authorities have discretion to pay supply teachers, subject to the requirements of the school teachers pay and conditions document 1988, up to the maximum of the main scale, and may also award them incentive allowances.

  Teachers in occasional service in maintained nursery, primary an secondary schools (January 1988)

  LEA

  Number

  Barking

  25

  Barnet

  70

  Bexley

  70

  Brent

  153

  Bromley

  53

  Croydon

  68

  Ealing

  88

  Enfield

  58

  Haringey

  63

  Harrow

  59

  Havering

  61

  Hillingdon

  49

  Hounslow

  69

  Kinston

  40

  Merton

  63

  Newham

  41

  Redbridge

  43

  Richmond

  44

  Sutton

  55

  Waltham Forest

  53

  ILEA

  1,043

  Birmingham

  281

  Coventry

  80

  Dudley

  100

  Sandwell

  55

  Solihull

  34

  Walsall

  49

  Wolverhampton

  42

  Knowsley

  13

  Liverpool

  59

  St. Helens

  67

  Sefton

  79

  Wirral

  151

  Bolton

  114

  Bury

  43

  Manchester

  106

  Oldham

  111

  Rochdale

  83

  Salford

  109

  Stockport

  115

  Tameside

  60

  620

  LEA

  Number

  Trafford

  77

  Wigan

  187

  Barnsley

  69

  Doncaster

  80

  Rotherham

  70

  Sheffield

  8

  Bradford

  217

  Calderdale

  63

  Kirklees

  98

  Leeds

  100

  Wakefield

  73

  Gateshead

  69

  Newcastle

  97

  North Tyneside

  55

  South Tyneside

  19

  Sunderland

  54

  Avon

  283

  Bedfordshire

  145

  Berkshire

  169

  Buckinghamshire

  108

  Cambridgeshire

  63

  Cheshire

  330

  Cleveland

  164

  Cornwall

  130

  Cumbria

  158

  Derbyshire

  288

  Devon

  278

  Dorset

  35

  Durham

  61

  East Sussex

  125

  Essex

  398

  Gloucestershire

  58

  Hampshire

  296

  Hereford and Worcester

  139

  Hertfordshire

  392

  Humberside

  201

  Isle of Wight

  19

  Kent

  324

  Lancashire

  523

  Leicestershire

  197

  Lincolnshire

  178

  Norfolk

  130

  North Yorkshire

  178

  Northamptonshire

  129

  Northumberland

  59

  Nottinghamshire

  0

  Oxfordshire

  92

  Salop

  149

  Somerset

  32

  Staffordshire

  167

  Suffolk

  45

  Surrey

  222

  Warwickshire

  117

  West Sussex

  110

  Wiltshire

  127

  England

  11,974

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the second report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers pay and conditions will be published.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 February 1989, c. 323–26.]: After careful consideration of the representations I have received I have decided to accept the recommendations on pay rates and conditions of employment contained in the second report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers pay and conditions of employment contained in the second report of the interim advisory committee on school teachers pay and conditions. Drafts of the school teachers pay and conditions document 1989, an order which will give effect to this document, and a circular to local education authorities are being sent today to the relevant local

  621
  authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools inviting their comments by Thursday 18 May 1989.

  Schools
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many schools he has visited since his appointment; and how many of these are(a) state funded and (b) independent schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  Approximately 126, of which about 14 were independent.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools in England and Wales that have experienced major damage by fire in each of the last 24 months.

  Mr. Butcher
  This information is not collected by the Department of Education and Science or the Welsh Office education department. The Fire Protection Association maintains a record of the majoriy of major fires in Great Britain, and I have asked for details. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as the information is available.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much from each local authority's capital allocation has been spent on the improvement or replacement of existing school buildings in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Butcher
  The information requested was not collected centrally before 1988–89. In 1988–89 expenditure on new improvement and replacement projects for all local education authorities was £119 million. In addition, authorities will have spent substantial sums on improvement projects which they had already started in previous years.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about fire safety arrangements within schools.

  Mr. Butcher
  Under the terms of regulation 24 of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981, local education authorities have a duty to provide fire precautions and means of escape in the case of fire in maintained schools.

  In the case of independent schools, registration under part III of the 1944 Education Act rests; amongst other things, on the provision and maintenance of adequate fire precautions.

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the average cost of(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special needs pupils for 1987–88 (i) in England and (ii) in Nottinghamshire.

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

  Net Institutional Expenditure1 per pupil2 1987–88

  Nursery and Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Nottinghamshire

  1,020

  1,545

  4,145

  England

  1,010

  1,520

  4,925

  622

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

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

  Secondary School Placements (Appeals)
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals against placement in secondary schools are expected for September; and what was the figure a year earlier.

  Mr. Butcher
  The results of an informal survey of local education authorities suggest there were some 6,850 appeals in respect of secondary school admissions in the calendar year 1987. No figures are available for 1988. The Department has not made any specific forecast of the likely number of such appeals in 1989 but we hope that more parents will be satisfied this year, as a result of preparations for the implementation of more open enrolment in secondary schools in September 1990.

  Student Loans
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received on the adverse impact, and deterrent effect, of the proposed loans for students, upon the number of women entering higher education; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations concerning the potential effects of top-up loans on women. The Government's proposals mean that loan repayments can be deferred w hen the borrower's income is low.

  Experience of student loan schemes abroad gives us no reason to expect that women will be deterred from entering higher education because of the operation of the loans scheme.

  Pupil Statistics
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the average class sizes in primary and secondary education in state and private schools, respectively, in the years 1979, 1984 and 1988.

  Mr. Butcher
  Information on average class sizes in private schools is not collected centrally. The average class size in maintained primary and secondary schools in England in January of each year 1979, 1984 and 1988 is as follows:

  Class sizes relate to those taught by one teacher during a selected period on the day of the census count in January and do not necessarily represent the pattern of classes over the academic year as a whole.

  Average size of class

  January of each year

  1979

  1984

  1988

  Primary

  25·9

  24·7

  25·4

  Secondary

  210

  20·4

  19·9

  Languages
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the best estimate available of the
  623
  proportion of 14 and 15-year-olds in Britain, and in each of the other European Community countries, who are studying, as part of their school curriculum (a) French, (b) German, (c) Italian, (d) Spanish, (e) English and (f) other modern languages to a recognised standard;

  (2) if he will list the number of pupils and the proportion of total pupils so represented in the fourth and

  Percentage of secondary school pupils in certain EC countries studying foreign languages

  EC countries

  4England

  1France

  2Germany

  3Ireland

  Maintained Schools

  Independent schools

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  Per cent, of school leavers

  Numbers (000s)

  Per cent, of all school leavers

  Numbers (000s)

  Per cent, of all school leavers

  English

  82

  91

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  French

  5—

  21

  71

  41

  260

  39

  35

  78

  German

  22

  5—

  6

  11

  69

  10

  8

  18

  Italian

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Spanish

  16

  —

  3

  2

  14

  2

  3

  6

  Other modern languages

  1

  1

  —

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1 Age 11–14 in 1982–83.

  Age 10–15 in 1982–83.

  3 Age 12–14 in 1982–83.

  4 School leavers attempting GCE O-level and CSE in 1986–87.

  5 — Not applicable.

  n.a.— Not available.

  Source:

  'Education and Training' 1985 Eurostat.

  Secondary School Staffing Survey
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the conclusions of the secondary school staffing survey; and if he will now publish the survey.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Key results from the 1988 secondary school staffing survey will be available within the next few days, and I will ensure that the hon. Member receives a copy. Copies will also be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and sent to the Education Science and Arts Committee. More extensive analyses are expected to be available within the next month or so.

EMPLOYMENT

  Policy Targets
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the policy areas in which his Department has failed to achieve its targets since 1979.

  Mr. Cope
  I am satisfied that my Department's programmes and policies have generally met their objectives, but we keep them under review and are always looking for ways to improve their effectiveness.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment with respect to the support grades in his Department(a) what is the number of staff employed, (b) how many vacancies there are and how many of these have existed for over one month and over three months, (c) how many temporary and casual appointments there are and (d) how much overtime was worked by them in London and elsewhere.
  624
  fifth years of secondary school in (a) the maintained sector and (b) the private sector who are studying: (i) French, (ii) German, (iii) Italian, (iv) Spanish, (v) other modern European languages and (vi) other modern non-European languages.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The following information is readily available.

  Mr. Cope
  My departmental staff records show a total of 1,256 staff in support grades in the Department of Employment group. The number of current vacancies is fewer than 20, of which about half have existed for more than three months. There are approximately 75 casual/temporary appointments. More precise figures and the amount of overtime worked can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Private Zoos
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what accident statistics are collected in relation to private zoos; and what is the record of injury shown by the statistics.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 require that accidents which arise out of or in connection with work activities covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 are reported to the relevant enforcing authority. The statistics collected include fatalities, injuries resulting from accidents and, for employees only, instances of disease and dangerous occurrences.

  Figures for accidents in private zoos are included with those for certain other recreational and cultural activities, and are not separately identifiable.

  Job Gubs (Birmingham)
  Mr. Hattersley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what funds have been allocated to the Birmingham area of the employment service to finance job clubs during the year 1989–90.

  Mr. Lee
  Birmingham area office of the employment service has been allocated £547,000 to finance external job clubs in the year 1989–90. Funds to cover job clubs run directly by the employment service are not separately indentified, but form part of a wider allocation which covers all ES services in the area.

  Special Equipment
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will list those items of special equipment which can be made available on free loan to enable persons on the disabled register to do a particular job.

  Mr. Lee
  Help available is not confined to items on a prescribed list. The special aids to employment scheme can provide a registered disabled person with whichever equipment is required to overcome the effects of his disability in his workplace in the most cost-effective way.

  Member's Correspondence (Gower)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Gower of 12 April,Official Report, column 588, he will write to the hon. Member as soon as the decision is taken.

  Mr. Cope
  holding answer 24 April 1989]: My Department has not yet received a reply from the European Commission in the case referred to, but as soon as we do, I will write to the hon. Member.

  Employees (Public Duties)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many complaints have been made to a tribunal each year for the last live years concerning failure by companies to allow employees time off to undertake public duties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: No such cases were dealt with in the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989. Figures for previous years are not available.

ENERGY

  Petrol
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what petrol reserves were held in the United Kingdom at the latest date for which he has figures; how many days' supply this covers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  At the end of February 1989 it was estimated that the United Kingdom had stocks equivalent to 4·7 million tonnes of petrol or some 74 days cover. This was made up of 2·05 million tonnes of motor spirit in stock and a further 2·65 million tonnes held as crude oil and unprocessed feedstocks available for refining.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects the information on the number and percentage of officers in grades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively, and overall, in his Department who are from ethnic minorities, to be available.

  Mr. Parkinson
  By the end of 1989.

  AEA Constabulary
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if there has been any occurrences since the formation of the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary when officers of 626
  the force have (a) been forced to follow in hot pursuit alleged thieves of nuclear materials and (b) recovered stolen nuclear materials from civil nuclear plants.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is required by the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Act 1976, section 3, to protect nuclear matter. There have been no occasions since the formation of the constabulary when they have been forced to follow in hot pursuit of alleged thieves of nuclear material, nor have they recovered stolen nuclear materials originating from any civil nuclear plants.

  BNF plc
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will publish the objectives set for British Nuclear Fuels plc in January 1987 and set out the reasons for these objectives being formulated.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department's objectives in respect of British Nuclear Fuels plc are contained in paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the report by the Comptroller and Auditor General published on 5 April. Copies are available in the Library. Although the objectives were already in existence in January 1987, an internal review suggested that they should be set down formally and reviewed from time to time. The primary objectives of the company are set down in paragraphs 1.6 and 1.7 of the report.

  Coal Reserves (Scotland)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the quantity and quality of the coal reserves accessible from Bilston Glen and Monktonhall collieries, including the Musselburgh Bay reserves.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the British Coal Corporation. I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out in detail the stages of plutonium processing in the nuclear cycle on which reports are made to the Euratom and IAEA safeguards authorities; and what details are forwarded in each of these reports.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Euratom inspectors have access to all civil material at Sellafield on a continuing basis. The reports the inspectors make are a matter for Euratom and are confidential to it.

  Radioactive Materials
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has assessed the proof of evidence, CND4, prepared by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for the Hinkley Point C public inquiry topic III on radioactive materials management; and if he will give consideration to the criticisms made in relation to those policy issues for which his Department has responsibility.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  It is for the inspector to consider the evidence presented to him at the inquiry.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Farm Capital Grant Scheme
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total amount, in grants, paid out by the Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland, under

  Schedule

  Farm capital grant schemes

  Counties

  1973–74

  1974–75

  1975–76

  1976–77

  1977–78

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1980–81

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Antrim

  1,614,452

  2,333,748

  2,333,526

  2,247,470

  1,927,004

  2,162,790

  2,353,662

  2,905,239

  Armagh

  887,237

  1,395,581

  1,251,388

  1,106,038

  832,460

  1,080,418

  1,312,827

  1,768,321

  Down

  1,605,048

  2,047,864

  1,739,037

  1,321,347

  1,315,823

  1,484,386

  1,498,499

  1,986,656

  Fermanagh

  699,820

  1,005,845

  1,032,421

  1,002,808

  2,060,507

  3,200,552

  3,602,064

  4,791,579

  Londonderry

  1,360,065

  1,802,821

  1,654,413

  1,526,824

  1,440,342

  1,970,515

  2,275,327

  3,031,126

  Tyrone

  1,879,770

  3,082,883

  2,567,302

  2,626,966

  2,588,018

  3,302,878

  4,123,974

  5,186,945

  Totals

  8,046,392

  11,668,742

  10,578,087

  9,831,453

  10,164,154

  13,201,539

  15,166,353

  19,669,866

  Counties

  11981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Grant

  Antrim

  2,407,006

  2,338,197

  1,920,603

  2,600,785

  2,508,338

  3,055,405

  1,132,908

  268,192

  Armagh

  1,673,731

  2,277,861

  1,914,059

  3,036,958

  2,873,007

  2,452,619

  809,527

  182,550

  Down

  1,855,728

  1,444,361

  1,836,226

  2,442,574

  1,610,020

  1,616,785

  523,307

  121,468

  Fermanagh

  5,931,128

  3,381,865

  2,082,469

  1,373,672

  1,042,222

  977,740

  199,303

  61,090

  Londonderry

  2,429,326

  1,854,738

  2,139,462

  2,176,399

  1,533,823

  1,161,964

  340,362

  82,302

  Tyrone

  5,147,881

  4,764,866

  3,974,303

  4,858,359

  3,435,800

  3,511,115

  1,215,041

  244,918

  Totals

  19,444,800

  16,061,888

  13,840,122

  16,488,747

  13,003,210

  12,775,628

  4,220,448

  960,520

  1 Figures from 1981–82 onwards incudes grant paid under the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people were arrested, detained and subsequently released without charge under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on more than one occasion during the period 1984 to 1988;

  (2) how many people were arrested, detained and subsequently released without charge under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act on more than two occasions during the period 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Information is not readily available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Rent Allowance
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish in the Official Report in tabular form details for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available of the total pay bill, compensatory grant received and income tax paid by each police authority in Northern Ireland in respect of police officers' rent allowance.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There is only one police authority for Northern Ireland. The information requested is as follows:

  1988–89 £ million

  Rent allowance paid

  24·2

  Compensatory grant

  9·2

  A separate record is not maintained of income tax paid on rent allowance.
  628
  the farm capital grant scheme in each of the years since 1973 to applicants from each of the parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Viggers
  The information requested is not available by parliamentary constituency. It has been given on County basis in the schedule.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report to show how many (a) shotguns, (b) 22 rifles, (c) rifles of large calibre, (d) handguns, (e) sub-machine guns, (f) other machine guns and (g) explosive devices, owned by or in the possession of (i) the Royal Ulster Constabulary, (ii) the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, (iii) the Ulster Defence Regiment, (iv) the Army, (v) the Royal Navy and (vi) the Royal Air Force, have been lost or stolen in each year since 1976 to the latest available date; how many such weapons in each category of ownership were subsequently recovered; and how many have been identified in each category and ownership as having been used after theft of loss in criminal or terrorist activity or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 23 March 1989]: I have made extensive inquiries but it has not proved possible to collate the information in the form requested. I will write to the hon. Member in due course with such information as can be provided.

  Traffic Police
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether, in view of the 9 per cent, increase in fatal and injury road traffic accidents and the 10 per cent, increase in casualties stated in the annual report of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, he will call for a report on the Chief Constable's decision to reduce the number of officers in the traffic branch by 50; and if he will make a statement.
  629
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: The chief constable is responsible for the operational control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and it is for him to determine priorities and allocate resources.

  Cross-border Security
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the significance for the momentum of cross-border security of the announcement of the determination to intensify co-operation over border security in paragraph 2 of the communiqué of the meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference on 5 April.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: The brutal murders of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan represented an attack on security co-operation. Far from diminishing the determination of the two sides to work closely together, they have actually reinforced it and, in particular, both police forces will work closely together to the fullest extent to ensure that those guilty of this and other crimes are brought to justice.

TRANSPORT

  Shanklin (Oil Slick)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to track down the vessel responsible for the oil slick on Shanklin beach.

  Mr. Portillo
  We received on 17 April a report of an oil slick which had been observed on 15 April by a vessel at anchor to the south-east of the Isle of Wight. The slick was described as small globules of heavy crude oil amongst other debris and the report included the name of another vessel, which had also been at anchor, in the direction from which the oil had been observed to be coming. It is not yet clear whether there is any connection between that vessel and oil that came ashore at Shanklin on 16/17 April. Samples are now with the laboratory of the Government chemist for analysis.

  Channel (Counter-pollution Measures)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how often the anti-pollution aircraft has patrolled the Channel in the last six weeks.

  Mr. Portillo
  Since 9 March anti-pollution aircraft have carried out 6 patrols over the Channel. Two further planned patrols, on 21 and 22 April, were cancelled when the Department's contracted remote sensing aircraft was deployed to oil spill incidents in the Irish sea and North sea respectively.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department is participating in any review of the handling of major oil spills.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department will contribute to the review being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy, on the handling by the oil industry of major spills from offshore installations.

  So far as tanker casualties are concerned, the Government have long accepted the responsibility for
  630
  dealing with major spills that threaten United Kingdom interests and the Department's marine pollution control unit is a full-time response organisation with specific responsibility for planning contingency arrangements and taking charge of counter-pollution operations. We review these arrangements carefully after every major incident.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with respect to the support grades in his Department(a) what is the number of staff employed, (b) how many vacancies there are and how many of these have existed for over one month and over three months, (c) how many temporary and casual appointments there are and (d) how much overtime was worked by them in London and elsewhere.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  As at 1 April 1989 the Department of Transport employed 647 staff in support grades (that is, office keeper, paper-keeper, messenger, security officer, car driver, telephonist and reprographic grades and cleaners). There were 11 posts vacant in these grades, of which three had been vacant for more than one month and six for more than three months. Casual staff are employed to provide cover for vacancies and for staff absent on long-term sick arid other leave. Central records are not kept of casual appointments.

  Until 31 March 1989 the Departments of the Environment and Transport shared a common services organisation, in which the majority of support staff were based. The latest available overtime figures, which are for March 1989, therefore relate to the two Departments jointly. Overtime working by support grades, excluding cleaners, in March averaged approximately 6.4 hours per head in London headquarters offices and hours per head in the major regional offices.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to prevent heavy goods vehicles causing excessive water spray on motorways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are strongly in favour of action to combat this problem.

  New trailers have had to be fitted with spray-reducing devices since May 1985 and new lorries since April 1986. Research is continuing into ways of achieving even greater improvements.

  Britain is pressing for the early agreement of the European Commission's draft directive on anti-spray devices. This is necessary if the United Kingdom is to continue to require anti-spray devices after the completion of the single European market.

  Drivers could significantly reduce the nuisance of spray to others, by driving more slowly in wet weather.

  Advance Payment Compensation
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport why advance payment compensation, approved by the district valuer, has not been given to Mr. M. A. E. Thornton of Bishops Tachbrook, Leamington Spa.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The district valuer's report was received in the Department on 19 April. Necessary
  631
  documentation was sent to Mr. Thornton's agents on 21 April. As soon as it is returned, advance payment will be made.

  Severn Bridge
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will issue guidelines to prospective promoters of a second crossing of the River Severn.

  Mr. Channon
  The tender invitation document is being issued today. Copies of the substantive volumes of the document will be placed in the Library.

  This invitation reaffirms the Government's decision to give the private sector the opportunity to participate in the provision of a second Severn crossing. The shortlisted tenderers have been invited to submit proposals on two bases: to design and build the second crossing, and to finance and operate it with the existing crossing; and to design and build the second crossing for the Government. In either case the investment would be recovered through tolls. Under the first option the invitation allows tenderers to propose their own toll regimes within a finite concession period; they will also be required to take on the debt on the existing Severn crossing. Proposals must be submitted by 2 October.

  The new crossing will have a dual three-lane carriageway with hardshoulders, and windshielding has been specified.

  We are dealing with the approach roads separately, and will make another announcement shortly about these.

  Traffic Management (Greater London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements he has made for road maintenance likely to add to traffic congestion in Greater London to be undertaken only at night, giving current or recent examples of any such practice.

  Mr. Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: Each case is considered individually after consultation with the police and the London boroughs. Peak-hour working is avoided wherever practicable.

  Consideration is given to night time working at locations where traffic flows are high throughout the day and at weekends.

  Recent examples include: carriageway closures on M4 for communication upgrading; resurfacing and annual maintenance work on the A406 north circular road; and lane closures for weekly maintenance in the Blackwall tunnel (southbound).

  Night-time working may be precluded because of safety considerations and disturbance to residents. Recent maintenance closures have been publicised in departmental press notices.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the numbers of persons, and their respective Civil Service grades, who are employed in his Department to discharge the traffic management responsibilities hitherto the duty of the Greater London Council; what are the names and duties of each unit; and what standing arrangements now exist or are planned for regular meetings between officials of these units, together, with representatives of the London borough councils and the Metropolitan police, to review incidents of congestion and to plan for effective traffic management consequent on known future events, including road works.
  632
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: The Department has assumed the highways and traffic powers of the former Greater London council only in respect of 70 miles of metropolitan roads which are now trunk roads. It is not practicable to identify the numbers and grades of persons employed in the London Regional Office (Transport) on those roads from among their general responsibilities for trunk roads in London.

  At the request of the London boroughs, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the traffic signals and urban traffic control in London. The corporation of the City of London acts as agent. It staffs and maintains the traffic control systems unit as a separate entity within the local government environment. Officials of the Department hold quarterly management liaison meetings with the unit and representatives of the Association of London Authorities, the London Boroughs Association and the Metropolitan and City police. In addition, the unit has regular monthly meetings with the Metropolitan police to review contingency plans for traffic incidents and planned events such as roadworks, bridge closures, and so on, and to plan for effective traffic management in those circumstances.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South on 13 January,Official Report, column 800, concerning causes of major incidents of traffic congestion, he will now monitor such incidents and, in conjunction with London Buses Limited and the respective unit of the Metropolitan police, record the incidence and extent of delay compared to normal free flow conditions and keep a record of any known cause, or contributory cause, leading to each major incident of congestion.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: We are considering how it might be done.

  We keep in touch with London Buses Limited and the Metropolitan police on congestion points on trunk roads. The Metropolitan police make such arrangements as they consider necessary to maintain the safe and efficient flow of traffic in the case of day-to-day incidents and to be prepared for planned events.

  Underground Railways (Safety)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what exercises using volunteer passengers have taken place on the underground section of the Great Northern line of British Railways between Finsbury Park and Moorgate; what were the results of any such test; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: A major exercise to test evacuation procedures, in which all emergency services participated, was held on 7 February 1988. The need for various improvements was identified. British Rail is presently carrying out a £1 million programme which includes the provision of improved lighting and communications. It expects the work to be finished by September.

  Airports
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage greater use of regional airports.
  633
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: The 1985 airports policy White Paper (Cmnd. 9542) noted that the Government had maintained a consistent policy of encouraging the maximum use of regional airports. They have a role to play in relieving pressure on the London airports. The Government encourage their growth and development.

  We provide special borrowing allocations for municipal airports whose expansion is justified.

  We continue, both in the EC and in bilateral negotiations, to pursue policies of liberalisation in order to maximise the scope for regional air services.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on future runway capacity in the south east.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: The Civil Aviation Authority is due to provide my right hon. Friend in July with advice on this and other aspects of airport and airspace capacity.

  M25 Motorway
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the one-way peak-to-daily flow ratio for the M25(a) as predicted for the London orbital motorway at the 1974–75 public inquiry into the A10-Al2 section of the motorway by the Department's traffic witness, (b) as recorded, for each section for which data is available, when the M25 was fully opened in 1986 and (c) as recorded in the latest available year.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: The ratios of peak to 24-hour weekday flows for the M25 at November 1986 (first complete month fully open) (expressed as a percentage) are:

  Junction number

  Clockwise

  Anticlockwise

  J1 to J2

  —

  —

  J2 to J3

  —

  —

  J3 to J4

  10·7

  10·2

  J4 to J5

  9·2

  9·1

  J5 to J6

  11·1

  10·3

  J6 to J7

  11·4

  10·6

  J7 to J8

  —

  —

  J8 to J9

  9·7

  9·0

  J9 to J10

  9·6

  83

  J10 to J11

  9·2

  85

  J11 to J12

  9·4

  8·3

  J12 to J13

  —

  —

  J13 to J14

  9·8

  9·0

  J14 to 115

  8·7

  8·6

  J15 to J16

  —

  8·9

  J16 to J17

  8·3

  8·6

  J19 to J20

  8·2

  8·6

  J22 to J23

  —

  8·4

  J25 to J26

  9·;8

  10·9

  J26 to J27

  9·6

  10·6

  J29 to J30

  —

  8·5

  Dartford Tunnel

  8·5

  8·8

  The ratios of peak to 24-hour weekday flows for M25 at March 1989 (latest available month) (expressed as a percentage) are:

  Junction number

  Clockwise

  Anticlockwise

  J1 to J2

  —

  —

  J2 to J3

  —

  —

  J3 to J4

  8·0

  9·2

  J4 to J5

  8·2

  8·3

  634

  Junction number

  Clockwise

  Anticlockwise

  J5 to J6

  10·9

  9·6

  J6 to J7

  11·5

  9·3

  J7 to J8

  9·9

  8·7

  J8 to J9

  9·6

  8·4

  J9 to J10

  9·6

  8·5

  J10 to J11

  —

  1—

  J11 to J12

  —

  1—

  J12 to J13

  —

  1—

  J13 to J14

  9·6

  8·4

  J14 to J15

  8·5

  8·1

  J15 to J16

  7·7

  8·2

  J16 to J17

  8·2

  7·7

  J17 to J18

  8·0

  8·3

  J18 to J19

  8·0

  7·9

  119 to J20

  7·8

  7·6

  J20 to J21

  8·1

  7·8

  J21 to J22

  8·1

  8·6

  J22 to J23

  8·1

  8·0

  J23 to J24

  8·2

  8·6

  J24 to J25

  8·4

  8·8

  J25 to J26

  8·5

  9·7

  J26 to J27

  8·3

  9·7

  J27 to J28

  9·2

  10·3

  J28 to J29

  8·4

  9·0

  J29 to J30

  7·4

  8·0

  Dartford Tunnel

  7·5

  7·8

  1 No detailed data due to widening works.

  Comparable prediction for 1986 and 1989 are not readily available from the papers of the 1974–75 public inquiry.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Human Rights (Broadcasting)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to apply to the content of British broadcasting media the principle embodied in Her Majesty's Government's documentation for the Helsinki states information forum that the free flow of information both within countries and across frontiers is seen by the West as an integral part of human rights provisions.

  Mr. Renton
  The principle of the free exchange of information and ideas, guaranteed by article 10 of the European convention on human rights, is central to our broadcasting policy. We have played an active part in the preparation of the Council of Europe's convention on transfrontier television, which we hope will be opened for signature next month and which we plan to implement through the forthcoming Broadcasting Bill. The convention is designed to encourage the transfrontier circulation of television programme services on the basis of a number of commonly agreed basic standards. As our White Paper "Broadcasting in the 90's: Competition Choice and Quality" makes clear, the development of European regulatory instruments of this kind is consistent with the approach of the Government towards domestic broadcasting services in establishing an enabling regulatory framework to allow increased opportunities for broadcasters and viewers, while ensuring the maintenance of satisfactory programme standards.

  Airports (Passports)
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British international airports still retain a passport entry desk for United Kingdom citizens only.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether all European Community countries have agreed to discontinue national channels at passport control entry at airports in favour of joint ones for European Community citizens.

  Mr. Renton
  This is a matter for national decision and practice varies throughout the Community. Where passenger volume makes it desirable to present passengers to more than one channel most EC countries direct all EC nationals to a special channel.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why entry desks for British citizens only at passport control at Heathrow have been discontinued.

  Mr. Renton
  My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 14 December 1988, at column 576, the Government's intention to introduce in the spring a single immigration channel for all nationals of the EC (including British nationals) entering the country. Implemented from 10 March, this is a practical demonstration of our readiness, in line with the spirit of the Single European Act, to reduce as far as possible the levels of immigration checks on other EC nationals. There has been no change in our arrangements for immigration controls on nationals of non-EC countries.

  Electoral Register
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what approximate percentage of people eligible to vote are not currently registered to vote; and if such people will be able to register prior to(a) country and (b) European elections.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The most recent major study into the accuracy of the electoral register ("Electoral Registration in 1981", Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, 1982) estimated that 6·7 per cent of people in England and Wales eligible to vote were not registered to do so. Under section 11(2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended) claims for inclusion in the published register can be made at any time. However, no such claim can have effect for the purposes of an election unless it is allowed, and the alteration made, before the close of nomination for candidates at that election. It is therefore now too late for such claims to have effect at either the county council or European parliamentary elections.

  Mr. Joe Benjamin
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will recommend the granting of a pardon to Joe Benjamin in relation to a conviction on appeal by Knightsbridge Crown court and the imposition of a fine of £150 under an offence under the Public Order Act, in respect of the case of Regina v Benjamin, 29 October 1987, before Mr. Recorder Walker.
  636
  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. Friend will consider Mr. Benjamin's conviction if he is presented with any new evidence or other consideration of substance which calls its safety into question and which has not been before the courts.

  Radio Tara Ltd
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the Irish Government's award of a frequency to Radio Tara Ltd; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received letters from the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the Association of Independent Radio Contractors, two independent local radio stations and a number of hon. Members expressing concern at the effect which the proposed Irish station might have on United Kingdom radio broadcasting. We are in touch with the Irish authorities on the issue.

  Entry Clearance
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the time taken to deal with interviews referred by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concerning entry clearance in Manchester and London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  I would refer the hon. Member to my reply of 23 March, at column 809, in answer to his earlier question. It remains the objective in Manchester and London, as elsewhere, to carry out interviews within three months of receipt of papers in the United Kingdom.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information is made available from computerised police records to social services departments, residential homes and other organisations offering care to vulnerable people who are considering the suitability of applicants for employment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Arrangements have been set up which allow the police to disclose information to local authorities, the health service and independent schools about those seeking to work in posts with substantial access to children.

  The information disclosed would include details of convictions, cautions and bind overs. Other relevant information, such as details of acquittals, or decisions not to prosecute, where the circumstances of the case would give cause for concern, may also be disclosed exceptionally, on the authority of an assistant chief constable.

  Some of this information may be held in computerised records.

  Ashwell Prison (Food Poisoning)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the recent outbreak of food poisoning at Ashwell prison; and what steps are being taken to prevent any further outbreaks.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  An outbreak of suspected salmonella food poisoning occurred at Her Majesty's prison, Ashwell on 11 April 1989. 145 inmates reported
  637
  sick between 11 and 13 April. Two were admitted to a local hospital and two to the prison hospital. The remainder did not require hospitalisation. The local authority environmental health officer together with a registrar from the public health laboratory have been assisting prison service personnel in tracing the source of the outbreak.

  Investigations continue and once the cause of the infection is known remedial action will be taken.

  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the costs and (b) the reduction in safe ground attendance capacity, of introducing his plan of seating only at all first division clubs.

  Mr. Hurd
  As I said in my statement on Monday 17 April, the Government will be discussing with the football authorities the implications of moving towards all seated stadia for the major football clubs.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that those people who may be exempted from the community charge clue to severe mental impairment will still retain their right to vote.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Payment of the community charge is not one of the qualifications for the franchise. It continues to be the duty of the electoral registration officer to have a house-to-house or other sufficient inquiry made as to the persons entitled to be registered to vote.

  Broadcasting White Paper
  Sir Peter Blaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the proposals in the broadcasting White Paper on local services.

  Mr. Hurd
  I am grateful to all those who responded to the invitation to comment on these radical proposals.

  As the White Paper undertook, we have considered carefully all the views which have been expressed. In the light of them we have decided to make some adjustments to our original proposals. I am placing in the Library of the House a note which details the modified proposals which we intend to recommend to Parliament.

  We continue to believe that there should be a new, flexible technology-neutral framework for local services, leaving operators free to decide upon the best mix of technologies. As the White Paper noted, this will in practice mean at present cable or MVDS, or a mixture of the two. The fact that we are proposing that local operators should in future have the choice to use technologies other than cable does not imply, as some commentators have suggested, that the Government do not foresee a prominent role for cable under the proposed new framework. The advantages of cable over other delivery technologies are well known; and we have been pleased to see that many recent applicants for cable franchises have plans to exploit these advantages in order to provide telecommunications as well as television services over their networks. The point of the freedom, which we are proposing should be offered to operators, is
  638
  to enable them to choose which delivery technology or combination of technologies to use, based on their commercial judgment of the nature of the services for which there will be a demand.

  The new framework will be designed to allow operators themselves to choose the nature and level of service they wish to offer their customers. It is, however, important for all local delivery systems to meet certain standards relating not only to safety and interference, but also, for example, to compatibility between systems and equipment. The Government, after consulting all interested parties, will decide how this is to be achieved.

  In line with the White Paper, we propose that the new framework should be based on 15-year local franchises awarded by the new Independent Television Commission (ITC). Although we have considered carefully the contrary opinions which have been expressed, we hold to the view that some form of competitive tender mechanism will be the best method for allocating franchises. It will provide an objective method for choosing between applicants, and also takes account of the fact that successful applicants will be acquiring the exclusive right to use scarce MVDS frequencies. We will be giving further thought to the precise form of the competitive tender mechanism, taking due account of the arrangements decided upon for the allocation of licences for channels 3 and 5.

  We envisage that, initially at least, only one franchise is likely to be awarded for any given area. It will be open to the ITC to award a second franchise if it chooses to do so; but we are no longer proposing that it should be required; as the White Paper envisaged, to consider advertising a further franchise or franchises for an area a short time after awarding the initial franchise there.

  The aspect of the White Paper proposals which has attracted most comment is the suggestion that local delivery operators should not, except at the discretion of the ITC, be permitted to retail programme services. The objective of this proposal was to provide additional scope for competition in the retailing of programme services. While we still attach importance to this objective, we accept the argument put by many commentators that the White Paper proposal could inhibit investment in local delivery networks. We now therefore propose that local operators should be able to retail programme services without restriction, and without the need for permission from the ITC.

  The Government do, however, see a case for injecting some competition into the local delivery and retailing of services by loosening the present restrictions on the development of satellite master antenna television (SMATV) systems. The Cable Authority's policy towards the licensing of SMATV systems has flowed from its statutory duty to exercise its licensing powers in such a way as to promote broadband cable systems. As the White Paper indicated, the ITC will not have such a duty.

  We therefore believe that the restrictions placed on SMATV hitherto could not be sustained under the new framework, and we are proposing a significant, though not total, liberalisation of SMATV systems.

  Under these proposals systems covering single buildings or adjacent pairs of homes sharing a party wall will be automatically licensed by means of a class licence under the Telecommunications Act 1984. Systems larger than this and covering not more than 1,000 homes would be individually licensed under that Act provided that, in the case of an application for a system within a franchise

  639
  area, the local delivery operator (or cable operator) had been given the right of first refusal to provide a service within a reasonable timescale. Unlike local delivery operators SMATV operators would not be granted telecommunications code powers, which would in practice make it difficult for them to build systems covering more than 1,000 homes. This size limit would in any case be applied flexibly. These proposals will be subject to review in the light of experience with any changes in its existing SMATV policy which the Cable Authority decides to make.

  Licensed SMATV operators would be able to carry any channels licensed by the ITC or originating from states signatory to either or both of the proposed Council of Europe convention on transfrontier television or the EC directive on broadcasting (assuming they come into affect). A system carrying channels falling outside either of these categories would need to be licensed separately by the ITC.

  The White Paper proposed that local operators should be liable to levy while they retained a local monopoly. We have, however, been persuaded on balance that it would be sensible not to introduce a new levy on local services. Whereas the White Paper proposed that broadcasting levies should mainly be based on advertising revenue, revenue from locally sold advertising appears at present unlikely to become a major source of finance for local services. Furthermore, we acknowledge the risk perceived by some commentators that the liability to levy might deter investment in a young industry, and we believe that this outweighs the benefits to the public purse of the modest amount of revenue which a levy might have yielded.

  We have given further thought to the choice of frequencies for MVDS. We have concluded that the pressures on the 2·5 GHz band, the uncertainties surrounding possible future international developments and the limited amount of spectrum that could at best be made available combine to make this band unsuitable for MVDS. We have also ruled out the band 27–29 GHz since the 40 GHz band has similar characteristics and the significant advantages of larger amounts of spectrum, no existing incumbents and is, in part, internationally designated for broadcasting.

  The White Paper also canvassed the possibility of frequencies being made available in the 12 GHz band. This band and that at 40 GHz have different characteristics and competing advantages and disadvantages. We shall need to consider further from which band, or bands, frequencies should be allocated to MVDS. In order to assess the reactions of potential users, now that we have put forward these firm proposals on local services, the Department of Trade and Industry will issue a short discussion paper early in May. We fully recognise the undesirability of continuing uncertainty over the choice of frequencies for MVDS, but this is an important decision which needs to take account of the interests of all parties, including other potential users of the spectrum, from whom the Government would welcome views.

  Many in the cable industry have argued that the present prohibition in the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 on non-EC control of cable licences should be lifted, and that no such prohibition should be placed on local delivery
  640
  franchises under the proposed new framework. We have been giving careful thought to these representations in the context of our consideration of the general question of restrictions on the ownership and control of broadcasting licences. We hope to announce our views on this whole area before too long.

  As foreshadowed in the White Paper, we propose that all cable operators awarded franchises before the date of its publication (7 November 1988) should have the right to opt to become technology-neutral delivery operators under the proposed new framework. We have decided to propose that this right should also be extended to these applications for franchises which had to be submitted by 7 November and which were eventually successful. In both cases the right will apply only to franchise holders who have been awarded a licence by the Cable Authority before it ceases to exist.

  Under our proposals operators in this category will, if they so choose, be licensed as local delivery operators as of right by the ITC when it is set up. As such they will be entitled to use MVDS to deliver services to the home, subject to the availability of spectrum. It will be for the ITC to decide what frequencies can be made available to any operators who take this option. It may not always be possible for it to make available sufficient frequencies to cover an operator's entire franchise area.

  Cable operators who obtain their franchises after this cut-off date and who are awarded a licence by the Cable Authority will, under our proposals, retain their status as operators licensed under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 for the remainder of the terms of their licences. The ITC will discharge in relation to such licences the duties now undertaken by the Cable Authority.

HEALTH

  Nursing and Residential Homes
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of(a) nursing homes and residential homes arid (b) beds in the Merseyside and north-west regions, by district health authority in (i) the public and (ii) the private sectors.

  Mr. Mellor
  We do not have this information in the form requested. Information on the number of residential homes and places in the north western social services region, by local authority, in local authority, voluntary and private accommodation for years prior to 31 March 1986 is published in "Residential Accommodation for Elderly and Younger Physically Handicapped People: All Residents in Local Authority, Voluntary and Private Homes year ending 31 March England" and "Homes and Hostels for Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped People at 31 March England". Provisional information for 1987 is given in the tables.

  There are two experimental nursing homes within the NHS, one of 25 beds for frail elderly patients in Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde health authority and one of 21 beds for elderly mentally ill patients, in Liverpool health authority. The available information on independent nursing homes is published in form SBH 212. Information at 31 March 1988 will be available shortly. Copies of these publications are in the Library.
  641

  Number of residential care homes and places in North Western social services region, as at 31 March 1987 (revised)

  Elderly and younger physically handicapped

  1Mentally ill

  1Mentally handicapped

  2 3Other client groups

  Homes

  Places

  Homes

  Places

  Homes

  Places

  Homes

  Places

  NORTH WESTERN REGION

  Local Authority Homes

  Cheshire

  62

  2,134

  16

  105

  31

  390

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  98

  3,985

  10

  101

  36

  568

  0

  0

  Bolton

  16

  706

  5

  25

  3

  74

  0

  0

  Bury

  11

  462

  0

  0

  4

  73

  0

  0

  Manchester

  46

  1,842

  19

  111

  41

  311

  1

  16

  Oldham

  21

  671

  6

  41

  4

  89

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  18

  608

  2

  21

  5

  72

  0

  0

  Salford

  21

  831

  3

  40

  8

  127

  0

  0

  Stockport

  17

  637

  10

  50

  18

  130

  0

  0

  Tameside

  13

  459

  1

  6

  5

  103

  0

  0

  Trafford

  12

  521

  2

  6

  2

  55

  0

  0

  Wigan

  19

  824

  1

  16

  14

  184

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  5

  222

  1

  13

  6

  104

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  30

  1,441

  11

  92

  3

  163

  0

  0

  Sefton

  18

  705

  4

  27

  7

  107

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  7

  316

  1

  20

  4

  93

  0

  0

  Wirral

  26

  983

  1

  10

  18

  187

  0

  0

  Total

  440

  17,347

  93

  684

  209

  2,830

  1

  16

  Voluntary Homes

  Cheshire

  13

  775

  5

  57

  3

  80

  1

  11

  Lancashire

  20

  691

  0

  0

  7

  175

  0

  0

  Bolton

  3

  74

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  4

  392

  0

  0

  1

  62

  0

  0

  Manchester

  8

  233

  1

  39

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Oldham

  0

  0

  2

  39

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  7

  201

  0

  0

  2

  29

  0

  0

  Stockport

  1

  36

  0

  0

  1

  12

  0

  0

  Tameside

  2

  83

  1

  11

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  5

  122

  0

  0

  2

  45

  0

  0

  Wigan

  1

  16

  0

  0

  1

  10

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  21

  719

  2

  38

  7

  156

  2

  29

  Sefton

  24

  1,075

  1

  22

  0

  0

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  3

  94

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  7

  172

  0

  0

  3

  49

  1

  14

  Total

  119

  4,673

  12

  206

  27

  618

  4

  54

  Private Homes

  Cheshire

  63

  1,083

  1

  17

  3

  26

  0

  0

  Lancashire

  463

  6,768

  2

  13

  17

  123

  0

  0

  Bolton

  25

  405

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bury

  10

  181

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Manchester

  48

  700

  6

  98

  1

  28

  0

  0

  Oldham

  28

  528

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rochdale

  15

  329

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Salford

  8

  194

  0

  0

  1

  12

  0

  0

  Stockport

  41

  588

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tameside

  19

  319

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Trafford

  43

  613

  6

  36

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wigan

  12

  216

  1

  9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Knowsley

  4

  63

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Liverpool

  24

  496

  1

  25

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Sefton

  109

  1,816

  I

  8

  7

  110

  0

  0

  St. Helens

  3

  92

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wirral

  58

  946

  2

  30

  14

  82

  0

  0

  Total

  973

  15,337

  20

  236

  43

  381

  0

  0

  1 Includes unstaffed homes and hostels.

  2 Collected from 1987 onwards.

  3 Includes alcohol and drug misusers.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the number of hearing aid centres, and their location, by district health authority.
  642
  Mr. Mellor
  Since the procurement and distribution of hearing aids has been administered by Mersey regional health authority on behalf of the National Health Service, a list of hearing aid centres has not been maintained centrally.
  643
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the usage of National Health Service hearing aids, once dispensed.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Institute of Hearing Research estimated in a survey conducted between 1980 and 1986 that 76 per cent. of National Health Institute hearing aids dispensed to adults were in regular use.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps to ensure that better information is available to people with a hearing loss as to the help available;

  (2) what is done to ensure that those issued with National Health Service hearing aids are given adequate advice and instruction on how to derive benefit.

  Mr. Mellor
  Anyone worried about his hearing should first consult his general practitioner. Where necessary, the patient will be referred to a hospital for examination by a consultant who, if appropriate, will refer the patient to a hearing aid centre for the correct hearing aid to be fitted. Audiological technicians will provide advice and information on how to use and maintain hearing aids and all new users are given a copy of the Department's booklet which explains how to use a hearing aid. Some health authorities also employ hearing therapists to assist people requiring particular rehabilitative help.

  We are at present giving careful consideration to suggestions for changes in the current arrangements for the provision of hearing aid services in response to the "Fair Hearing" campaign launched by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf.

  National Health Service hospitals activity, 1959 to 1987–88

  Thousands

  Out-patients

  Year

  In-patient cases treated

  4Day cases

  New

  Total attendances

  1Ward attenders

  Average daily available beds

  2 3In-patient waiting list

  1959

  3,782·7

  —

  6,872·3

  27,768·4

  —

  448·8

  447·5

  1960

  3,911·1

  —

  6,913·0

  28,281·7

  —

  447·5

  443·0

  1961

  4,035·4

  —

  6,975·2

  28,391·8

  —

  442·3

  450·7

  1962

  4,149·6

  —

  6,978·0

  28,590·0

  —

  440·3

  446·8

  1963

  4,318·0

  —

  7,026·5

  28,707·0

  —

  439·2

  454·2

  1964

  4,455·1

  —

  7,265·4

  29,887·4

  —

  438·4

  476·4

  1965

  4,540·2

  —

  7,240·2

  30,024·2

  —

  437·4

  492·1

  1966

  4,616·7

  —

  7,356·1

  30,372·4

  —

  434·8

  510·4

  1967

  4,722·4

  —

  7,482·3

  30,974·9

  —

  434·4

  509·5

  1968

  4,848·2

  —

  7,505·2

  31,382·7

  —

  432·1

  505·1

  1969

  4,968·4

  —

  7,629·7

  31,801·4

  —

  428·7

  532·4

  1970

  5,011·7

  —

  7,744·6

  32,354·8

  —

  423·6

  525·9

  1971

  5,170·8

  —

  7,918·6

  33,129·2

  —

  419·6

  493·7

  1972

  5,223·0

  376·5

  7,926·6

  33,243·5

  —

  412·7

  479·2

  1973

  5,132·3

  408·5

  7,916·1

  33,317·9

  —

  403·5

  508·6

  1974

  5,171·7

  449·6

  7,824·8

  33,352·1

  —

  396·2

  517·4

  1975

  4,975·8

  421·7

  6,925·9

  30,947·5

  —

  387·6

  588·5

  1976

  5,254·6

  480·5

  7,498·5

  32,396·4

  —

  383·1

  583·9

  1977

  5,345·0

  536·2

  7,612·1

  33,282·2

  —

  375·9

  595·5

  1978

  5,370·3

  562·2

  7,711·9

  33,950·3

  —

  369·2

  603·2

  1979

  5,400·1

  592·1

  7,713·5

  34,099·7

  —

  361·7

  752·4

  1980

  5,670·0

  670·8

  7,942·2

  35,2430

  —

  356·0

  664·9

  1981

  5,759·9

  713·9

  8,024·7

  35,571·4

  —

  351·7

  628·3

  1982

  5,719·6

  706·5

  8,097·0

  35,651·2

  —

  348·1

  622·5

  1983

  6,018·6

  813·2

  8,310·9

  36,519·6

  —

  343·1

  726·2

  1984

  6,177·5

  902·9

  8,508·1

  37,042·7

  —

  334·5

  692·9

  1985

  6,353·8

  962·8

  8,682·1

  37,440·3

  —

  325·5

  674·5

  1986

  6,413·8

  1,050·2

  8,767·8

  37,727·6

  —

  315·7

  673·1

  1987

  —

  687·9

  1987–88

  6,619·4

  1,005·0

  8,529·8

  36,874·3

  774·3

  297·3

  678·8

  NHS Employees (Freedom of Speech)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what disciplinary sanctions are available to Health Service managers in relation to any public comments made about the National Health Service, the health authority or any National Health Service matter by National Health Service employees;

  (2) what restrictions on freedom of speech are incorporated in the contracts of those working within the National Health Service.

  Mr. Mellor
  Disciplinary action and the terms of individual contracts of employment for National Health Service employees are matters for individual employing health authorities.

  Hospital Statistics
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many hospital in-patients were treated in National Health Service hospitals in each year since 1959;

  (2) how many beds there were in National Health Service hospitals in each year since 1959;

  (3) what was the size of the in-patient waiting list at National Health Service hospitals on 31 March in each year since 1959;

  (4) how many hospital day cases were treated in National Health Service hospitals in each year since 1959;

  (5) how many hospital out-patients were treated in National Health Service hospitals in each year since 1959.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table.
  645

  1 Ward attenders are a new category of patient. Some of them may previously have been classified as out-patients or days cases.

  2 Figures as at 31 March are only available from 1976. Data for previous years are for 31 December.

  3 Total less self deferred for 31 March 1988.

  4 Day case figures were not collected before 1972. The figure for 1987–88 is provisional.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors were employed in National Health Service hospitals in each year since 1959, expressed in terms of whole-time equivalents.

  Mr. Mellor
  The information requested is set out in the following table:

  Hospital medical stuff in England and Wales1

  Year

  Whole time equivalent

  1959

  16,033

  1960

  16,584

  1961

  16,932

  1962

  17,557

  1963

  17,971

  1964

  18,346

  1965

  18,905

  1966

  19,541

  1967

  20,395

  1968

  21,232

  1969

  22,001

  1970

  22,585

  1971

  23,806

  1972

  25,043

  1973

  26,151

  1974

  26,999

  1975

  28,441

  1976

  29,251

  1977

  30,047

  1978

  30,998

  1979

  32,142

  1980

  33,257

  1981

  34,047

  1982

  34,538

  1983

  35,261

  1984

  35,430

  1985

  35,940

  1986

  36,317

  1987

  36,298

  1 Information is given for England and Wales because it is not available for England only prior to 1971.

  Notes:

  1. Figures include permanent paid and honorary staff but exclude locums and staff in the special hospitals.

  2. To maintain comparability to data hospital practitioners and clinical assistants (para 94) have been excluded throughout.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on the National Health Service in each year since 1959, at constant prices.

  Mr. Freeman
  The table shows expenditure on the NHS inclusive of charges in each year since 1959 in constant 1988 prices. The figures have been derived from the United Kingdom national accounts prepared by the Central Statistical Office.

  £ million

  Year

  Gross1

  1959

  7,173

  1960

  7,776

  1961

  8,066

  1962

  8,134

  1963

  8,486

  1964

  8,947

  646

  Year

  Gross1

  1965

  9,052

  1966

  9,465

  1967

  10,124

  1968

  10,585

  1969

  10,851

  1970

  11,596

  1971

  12,124

  1972

  12,982

  1973

  13,651

  1974

  16,245

  1975

  17,308

  1976

  17,799

  1977

  17,561

  1978

  18,092

  1979

  18,374

  1980

  19,710

  1981

  20,348

  1982

  19,968

  1983

  21,445

  1984

  21,583

  1985

  21,840

  1986

  22,648

  1987

  23,683

  1988

  24,186

  1 Gross National Health Service expenditure at 1988 prices.

  Dependent Territories (NHS Treatment)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out the detailed arrangements for implementing the new scheme under which medical referrals to the United Kingdom for free National Health Service treatment will be allowed for patients from the dependent territories of Montserrat, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands and St. Helena; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  Detailed arrangements for implementing the scheme, which began on 1 April 1989, are still under discussion with the territories involved. For the moment, however, where cases arise we have suggested that territories should make contact with the Department of Health, which will recommend suitable treatment centres for individual patients. The operation of the scheme will be kept under review in the light of experience.

  Sonia Cagey
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if payment is now to be waived of the costs of treating the late Sonia Cabey of Montserrat under the National Health Service at the Brompton hospital; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Overseas Development Administration has paid the costs of the private treatment received by Miss Cabey.

  Organ Transplants
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received seeking assurances that adoptive parents and adoptive brothers and sisters are not precluded from donating organs for transplant;
  647
  (2) what representations he has received seeking assurances that spouses will not be precluded from donating organs for transplant.

  Mr. Freeman
  None. The Human Organ Transplants Bill, now before the House, is not intended to deny individuals the opportunity of donating organs for altruistic motives.

  Under the provisions of the Bill, the transplantation of a human organ from a live donor who is not genetically related to the recipient will be permitted if certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions will be the subject of regulations to be drawn up following consultation with the profession and other bodies.

  Adult Placement Schemes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, following the recent conclusions of the survey of adult placement schemes conducted by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, he proposes to encourage the growth of such schemes.

  Mr. Mellor
  Adult placement schemes have their place in the full range of community care provision. It is for local social services authorities to decide what services to provide in the light of local needs and opportunities and the overall level of resources available. We are considering the funding and organisation of community care generally in the light of Sir Roy Griffiths' report and hope to bring forward our proposals in the near future.

  Social Security appeal tribunals

  Period

  Total number of appeals heard

  Total number represented

  Total in claimant's favour

  Total number not represented

  Total in claimant's favour

  Scotland

  Nine months ending December 1984

  11,252

  3,332

  1,551

  7,920

  1,355

  12 months ending December 1985

  19,003

  6,133

  3,016

  12,870

  2,304

  12 months ending December 1986

  22,561

  6,464

  3,203

  16,097

  2,959

  12 months ending December 1987

  31,819

  9,713

  4,922

  22,106

  4,138

  Nine months ending September 1988

  36,467

  11,921

  6,990

  24,546

  6,554

  North East

  Nine months ending December 1984

  11,757

  2,757

  1,141

  9,000

  1,400

  12 months ending December 1985

  18,724

  4,003

  1,677

  14,721

  2,206

  12 months ending December 1986

  20,040

  4,288

  1,951

  15,752

  2,702

  12 months ending December 1987

  27,198

  5,106

  2,231

  22,092

  3,312

  Nine months ending September 1988

  27,364

  5,905

  2,850

  21,459

  3,597

  Siemens Printers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Siemens ND3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Department has a total of seven Siemens ND3 printers in use, located at the following buildings:

  Doncaster Health Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the name of the new chairman of the Doncaster health authority, the date his appointment will commence, his terms of contract, and his annual salary; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The current chairman has resigned with effect from 1 June 1989. The name and term of office of the new chairman will be announced shortly. Chairmen are entitled to receive remuneration which currently stands at £11,868 a year. If they choose not to receive this they may in certain circumstances be eligible to claim financial loss allowance.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish information on(a) the total number of appeals, (b) the number of appellants who were represented, and (c) the number of appellants in both these categories where appeals were successful for each of the social security appeal tribunals in the Strathclyde and County Durham areas for each of the years since 1980.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  National administrative statistics for social security appeal tribunals are not disaggregated for areas smaller than a social security region.

  Information is not available in the form requested prior to 1984. The tables give the required information from 1984 to the quarter ending September 1988 (the latest figures available).

  Location

  Number of primers in use

  DSS, Government Buildings, Moorland Road, Lytham St. Annes, Lancashire

  3

  DSS, Hesketh House, 22–202 Broadway, Fleetwood, Lancashire

  2

  DSS, Durham House, Town Centre, Washington, Tyne and Wear

  2

  649
  None is in use through private contract.

  Refuges
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will take steps to ensure that after 9 October all refuge rents, of however short a duration, will be paid.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 9 October people who now receive income support at hostel rates (including those in refuges) will be treated in the same way as hostel dwellers not on income support and will need to claim housing benefit to help with the accommodation element of the hostel charge. The housing benefit regulations already allow entitlement to housing benefit to accrue on a daily basis, provided the liability is daily. Regardless of the basis on which housing benefit is calculated it cannot be paid more frequently than weekly, and normally no more often than fortnightly. It will generally be for the claimant to pay any balance of the charge which housing benefit does not meet (including any amount for fuel or meals) from their income support or other resources.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, after 9 October, young women claimants will be paid the same amount of income support as other women in refuges, whether they are parents or not.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From 9 October 1989 the normal income support rules will apply to all women living in refuges. Their applicable amount will be made up of a personal allowance plus allowances for any dependent children living with them and any premiums which may be appropriate. All of these elements are related either to age or to whether or not the claimant is a parent.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when details of transitional payments to refuges will he made available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are introducing special arrangements to assist existing hostels and claimants after the implementation of the changes to income support for hostel dwellers in October 1989. Payments to hostels will initially be made by DSS local offices, and subsequently from a central unit which will be set up in the Department. This unit will be responsible for monitoring the effects of the reform on individual hostels, and making payments to compensate for resulting loss in revenue from charges currently met by income support. In finalising these arrangements consideration will be given to the views of the hostel sector through discussions which are already under way.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what extra financial help will be given to local authorities to assist in the extra workload when housing benefit replaces board and lodgings payments for women and children staying in refuges.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Proposals for supporting local authorities' costs in handling the additional workload arising from the inclusion of hostel dwellers in the housing benefit scheme are due to be discussed shortly with the local authority associations. Local authorities will be advised of the additional support to be made available to them as soon as these discussions have been completed.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security where after 9 October, the shortfall between a woman and two children being entitled to £80·40 board and lodgings and the new £61·75 income support will come from; and whether there will be any conditions attached to any shortfall money given.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  From October 1989 people living in hostels, in common with the majority of households, will be eligible for housing benefit to help with their accommodation costs and normal income support to help with other necessities. Claimants living in hostels at the time of the change who would otherwise suffer a drop in their disposable income, after the full hostel charge has been met, will receive special payments from the Department. These payments will continue for as long as the claimant continues to live at the same hostel. They will be reduced only as normal income support rates increase.

  Pensions
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement setting out details of the costs of the proposed enhanced pensions referred to in his Department's letter reference LS619/243/2 DML/17/89 which will be payable to staff on leaving his Department.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is not possible to detail the costs of pensions under flexible early retirement (FER) as each case is assessed according to grade, salary, number of years reckonable service, age, etc. As the actual decision whether to retire is for the officer alone, it is not possible to anticipate the number of payments. Provision is however made within the Departmental budget.

  Shettleston Office
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is now able to state the exact date when work will start on the construction of his Department's new office in Shettleston.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am unable to state the exact date, but present indications are that work will start on site at the beginning of next month.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Hornchurch, 17 February,Official Report, column 393, to take account of the freeze in child benefit in April.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will update the answer of 17 February to the hon. Member for Hornchurch, (Mr. Squire)Official Report, column 393, concerning marginal tax and benefit withdrawal rates facing households, to take account of the proposed benefit uprating in April and the estimated effect of the changes to the national insurance system announced by Mr. Chancellor in the 1989 Budget.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answers 22 March and 7 April 1989]: Taking account of the effect of the March 1989 Budget and the reform of the employees' national insurance contributions reforms which occur in October, it is estimated that in 1989–90 a total of 420,000 working

  651
  heads with 1 million adult and child dependants may sometimes experience combined marginal rates of deduction exceeding 50 per cent.

ENVIRONMENT

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. John Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will publish by(a) tenure, (b) income and (c) age of head of household, the following information gathered for the English house condition survey (a) the number of homes with rising damp, penetrating damp, slight would mould growth, serious mould growth, excissive draughts, (b) the number of houses with seriously defective, defective, just acceptable, satisfactory and unknown dampness and provide written material used in instructing surveyors on how to intepret these categories and on how to decide whether a dwelling was unfit for human habitation under the Housing Act 1955 for reason of dampness or other reason and (c) to tabulate slight and serious mould growth by main types of exterior wall;

  (2) if he will publish by (a) tenure, (b) income, (c) age of head of household, (d) employment status, (e) age of dwelling, (f) type of heating system and (g) main fuel type, where applicable, the following information gathered in the interview survey for the English home condition survey: (i) questions 19a, 19c, 19d, 19f, (ii) questions 21 to 23c, (iii) questions 24 to 26b, (iv) questions 28 to 42, (v) question 44 and (vi) question 48.

  Mr. Trippier
  As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government indicated in Standing Committee G on 20 April, information on these topics will be published in a supplementary report on the English house condition survey.

  Housing Investment
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list at 1987–88 outturn prices local authorities' housing capital investment(a) in Greater London, (b) in other metropolitan areas, (c) in non-metropolitan areas, (d) in the non-metropolitan areas in the south-east and (e) in England (i) during 1980–81, (ii) during 1982–83, (iii) during 1984–85 and (iv) during 1986–87 (1) in new building, (2) in renovation of their existing stock, (3) in renovation grants, (4) in loans to housing associations and (5) in other housing activities.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have today placed tables giving the relevant information in the Library.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to have included in the recently completed global convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes, organised under the auspices of the United Nations environment programme, radioactive wastes amongst the controlled substances.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. This is unnecessary. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the appropriate United Nations body dealing with all aspects of radioactive substances.
  652
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the figures in tonnes for imports of special waste to the United Kingdom; if he will break those figures down by country of origin; from which ports these imports left, giving figures in tonnes; and what was their destination port in the United Kingdom; in each of the last five years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 28 October 1988 at column 427. It is not yet possible to update this information. Her Majesty's inspectorate of polluton expects to have the information from waste disposal authorities later this year.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will list those United Kingdom companies producing special waste currently incinerated at sea.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information is not held centrally to enable producers of special wastes for marine incineration to be identified. The decision as to whether a waste is special under the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 is made by the waste producer. Notifications that result are held by the appropriate waste disposal authority.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the Government's response to the Environment Committee's report on toxic waste.

  Mr. Ridley
  I have today published the Government's response (Cm. 679). 1 am pleased that the Committee is in virtually complete agreement with the Government's proposals to improve the present system of waste management. These proposals have been put forward in a series of consultation papers over the last three years. Much progress has been made in this important but difficult area and legislation is now being prepared for introduction at the earliest opportunity.

  I regret that the Committee has chosen to give little credit for this major reform covering the whole of waste legislation. Instead the Committee has chosen to make serious allegations about the waste management industry in this country which are not supported by the evidence presented in the body of the report. Indeed, the Committee records that it found little evidence of pollution from waste management processes in this country.

  The Committee acknowledges that the United Kingdom is one of the few countries not to have developed its waste management policy in the wake of environmental disaster. But the Government believe that potential hazards should be anticipated and that the present legal framework can be strengthened to give the best possible protection for the future. The Committee has fully endorsed our proposals to extend legal responsibility to the producers of waste and to strengthen the existing law on licensing and the aftercare of landfills.

  Neither are the Government confining their reforms to the present licensing system. We are also proposing to reform the waste disposal authorities themselves. In the only significant area of disagreement between the Government and the Committee, the Government do not propose to follow the recommendation to create new regional waste regulation authorities or an environmental protection agency. Instead, the Government propose to build on the strengths of the present system by separating

  653
  waste regulation from authorities' own operations and providing clearer and more accountable procedures for new waste regulation authorities to operate by.

  The Government firmly believe that waste management practices in the United Kingdom are environmentally safe and our record, in comparison to many other countries, fully supports that view. The improvements to be made in legislation and enforcement will be our continuing safeguard against pollution from wastes for many years to come.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to those companies currently using ocean incineration to develop alternative means of disposal as a means of ending toxic waste incineration at sea, in line with the recommendations of the North sea ministerial conference.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Officials of my Department have advised companies which currently hold licences for incineration of waste at sea of the need to seek alternative methods of disposal of their wastes. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is discussing alternative land-based disposal routes with the companies concerned. We fully expect to meet the timetable agreed at the second international conference on the protection of the North sea for phasing out marine incineration.

  Sewage Disposal
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make public the costings and content for any work required at each of the sewage works controlled by the Severn-Trent water authority to meet any tightened consents approved by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, or other consents at the expiry of any of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution approved temporary relaxation.

  Mr. Howard
  On 7 December 1988 (Official Report. column 199) I announced a capital programme involving expenditure of £900 to £1,000 million designed to bring substandard sewage works into compliance with their discharge consents by March 1992. Capital investment programmes are being discussed with the individual authorities concerned, including Severn-Trent, and detailed figures are not available.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding the proposed sewer outfall pipe at Rossall Point, Fleetwood; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend has received about 16,000 representations regarding the proposed long sea outfall at Rossall Point. These representations will be taken into account before any decision is made on whether North West water authority's applications for discharge consents should be granted.

  Water Authorities (Debts)
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the total current capital debts of the 10 water authorities; and how much of those debts he intends to write-off on the privatisation of the industry.

  Mr. Howard
  Details of outstanding capital loans to water authorities are recorded in their respective annual 654
  reports and accounts, copies are available in the Library. The Water Bill will enable National Loans Fund and Public Works Loans Board debts to be written off and replaced as appropriate by a combination of equity and debentures. These powers will be used to put in place capital structures appropriate for the new companies.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions and representations he has had about the collection of unpaid poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no intention of introducing a poll tax. We have discussed the community charge recovery system extensively with a wide range of interested bodies.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what factors influenced his decision to begin registration for the poll tax after, rather than before, the county council elections.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax. My letter of 23 December 1988 to the chairman of the local authority associations sets out the reasons for the operative date of the regulations enabling community charge registration officers to require information from individuals for the purposes of compiling their registers. I am placing a copy of the letter in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to provide protection to agricultural workers in tied housing in relation to the payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  The personal community charge is not related to the type of property occupied. People in tied accommodation who are subject to it will, in common with all chargepayers, have the protection of the rebate scheme, which specifically links people's liability to their ability to pay.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to issue guidance to local authorities on the rights of access to local services of those community charge payers who are either living or registered in a local authority area for a short period of time due to their itinerant lifestyle.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if adults placed with carers on adult placement schemes will be required to pay poll tax.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce poll tax.

  Exemption from the personal community charge depends on the circumstances of the individual concerned. Any exemption in cases described by the hon. Gentleman would depend on whether the individual qualifies for exemption on any of the grounds set out in schedule I to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Conservation Areas (Trees)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what particulars he has specified in relation
  655
  to the provision of section 61(A)(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 concerning the need for district councils to keep a register of trees in conservation areas.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Section 61(A)(7) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 places a duty on district and London borough councils to compile and keep available for inspection a register of notices served on the council of intention to carry out work on trees in conservation areas, where such trees are not already protected by tree preservation orders or otherwise exempt. It also empowers the Secretary of State to determine what particulars should be included in such registers. The following matters were specified for this purpose in DOE circular 36/78:

  (a) the address of the land on which the tree stands and sufficient information to identify the tree;

  (b) details of the work proposed.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the justification for the proposed increase in water charges by the Eastbourne waterworks; and if he will publish in the Official Report a table showing the increase in the charges to (a) domestic consumers on and off meters and (b) private industry and public undertakings.

  Mr. Howard
  It is for the company to satisfy itself that the charges that it levies are within its statutory powers. The specific information requested is not held centrally.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps will be taken after privatisation to stop the water supply undertakings from inflating their costs in order to inflate their profits.

  Mr. Howard
  After privatisation inflated costs will reduce the companies' profits because their charges levels will be limited. In reviewing the charges limits the Director General of Water Services will be able to obtain all the information needed to assess the cost of operation of an efficient undertaking, and to set the limits accordingly.

  Rates
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish his proposals for determining the allowance to be made to local authorities for the collection of non-domestic rates and for offsetting losses or collection against their contribution to the national non-domestic rate pool.

  Mr. Gummer
  Our proposals were published in a consultation paper on "Payments into the National Non-Domestic Rating Pool" issued on 16 March. The closing date for responses is 12 May and discussions with the local authority associations are continuing. I am placing copies of the consultation paper in the Library.

  SSSIs (Planning Applications)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the criteria which apply in considering whether a planning application affecting a site of special scientific interest should be referred to him.
  656
  Mr. Chope
  Every request to call in a planning application is considered on the individual merits of the case. In general, applications are called in only if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in our opinion could have wide effects beyond their immediate locality, which give rise to substantial regional or national controversy, which may conflict with national policy on important matters, and those where the interests of national security or of foreign Governments may he involved. In considering whether to call in an application affecting a site of special scientific interest the scale of the proposed development and the extent of its effect on the site would be relevant considerations to be taken into account.

  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list, in respect of each of the last three years, those cases where the Nature Conservancy Council has asked him to call in a planning application and indicate(a) those cases which were referred back to the planning authority to determine and (b) those cases which were determined in favour of the application.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Planning Permission (Revocations)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions since 1959 planning permission has been revoked; what compensation was paid on each occasion; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  It is primarily for the local planning authority to decide, having regard to the development plan and to any other material consideration, whether to revoke any planning permission. Between April 1979 and December 1988 my right hon. Friend and his predecessors confirmed more than 1,300 revocation orders. Information is not available centrally about the number of unopposed orders which required no confirmation or about the amounts of compensation which were paid by local authorities.

  Cryptosporidium
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what moves he has initiated, following the outbreak in February of diarrhoea and sickness caused by the waterborne parasite cryptosporidium, to ensure that every water authority has the expertise to carry out tests to detect cryptosporidium.

  Mr. Howard
  Monitoring methods necessary to detect cryptosporidium in water supplies are being examined by the group of experts established by the Government under the chairmanship of Sir John Badenoch. I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 2 March to my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) at column 286.

  Bradford (Development)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received any application from Bradford local authority of Arrocraft plc either separately or jointly for a city grant for the development of the Bradford West End scheme; and if he will make a statement.
  657
  Mr. Trippier
  No formal application for city grant for the Bradford West End scheme has been received by the Department.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any applications for in and out agreements for the purchase of land for the West End development in Bradford by Bradford council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No.

  Alaska Works Development, Southwark
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the commercial office development of the Alaska works development in Southwark and on the area of office accommodation made available under this scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Alaska works project has been offered city grant of £4,162,000. The project comprises the part refurbishment and part redevelopment of a former fur treatment works to provide a business complex of at least 127,000 sq. ft. of net lettable floor space. The space available will accommodate offices, workshops, studios and training facilities. Associated car parking facilities and a garden for use by local residents, and users of the development, will be provided.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he is going to publish the findings of the study of homelessness carried out by the university of Birmingham's centre for urban and regional studies.

  Mr. Trippier
  The findings are published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library. We very much welcome this study which has lessons for both central and local government.

  The report demonstrates clearly that homelessness is a complex problem which needs attacking on a number of fronts. Local authorities are generally doing a good job, but there is room for streamlining procedures and standardising the service to homeless people across local authorities. Conditions in temporary accommodation, and bed and breakfast in particular, are often poor and people are waiting for long periods to be rehoused into permanent accommodation.

  The Department has considered the report carefully and the findings are providing a valuable contribution to our current review of homelessness legislation.

  Rivers (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Crowther
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report a schedule showing the changes between 1987 and 1988 in the quality of rivers in the Yorkshire region, including the lengths over which improvement or deterioration has taken place.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 24 April 1989]: I understand that the lengths of rivers and canals recorded in each water quality class by the Yorkshire water authority were as follows:
  658

  Freshwater quality class

  Kilometres

  1987

  1988

  1A Good quality

  2,264

  2,261

  1B Good quality

  2,198

  2,141

  2 Fair quality

  779

  839

  3 Poor quality

  629

  646

  4 Bad quality

  165

  148

  Total

  6,035

  6,035

  These figures are not directly comparable with those obtained from the 1985 river quality survey of England and Wales as they are based on more limited surveys carried out by the water authority.

  Carbon (Levy)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposal agreed by the Toronto conference for a world levy on carbon as a basis for an environmental fund.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: One of the three working groups set up by the intergovernmental panel on climate change, in which the United Kingdom is playing a full part, is studying a variety of possible international response strategies, including financial and economic measures. The work is at an early stage but the IPCC has set itself the ambitious target of reporting by mid-1990.

  Anti-competitive Practices
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, further to his answer of 17 April,Official Report, column 36, to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) he will list the approximately 80 complaints of alleged anti-competitive practices identifying the local authorities involved.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 26 April 1989]: The Department has received complaints alleging anticompetitive behaviour by the following authorities:

  Alnwich DC

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  Barnsley MBC

  Barrow-in-Furness BC

  Beverley BC

  Birmingham CC

  Bolton MBC

  Braintree DC

  Brighton BC

  Bristol CC

  Bromley LB

  Broxbourne DC

  Broxtowe BC

  Buckinghamshire CC

  Carlisle BC

  Carrick DC

  Charnwood BC

  Christchurch DC

  Cleveland CC

  Corby DC

  Cotswold DC

  Darlington BC

  Eastleigh BC

  East Staffordshire DC

  East Sussex CC

  Ellesmere Port and Neston BC

  Exeter CC

  Forest of Dean DC

  Gloucester CC

  659

  Gosport BC

  Guildford BC

  Halton BC

  Havant BC

  Hereford CC

  Horsham DC

  Hove BC

  Lancashire CC

  Leeds CC

  Maidstone BC

  Melton BC

  Middlesbrough BC

  Newark and Sherwood DC

  Newbury DC

  Norfolk CC

  North Cornwall DC

  North Yorkshire CC

  Peterborough CC

  Purbeck DC

  Reading BC

  Ribble Valley BC

  Rochdale MBC

  Rother DC

  Rotherham BC

  Rugby BC

  Sedgefield DC

  Sefton BC

  South Buckinghamshire DC

  South Kesteven DC

  South Tyneside MBC

  South Wight BC

  Southwark LB

  Stafford BC

  Staffordshire Moorlands DC

  Stevenage BC

  Stroud DC

  Tameside BC

  Taunton Deane BC

  Test Valley DC

  Wakefield MBC

  Waltham Forest LB

  Worcester CC

  Worthing BC

  Wycombe DC

  Wyre Forest DC

  York CC

  Bathing Water (Pollution)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the highest level of(a) E. cob and (b) total coliforms per 100 ml. found in the 1988 bathing waters survey at Seaton Carew centre, Hartlepool bay; and if he will publish in the Official Report full details of all the water samples at Seaton Carew centre that failed both the total coliform and the faecal coliform tests.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: The results obtained during the 1988 bathing season at the Seaton Carew centre sampling point are as follows:

  Date

  Total coliforms number per 100 ml

  Faecal coliforms number per 100 ml

  6 May 1988

  110

  80

  20 May 1988

  3,500

  680

  14 June 1988

  3,700

  1,200

  24 June 1988

  10

  10

  1 July 1988

  13,000*

  13,000*

  15 July 1988

  820

  220

  29 July 1988

  3,100

  600

  3 August 1988

  2,900

  670

  25 August 1988

  3,700

  2,000

  31 August 1988

  10,000

  3,000*

  2 September 1988

  110,000*

  110,000*

  19 September 1988

  3,000,000*

  3,000,000*

  660
  Those results marked with an asterisk do not comply with the relevant imperative standard set in directive 76/160/EEC and those for 19 September are wholly exceptional. Northumbrian water authority has plans to improve the bathing waters at Seaton Carew to ensure that they consistently meet the EC standards.

  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the cost of bringing beaches in Norfolk up to EEC standards; and from what date he expects the standards to be met.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: My right hon. Friend has asked Anglian water authority to draw up detailed plans with a view to bringing its bathing waters up to EC standards by 1995. Until these plans have been fully assessed it is not possible to give details of the cost involved.

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information his Department holds that enables him to assess the extent to which potable water in England complies with the European Community directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/77/EEC).

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: The Department has information about supplies which regularly do not meet one or other of the standards in the directive and about programmes to achieve compliance. Information concerning supplies where there is occasional non-compliance is currently being submitted by water undertakers to the Department in the context of further improvement programmes.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the cost at current prices to each water authority in England of complying with the European Community directive relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption (80/77/EEC).

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 25 April 1989]: Water undertakers have submitted to the Department projections of the costs involved in complying with the EC drinking water directive. We are reviewing these and discussing them with individual water undertakers. Until we have examined all the programmes it is not possible to estimate the costs. However, the programme will be included in prospectuses to be published later this year.

  Church House, Westminster
  Mr. John Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the European Economic Community guide levels and maximum admissible concentration levels for pollutants are exceeded by the drinking water supply in Church house, Westminster.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 19 April 1989]: The maximum admissible concentrations for drinking water are exceeded for sodium and fluoride. Those exceeding the guide levels are chlorides, sulphates, zinc and iron.

DEFENCE

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the new monitoring service he is installing to detect those low-flying service aircraft which disobey their given height instructions.

  Mr. Neubert
  The RAF police conduct surveys of military low flying in the United Kingdom from time to time to establish that height and other rules are being observed. Following trials, it has been decided that a Skyguard fire control radar system will be deployed in a low-flying monitoring role later this year and this should provide a valuable aid to the RAF police in this work. Surveys of low flying in the United Kingdom have shown that there is a healthy respect for low-flying regulations and the new system should provide further confirmation of the high standards and professionalism of the Royal Air Force.

  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for the new monitoring service used to detect aircraft flying below permitted levels to operate in the areas around Leamington Spa which are under the service training flight paths.

  Mr. Neubert
  The RAF police monitor low flying at different locations in the United Kingdom during the course of the year, but it is not our practice to release details of the programe in advance.

  Command and Control System
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the new computer system at the recently opened United Kingdom air defence ground defence environment command and control system, High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire; why this computer system was originally specified to use four different programming languages; why it is being converted to a single language; what is the cost of this change; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Only part of the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment (IUKADGE) command and control system (ICCS) will be at High Wycombe. Equipment and software costs of the entire system, of which NATO is paying over 80 per cent. will amount to some £225 million at September 1988 prices. It would not be meaningful, however, to identify the cost of part of the system in isolation.

  The ICCS is being developed and installed by UKSL Ltd. under a fixed-price contract. The number of programming languages was not specified by the MOD and is the responsibility of the contractor.

  Siemens Printers
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Siemens ND3 printers are used by his Department, either in-house or through a private contract; and what is the location of each.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Details of the many thousands of printers bought annually by the Department are not kept centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate 662
  cost. The Department does not keep records of the printers used by the 10,000 or so companies which are under contract to the Department.

  RAF Upper Heyford
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the compensation arrangements to be introduced at RAF Upper Heyford following his visit there on 19 April; and if he will include the name and address of the official to whom claims should be made.

  Mr. Neubert
  Details of the new compensation arrangements were announced at the presentation held at RAF Upper Heyford on 19 April and will be made known in the area by newspaper adverstising and by means of a leaflet delivered to every home within the area of the scheme.

  From 17 May some 70 additional homes, including the whole village of Stoke Lyne, which fall within the average 70dB(A) contour will become eligible for a grant for the installation of acoustic secondary glazing to all bedrooms and up to two living rooms. In addition, the original noise insulation grant scheme is being re-opened for a period of six months from 17 May to allow the 35 or so residents who did not previously apply a further opportunity to do so.

  It is Ministry of Defence policy to offer to purchase homes which are subject of average noise levels of 83dB(A) or more. There is no obligation to sell and this offer is made because some residents may find the noise unacceptably intrusive; not because of any risk to health or hearing. Letters have already been sent to all property owners within the new 83dB(A) contour informing them of the position.

  Although the change of flight paths at RAF Upper Heyford does not satisfy the conditions laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1973 for the payment of injurious affection compensation, it has been decided, exceptionally, to consider claims for compensation. From 1 June 1989 owners of residential property (or small businesses with a rateable value of less than £2,250) in the vicinity of RAF Upper Heyford may submit claims if they believe that the value of their property has been adversely affected as a direct result of an increase in noise following the change in flight paths on 1 June 1988. Claims for such compensation will be considered independently by the district valuer in the light of the evidence available to him.

  The noise compensation scheme at RAF Upper Heyford is being administered by the Defence Land Agent, Block D, Brooklands Avenue, Cambridge, CB2 2DZ.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the value of military equipment exported under collaborative projects in the year 1987–88 was not the subject of memoranda of understanding which required the agreement of Her Majesty's Government before this equipment could be re-exported to third countries.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  In the context of Government collaborative ventures involving Her Majesty's Government, all military equipment exported in the year 1987–88 required the agreement of Her Majesty's Government.

  Headquarters Contracts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the difference in the figures quoted on the value of headquarters contracts for goods and services destined for the British armed services awarded by his Department to Rolls-Royce Ltd. and Rolls-Royce plc in 1985–86 given in answers to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East,Official Report, 4 April, columns 127–28 and 12 April, column 612.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The answers given earlier about Rolls-Royce plc responded to the terms of the questions, and gave information respectively on the payments made, at columns 127–28, on 4 April, and value of contracts placed, at column 612, on 12 April. Clearly there is a delay between placing a contract and payments being made against that contract.

  Sir Colin Chandler
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make public details of the performance bonuses paid to Sir Colin Chandler as head of defence export services; and, in each case, when a performance bonus was paid and how it was earned.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The terms under which Sir Colin Chandler is seconded from British Aerospace as head of defence export services at the Ministry of Defence do not provide for the payment of performance bonuses.

  HMS Conqueror
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the captain's narrative of HMS Conqueror covering the years 1982–83 is still in the possession of the Ministry of Defence.

  Mr. Neubert
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the captain's narrative of HMS Conqueror's Falklands deployment. Copies of this are still held by the Ministry of Defence.

  USA (Chemical Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to seek from the United States Secretary of Defence full publication of the United States chemical weapons stockpile at the earliest possible date.

  Mr. Neubert
  The United States has already made available a great deal of information concerning its chemical weapons stockpile: this includes details of its composition by agent type and percentage; the location of their CW storage facilities in the United States; and full details of the comprehensive United States programme for the destruction of its unitary CW stocks, which has resulted in the destruction of about 15 million pounds of chemical agent since 1970.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions have taken place with UK Nirex Ltd. on the future disposal options for military radioactive wastes.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Ministry of Defence is represented at official level at the quarterly Nirex customers' meetings,664
  at which representatives of the civil radioactive waste producers are also present. There is in addition a series of technical working groups at which MOD is represented.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, during the NATO nuclear planning group meeting in Canada in April, consideration was given to the large public demonstration in Belgium against the modernisation of short-range nuclear weapons in Europe.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  USAF Aircraft
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States Air Force A-10 Tank Buster aircraft based in the United Kingdom have crashed in the United Kingdom since 1 January; how many people have been killed in these accidents; whether any assessment has been made of the maximum credible accident that could arise from the training exercises involving these aircraft in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), at column 365, on 24 April 1989. Every effort is made to conduct essential military aircraft training in as safe a way as is possible. It is not our practice to make statements about hypothetical events.

  RN—Warsaw Pact Countries
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any contacts between the Royal Navy and Warsaw pact countries are planned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  In a move to increase contacts between the Royal Navy and Warsaw pact navies, the destroyer Warszawa, flagship of the Polish Navy, is to visit London from 9–12 May. In a reciprocal visit, HMS Bristol will visit Gdynia from 9–12 June as part of the Dartmouth training squadron's summer deployment to the Baltic.

  On the same deployment, HMS Bristol will also visit Leningrad from 26–30 May. This will be the first Royal Navy visit to the Soviet Union since HMS Devonshire made a port call in Odessa in 1976, and only the second ship visit since 1966. An invitation has been extended to the Soviet Navy to send a warship to the United Kingdom.

  RAF Mildenhall and Lakenheath
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the introduction at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath of noise insulation grants and injurious affection compensation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am pleased to announce that, following analysis of the results of noise surveys in the vicinity of RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath, noise and injurious affection compensation schemes have been approved. From today the occupants of some 5,600 homes in the area will be eligible to claim a grant for the sound insulation of all bedrooms and up to two living rooms. The scheme also provides for the payment of injurious affection compensation, if there is evidence that the value of a residential property, or small business with a rateable
  665
  value of less than £2,250, was adversely affected by an increase in noise or other physical effects following the bringing into use of hardened aircraft shelters at the airfields in July 1983. As any increase in noise will have been limited to the immediate areas, claims for compensation will only be considered for those residents who live in close proximity to the hardened aircraft shelters.

  An announcement is being made at RAF Lakenheathtoday to local councils and media and details of the scheme will be made known in the area by advertising and by means of a leaflet delivered to properties within the boundary of the scheme.

  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications to the approach routes of military aircraft landing at RAF Lakenheath he expects to be introduced by the United States Air Force; and if these will reduce noise levels overhead in the residential areas of Brandon, Suffolk.

  Mr. Neubert
  A minor modification to the visual approach route at RAF Lakenheath has been made following discussions with the Army. This will allow aircraft in the visual pattern to turn over the Stanford training area when joining the final approach path. Although this will affect only a relatively small number of flights, there should be some reduction in the levels of disturbance experienced in residential areas of Brandon, though they will continue to be overflown. All other flight paths remain unchanged.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Agricultural Research
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of funding of agricultural research.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current level of funding of agricultural research.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government expect to spend £186 million on research and development in agriculture alone in this financial year. This amply demonstrates our strong commitment to the technological underpinning of the farming industry and to public good research in this area. This does not include the additional research and development on food, fisheries and related activities.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I met the chairman of the Countryside Commission on 7 November, when we discussed many issues relating to the countryside. I am always ready to discuss matters of mutual concern with the Countryside Commission.

  Containers (Disposal)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the disposal of unwanted pesticides, veterinary products and associated containers.

  Mr. Ryder
  The policy of this Ministry is to make positive efforts to encourage compliance with the legal requirement, which is that all hazardous waste substances from agriculture including pesticides, veterinary products and their containers, should be disposed of safely and without harm to the environment.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review the list of pesticides approved for use on fruit.

  Mr. Ryder
  The independent advisory committee on pesticides is undertaking a programme of routine reviews of all pesticides, including those used on fruit, starting with those active ingredients which have been approved the longest and are most widely used. In addition emergency reviews will be carried out when particular concerns have been raised.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement about hedgerows.

  Mr. Ryder
  As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman before, we acknowledge the value of hedges as wildlife habitats and landscape features, as well as their value for agricultural purposes. My Department is always ready to provide advice to farmers on hedgerow management, and grants are available for hedgerow planting and laying.

  State Veterinary Service
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the state veterinary service.

  Mr. MacGregor
  As my hon. Friend said in a reply to the then hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) on 16 March, at column 345, I consider it of great importance that this country should hawe a veterinary service dedicated to the maintenance of our high health status. I will ensure that this factor is taken into acount in the review of veterinary manpower which I announced on 11 April, at column 441.

  GATT
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the European Council last discussed the agricultural implications of the general agreement on tariffs and trade round.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Agriculture and Foreign Affairs Councils at their meetings on 20–22 March discussed and
  667
  approved the Community's approach on agriculture for the GATT negotiations held in Geneva earlier this month. A successful agreement was reached there on a framework for negotiation on further agricultural reform. In Community discussions we are now encouraging the Commission to develop constructive proposals on how this is to be achieved.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Geneva talks on the agricultural aspects of the general agreement on tariffs and trade.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement to the House on 10 April, at columns 396–97, about the outcome of the recent GATT meeting. The agreement reached there on agriculture provides a firm basis for work to be carried forward on the ways and means of securing long-term policy reform. For the short term, it confirms that present levels of support and protection are not to be increased. We shall be urging the Community to press ahead with detailed work to build on and continue the process of agricultural reform that is already under way.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the United States Agriculture Minister, Mr. Yeutter, on recent general agreement on tariffs and trade developments on agriculture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I met Secretary Yeutter in Washington on 24 April. We had extensive discussions, concentrating in particular on the current GATT round. We both welcomed the agreement that had been reached in the GATT trade negotiations committee on 8 April and their firm basis that it now provides for negotiations on long-term reform of agricultural policies worldwide. We also agreed that the commitment not to increase support and protection beyond current levels will be an important contribution to this process.

  Watercourses (Pollution)
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the pollution of watercourses by the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the pollution of watercourses by the agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The total number of reported farm pollution incidents increased by 6 per cent. in 1988, although there was a 5 per cent. reduction in those classified serious. The Government are taking a number of steps to tackle this problem, incuding free general advice to farmers on pollution avoidance and the most generous grant-aid in the EEC. But Government action alone cannot solve it. It is the duty of every farmer to comply with the law, of the water authorities—soon the National Rivers Authority—to enforce it, and of the courts to set appropriate penalties.

  Farm Support Systems
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is able to calculate, using a net 668
  value of support of subsidy index base of 100 for the United Kingdom, from the latest available figures, the equivalent current cost of farm support systems to the average family in (i) the United States of America (ii) Japan, (iii) Canada, (iv) Austria, (v) Sweden and (vi) Norway.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I regret that information in the form requested is not available. However, published OECD studies provide some indications of the relative costs of agricultural support that prevailed on average in 1984–1986. The calculations take account of consumer transfers through higher food prices as well as direct budgetary expenditures. These studies include the European Community of 10 members as a whole, but not the United Kingdom separately. Figures have not yet been published for Sweden and Norway. If these OECD estimates are adjusted to per head of population, and the Community set at 100, they imply the following index numbers for that period: United States, 113; Japan, 142; Canada, 92; Austria, 86. Such comparisons should be treated with caution: they are sensitive to changes in exchange rates and other factors. Estimates for more recent years, when available, could well show different relationships, in particular for the United States whose currency has fallen substantially against the ECU and where spending on agricultural policies has been falling.

  Sugar Beet Growers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from sugar beet growers.

  Mr. MacGregor
  We have recently received a number of representations from sugar beet growers and from the National Farmers Union on their behalf concerning the EC Commission's price proposals for sugar. This was prior to the settlement at the Agriculture Council last week.

  Torry Research Station, Aberdeen
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last visited the Torry research station, Aberdeen.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 31 August 1988.

  Fish Farming
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to increase the level of Government funding for research and development in fish farming.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government spent some £3·2 million on research and development in relation to fish farming in 1988–89 and plan for a similar level of expenditure in this financial year.

  Agricultural Surpluses
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in reducing European Community agricultural surpluses.

  Mr. Ryder
  The measures agreed at the European Council in February 1988, notably on budgetary discipline and the reform of the CAP, have greatly reduced the incentive to surplus production.
  669
  Intervention stocks of most major commodities have reduced significantly. Stocks of butter are down by 94 per cent. since 1986. Cereals stocks are down about 60 per cent. since 1985. Skimmed milk powder stocks, which were over 1 million tonnes in 1986, are now virtually non-existent. Beef stocks are down about a half since 1985.

  Potatoes
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.

  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of his review of the potato marketing scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) on 19 April 1989, at column 175.

  RSPB
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and I met the president of the RSPB council on 17 November, when we discussed the RSPB's consultation paper on the reform of the common agricultural policy.

  I had a separate meeting with the chairman on 3 November, at which we discussed a wide range of issues. Both these meetings were helpful and constructive.

  Veterinary Surgeons
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects that the assessment of the number of veterinary surgeons will reach its conclusions.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I hope to be able to announce the details of this review shortly, but am not yet in a position to say when it will reach conclusions. However, I am glad to note that the Universities Funding Council has put off consideration of the Riley report until the review is completed.

  National Parks (Intensive Farming)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will extend the scheme of payments to encourage less intensive farming in environmentally sensitive areas to cover national parks.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to extend the ESA scheme to cover all national parks.

  Cod Fishing
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to cod fishing in the channel.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In line with the wishes of the area VII industry advisory committee, we have adopted a management strategy for this year's Channel cod fishery 670
  designed to spread the annual quota availability as evenly as possible over the year, and to avoid, as possible, a repetition of last year's uninterrupted closure of six months. I have accordingly closed the fishery twice this year for time-limited periods, currently until 1 July. Latest estimates indicate that we took about half of our annual quota by Easter. I am fully aware of the difficulties facing cod fishermen, and I am pursing all possible means of adjusting the level of the quota.

  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date the industry was informed of individual cod quotas for the current year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Following agreement at the Council of Fisheries Ministers on 9–11 December 1989, quotas for the United Kingdom's cod fisheries were announced to the industry on 13 December 1988.

  As regards the North sea and west of Scotland fisheries, the allocation of United Kingdom quotas among the various groups in the fisheries has this year given rise to new and important issues which have needed further consideration within Fisheries Departments. We are looking to conclude discussions as a matter of urgency and will be contacting the industry as soon as possible thereafter.

  Licensed Netsmen
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals regarding future developments of the north-east licensed salmon fishery.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the implications of the most recent southern T net order.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the north-east licensed salmon fishery.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin).

  Salmonella
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the results of action being taken by his Department to assist and encourage the eradication of salmonella from poultry flocks.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the action which he is taking to combat salmonella infection in flocks of hens.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government have adopted a comprehensive range of measures to tackle the problem of salmonella in eggs and poultry.

  Codes of practice have been introduced on the control of salmonella in laying flocks, breeding flocks, hatcheries, broilers and turkeys and guidelines issued on the control of salmonella in feedingstuffs.

  Laying flocks and processed animal protein produced for use as feedingstuffs are statutorily subject to

  671
  compulsory bacteriological monitoring for the presence of salmonella. All identifications of the organism must be reported to my Department.

  Notices have been served prohibiting the sale of eggs from flocks found to be contaminated with invasive salmonellas, such contaminated flocks have been compulsorily slaughtered, and compulsory cleansing of contaminated laying houses required.

  Statutory powers have been exercised to prevent the movement of contaminated material from animal protein processing plants.

  The laying controls on imported animal protein have been strengthened.

  It is still too early to assess the results of these measures. Salmonella organisms are too pervasive for eradication to be possible but I am confident that the action which we are taking will have a significant effect in reducing the problem.

  National Dairy Herd
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what proportion the size of the national dairy herd has declined in the last five years; and if the decline in each of the other member states of the European Community is greater or less than that in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Percentage decline in dairy cow numbers in member states of the European community1

  December 1983 to December 1988

  Per cent.

  Denmark

  22·7

  France

  22·6

  Netherlands

  20·6

  Luxembourg

  15·1

  United Kingdom

  13·2

  Germany

  12·2

  Belgium

  10·1

  Ireland

  9·7

  Italy

  7·0

  Greece

  1·9

  Source: Eurostat.

  1 Figures for Spain and Portugal are not available.

  NFU
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I meet the president of the National Farmers Union frequently to discuss agricultural matters.

  Experimental Farms (Closure)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and other organisations regarding the closure of Liscombe Hill experimental farm and Roswarne experimental station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary held a series of meetings with all interested 672
  parties in 1988 concerning our future research and development programme. The facilities required to undertake our R and D programme will form part of further consultations with industry organisations at official level with my noble Friend in May. In addition, my officials are pursuing with local interests those specific proposals that have been made for future funding of work at Liscombe and Rosewarne, bearing in mind the need to meet the full costs of the work retained.

  Farm and Conservation Grants Scheme
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on reactions to his announcement of the farm and conservation grants scheme and the degree of interest being shown by farmers wanting to pursue it.

  Mr. MacGregor
  This scheme, which was introduced on 20 February, has received a generally very warm welcome from farming, conservation organisations and others.

  Interest so far shown by farmers is high. In England 449 formal notifications have been received from farmers intending to begin pollution control work and 83 for the repair of traditional farm buildings. Fifty-six applications for farm improvement plans have also been received. In addition, divisional offices have dealt with a substantial number of inquiries about the scheme leading to a widescale distribution of the advisory literature.

  This is a very encouraging response in the opening weeks of the new scheme. I am particularly pleased by the high level of interest in grants for waste disposal given the pressing need to reduce the incidence of farm pollution.

  Agriculture Act 1947
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is considering amending any parts of the Agriculture Act 1947.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received on 16 February, at column 362.

  Chernobyl Fallout
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate how long restrictions will have to remain in force on farms affected by fall-out from Chernobyl.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 20 April 1989 to the hon. Members for Stretford, (Mr. Lloyd) and for Derbyshire, North (Mr. Barnes), at column 281.

  Tied Cottages
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received recent representations from the National Farmers Union about tied cottages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  No.

  Milk
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposal to ban the sale of unpasteurised milk in England and Wales.
  673
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on 23 February, at column 712–13.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistical evidence his Ministry currently has to show whether unpasteurised milk produced hygienically is damaging to human health.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The evidence is not so much statistical as scientific. Unpasteurised milk poses a threat to human health mainly because pathogens may be carried by an apparently healthy cow and passed on in its milk. The risk of such transmission is not significantly affected by production conditions.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from consumer and producer organisations about bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a number of representations from such organisations expressing a variety of views about BST.

  Health and Hygiene Standards
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on steps to improve the health and hygiene standards in the agriculture and food industries.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Government attach the highest priority to ensuring food safety. Our policy has been and will remain to take such steps—in the form of prompt action coupled with advice to consumers—as are shown to be necessary. Recent examples of this include: a wide ranging set of measures dealing with salmonella in eggs and poultry and covering all stages of the food chain; guidance to the public on salmonella in eggs and on listeria; and the setting up of an independent expert committee to make recommendations on the microbiological safety of food. We shall shortly be launching an education campaign of food hygiene in the home.

  We shall continue to act promptly on the findings of our extensive system of food surveillance and any other matters that come to light through scientific research and assessment.

  Senor Carlos Romero Herrero
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met Senor Carlos Romero Herrero, President-in-Office, European Community Council of Fisheries Ministers; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food meets Senor Romero frequently in his capacity as President of the Council of Agriculture Ministers. I last met Senor Romero in La Toja, Spain on 10–11 April at an informal meeting of the EC' Fisheries Ministers, where discussion ranged over a number of aspects of the common fisheries policy.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of the Farm Animal Welfare Council; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I met representatives of the Farm Animal Welfare Council on 13 April and talked to them about space allowances for battery hens, the council's remit, and implementation of the FAWC reports on redmeat and religious slaughter.

  Country Landowners Association
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Country Landowners Association; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the president of the Country Landowners Association on 15 February, when we discussed various matters relating to the tenanted sector. My noble friend has since met him on 17 April, when a wide range of agricultural issues were discussed.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the present state of the dairy industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  l refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 5 April, at columns 214–15.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he is next due to meet the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss the dairy sector.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have regular contacts with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I met the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council on 7 November last year, when we discussed a wide range of subjects.

  Farm Woodlands Scheme
  Mr. David Davis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will indicate the progress being made with the farm woodlands scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  Farmers have shown a very encouraging level of interest in the farm woodlands scheme. In the first six months of the scheme over 800 applications have been received to plant a total of 5,700 hectares (14,084 acres) of trees throughout the United Kingdom. A high proportion of the planting will be with broadleaved trees.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last attended the EEC Council of Ministers; and what subjects were discussed.
  675
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met Agriculture Ministers of the other European Economic Community member states; and what was discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last attended the EEC Council of Ministers on 17–21 April in Luxembourg, the outcome of which I reported to the House yesterday.

  CAP
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the efficiency of safeguards against fraud in the common agricultural policy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have been pressing the Council and Commission for some time to take firmer action against fraud.

  In Luxembourg last week I drew the attention of the Council to disturbing reports that ineligible butter had been bought in by intervention agencies, which demonstrated the need to take action to improve the controls on intervention. I received assurances from the Commission that it would report to the Council soon how it intended to follow-up recommendations made by the European Court of Auditors in its report on intervention.

  I also emphasised the importance of considering the implication for fraud before proposals for new agricultural regulations were adopted by the Council, and of establishing in such regulations specific and cost effective control provisions which would minimise the risk of fraud. I noted that the Commission was reviewing existing regulations against these criteria and received assurances that they intended to improve the clarity and consistency of control provisions in all agriculture regulations.

  Toxic Emissions
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment has been made of the effect on farm animals of toxic emissions from industrial processes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the past 10 years the state veterinary service has investigated 21 cases of toxicity thought to be caused by emissions from industrial processors. In eight of these, two involving cattle, two involving sheep and four various forms of wild life, chemical evidence was found. Seven were linked with contamination of water courses by fuel oils or chemical preservatives, and one with toxic emission from an incineration plant.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on measures to prevent the importation of animal diseases after the establishment of the European internal market.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on measures to prevent the importation of animal diseases in the context of the development of the single European market.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government will be aiming to secure the right balance between minimising barriers to trade and maintaining the effective veterinary controls necessary to prevent the introduction of disease.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of full-time employees in the agriculture industry in 1979 and at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested on the number of full-time employees in agriculture in the United Kingdom is as follows:

  Number of workers

  (000's)

  1979

  187·0

  1988

  134·9

  Source: June agricultural census.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will review his policy concerning compensation for the slaughter of cattle infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to do so. I have no evidence at all that farmers are cheating or trying to cheat.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state for each month of the current year the number of cattle identified as bovine spongiform encephalopathy-suspect by ante-mortem inspections at markets or slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom; and how many of these were subsequently confirmed as infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy by post-mortem inspection.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table showing the cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy confirmed in each county of the United Kingdom for the four-week period ended 14 April.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 20 April at columns 282–83, which covers the period in question.

  Eggs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any proposals concerning the sale, to the general public, of eggs which have not been graded by an authorised packer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In its report on salmonella in eggs, the Agriculture Select Committee drew particular attention to the fact that cracked eggs carried a greater risk of salmonella contamination; and that such eggs are often sold directly to consumers by the producer at the farm gate, door-to-door or in a public market. These direct sales by producers of their own production are not covered by the European Council regulations laying down standards for egg marketing.
  677
  Cracked eggs carry an increased risk of contamination because the cracks facilitate entry of bacteria into the inside of the egg, for example through contact with farmyard manure or dust, which may contain salmonella. The Government therefore propose to ban the retail sale by egg producers of eggs with cracks visible to the naked eye. We have today issued a consultation document seeking the view of interested organisations on this proposal and are seeking comments within two months.

  I have placed a copy of the consultation document in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with respect to the support grades in his Department(a) what is the number of staff employed, (b) how many vacancies there are and how many of these have existed for over one month and over three months, (c) how many temporary and casual appointments there are and (d) how much overtime was worked by them in London and elsewhere.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  1 (a) My Department has 474 permanent staff employed in the office support grades.

  1 (b) There are 38 vacancies, four existed for over one month and 34 have existed for over three months.

  1 (c) There are 24 casual appointments.

  1 (d) During the period 1 September 1988—31 December 1988 office support grades employed in central London worked approximately 9,900 hours overtime; those outside central London worked approximately 1,700 hours overtime.

  1 As at 21 April 1989.

  Slaughterhouses
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make it his policy to ensure that by the end of 1991 all red meat slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom conform to EEC export standards.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The standards of hygiene and meat inspection required by our regulations for non-exporting plants are similar to those required for intra-Community trade. There are however different structural standards, and exporting plants are required to operate under veterinary supervision. Non-exporting plants are supervised by environmental health officers for whom we have high regard.

  I shall be discussing with the EC Commission and other member states the rules which are to be adopted for all slaughterhouses on completion of the internal market. In those discussions I shall take account of views expresed to my by the interests concerned.

  Apples, Cheese and Eggs
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will issue a statement confirming that it is safe to eat apples, cheese and eggs.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is no need whatever for the public to stop eating apples, and similar advice, incidentally, has been issued by the United States authorities and confirmed by the United States surgeon general. Nor is there any reason for average healthy people to avoid eating either eggs or any kind of cheese—though we do advise everyone against eating raw eggs or uncooked food made from 678
  them. We have issued special warnings on lightly cooked eggs and soft-ripened cheese to pregnant women and other vulnerable groups. But I readily confirm the safety of these valuable foodstuffs for consumers generally.

  Herpes
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make herpes in horses and any other animals a notifiable disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The herpes family of viruses causes a number of diseases. Aujeszky's disease, which is notifiable in pigs, cattle, sheep, goats, deer, horses, dogs and cats, is one of them. I have no plans to make any other a notifiable disease.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next intends to visit Grimsby to discuss the fishing industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I visited Grimsby on 21 November 1988. I have no immediate plans for a further visit.

  Lindane (Recovery)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what consultations are taking place between his officials and others regarding the retrieval of the container, containing five tonnes of organochlorine insecticide, Lindane, which was lost when the vessel Perintis foundered north-west of Guernsey on or about 13 March; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on Wednesday 19 April.

  Cook-chill Food
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what recent representations he has received about the control of cook-chill foods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply he received from the Secretary of State for Health on 15 March 1989, at column 249.

  Mink and Fox Farming
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, whether he has received a copy of the press notice headed, "Farm Animal Welfare Council disapproves of mink and fox farming", dated 4 April; and whether he will make a statement on its recommendation that the state veterinary service should be required to effectively monitor standards of management on existing mink and fox farms by visiting them regularly.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have received a copy of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's statement on mink and fox farming. The state veterinary service already includes visits to fur farms as part of its monitoring of all types of livestock farms for welfare purposes. This monitoring will continue.

  Food Poisoning (Research)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what funding is allocated to basic and technological research into food poisoning at universities and food research associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  In 1988–89 the estimated funding by my Department of food R and D at universities and food research associations relating to food poisoning, was £445,000. The programme for 1989–90 is still being negotiated.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science also makes funds available to the Agricultural and Food Research Council and universities for basic and strategic scientific research. It is up to the institutions themselves to allocate the resources made available to them. Some will be spent on research into food poisoning.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many days supply of(a) milk, (b) butter, (c) meat and (d) grain are currently in store in Britain; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding reply 26 April 1989]: Estimated days supply, in store in the United Kingdom, are as follows:

  Commodity

  Days supply

  Milk1

  0

  Butter2

  26

  Lamb3

  21

  Beef2

  11

  Pork

  3

  Ham and Bacon

  10–14

  Wheat and Barley2

  20

  1 Raw milk is stored only for very brief periods prior to packaging or processing.

  2 Intervention and EC assisted private storage only. Information on the quantities in commercial storage is unavailable.

  3 Frozen imported lamb.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

Mental Hospitals: Closures
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many mental wards and mental hospitals in the United Kingdom were closed in the years 1986, 1987 and 1988; and how many it is expected will close in 1989, 1990 and 1991.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we are aware of three mental illness hospitals approved for total closure in 1986 and one in 1987. Numbers for 1988 are not yet available. Four mental illness hospitals are planned to close in 1989, two in 1990 and five in 1991. One of the hospitals planned to close in 1989 is that approved for closure in 1987. Figures on ward closures are not collected centrally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Until decisions are taken on the Griffiths Report, will the Government ensure that the rate of closures does not overtake the necessary provision of care in the community for patients suffering from serious mental illness?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the question of discharge of a patient into the community is entirely a matter for the consultant psychiatrist, who must be happy that the patient will benefit from a more independent living environment. There should be no question of a patient being discharged until his needs have been carefully assessed and arrangements have been made with local authorities and other care agencies for those needs to be met, including appropriate accommodation where necessary.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the 1986 disabled persons Act an assurance was given and a statutory requirement was made for there to be proper planning for people discharged from psychiatric hospitals? Will he give an absolute assurance that those obligations will be carried out before patients are discharged from hospital into a community which seems not to care for them and to leave them destitute on the streets?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought I had made that clear. We also made it clear in planning guidance issued to health and local authorities in July 1988 that by 1991 each district must have developed a care programme to provide a system of co-ordinated arid continuing care for people chronically disabled by mental illness. We also emphasised that each district should ensure that a consultant psychiatrist has special responsibility for rehabilitation and continuing care.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, does the Minister realise that that is not happening? It was because it was not happening that the former Secretary of State for Social Services, Mr. Norman Fowler, asked Sir Roy Griffiths to produce a report. Does not the Minister realise that the department is heading into absolute chaos as regards these tragic people?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought that I had made that point clear. I think the noble Lord knows my answer on the Griffiths Report. However, for his benefit I shall repeat the answer on Griffiths, which is that the Government are actively considering the report of Sir Roy Griffiths with a view to bringing forward proposals in the near future. The issues involved are too complex and important to admit easy answers. The report offered only one of a number of possible solutions. There is a great deal of other material to consider, and we are determined to take the time necessary to arrive at the best solution.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, do not the figures which the noble Lord has given to the House clearly suggest that Section 7 of the disabled persons Act must be implemented very soon? That would mean that the needs of long-term hospital patients would at least be assessed before they are discharged. Further, as the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Ennals, have suggested as regards the provision of those needs, we need to know how and by whom community care is to be provided, and whether it is to be provided along the lines of the recommendations of the Griffiths Report or otherwise. We must know how it is to be provided, and soon.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that we shall give an answer to the Griffiths Report when it is appropriate. As regards Section 7, officials from the department have been involved in a series of discussions with local authority and health authority representatives to identify the processes which will make up the requirements under the important section of the Act. The timetable for implementation will depend upon the outcome of those discussions.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, the Griffiths Report has been in the hands of the Government for more than a year. Although we entirely accept that the issues raised are complex, will the Minister give us some indication of when we might expect a response?
Lord Henley: My Lords, again the noble Lord knows that I cannot give an answer as regards when we shall respond to the report. But, as a sign of the importance with which Her Majesty's Government view the Griffiths Report, I can say that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is chairing a small group of Ministers who are principally involved in the matter in a short series of meetings. Her involvement is a sign of the great importance attached to this issue in the current political agenda.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a very full reply. However, does he

1365
agree that the proper and the compassionate thing to do, pending the Government's decision on the Griffiths Report, would be to suspend the closure of the mental hospitals?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for saying that I gave a full reply. The noble Lord sitting next to him has not often said that to me. It is not a question of whether we should suspend the closure of hospitals. There is still a surplus number of beds in mental hospitals. In 1986 the total number of in-patients was 60,000. There is still a total number of staff beds in mental illness hospitals and other units of 71,000.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, will the Minister say whether it is the Government's intention to close down Durham Park mental hospital? I know that it has been on the list for some time. Is he aware that beds in St.Olave's hospital in Rotherhithe are crying out to be used by local people? That hospital has been closed, by and large, since about 1980.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if I caught the name of the hospital correctly, it is not one that I have listed as being scheduled for closure in the period up to 1991.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Government have had nearly three years now to discuss the implementation of Section 7. They have still given no indication of when it is likely to come into force. Could not the Minister be a little more forthcoming?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot be more specific but I shall certainly draw what the noble Lord has said to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the responsibility and decision about closure is a matter for the Government and if the provision for these unfortunate people is a matter for the local authorities, is it a reasonable assumption that before the decision to close is made by the Government there is consultation with the local authorities to ensure that there is somewhere for them to go? I hope that I have not put it too simply.
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not only the local authority; it is also the health authority. Of course there is always consultation between Her Majesty's Government and those bodies.

Alcohol Related Road Accidents
3.13 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people were killed, and how many seriously injured, in road accidents in 1988, and how many accidents in each of those categories were alcohol related.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, provisional figures for 1988 show 5,041 people killed in road accidents, and 63,375 seriously injured.
We do not yet have complete 1987 or 1988 figures for the numbers killed or injured in accidents where a driver had a high blood or breath alcohol content. In 1986 an estimated 950 people, nearly 20 per cent. of the total, were killed in accidents where a driver had a high blood or breath alcohol content.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while the significant decrease in accidents in recent years is to be warmly welcomed—the figure used to be 8,000 as the Minister will know—will the Minister give a firm assurance that those figures will not give rise to any complacency, particularly as in some parts of the country accidents are on the increase? Does he agree that if 5,000 people were killed in air crashes or rail crashes every year there would be uproar? On the question of drink driving, particularly in view of the Answer that he has just given me, does the Minister not accept that the time has come for some form of random testing?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no complacency whatsoever and I hope that no complacency will develop among drivers, because every accident is a tragedy. The White Paper The Road User and the Law sets out proposals for further legal measures to deal with offenders. The campaign to change driver attitudes is also continuing with the welcome support of police and local road safety officers as well as that of many private organisations, including brewers, insurance companies, the AA and the RAC.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that recent opinion polls and the television programme "That's Life" last week show that a large majority of people in this country would now welcome random breath testing, if I may follow on the question of the noble Lord who preceded me? Are the Government prepared to introduce random breath testing? Can the Minister give us some details about the Government's thinking?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can tell the noble Viscount what is already in force. The police already have wide powers under the Road Traffic Act to stop motorists. They can carry out breath tests if a moving traffic offence has been committed, if the motorist has been involved in an accident or if they suspect the driver has been drinking. The Home Secretary announced last February that there would be consultation on this issue and the Government will consider the need to revise the law in view of response to the consultation.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that in our debate on the White Paper The Road User and the Law there was considerable support from all sides of the House for legislation to be introduced, at least in the next Session, on the basis of the North Report on the White Paper proposals? Will the Minister give some assurance that every effort will be made to ensure that this

1367
legislation is introduced in the next Session? Am I right in saying that there are certain proposals dealing with drink driving which do not require primary legislation? Is it the Government's intention to introduce orders within the next few months?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to give any such assurance. However, I can assure the noble Lord that I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my noble friend and also of my right honourable friend.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, is there not an extraordinary contrast between the attention and indeed expenditure given to the lamentable deaths of 94people at a football match and to the statistics which we have just heard? While I do not accuse the Government of complacency in any way, does that not suggest that by far the most serious cause of accidents is dangerous driving on the roads and that it is to that which public attention ought to be directed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. However, I must point out to the House that the trend in serious accidents—in road deaths and serious injuries—has been falling considerably over the past 10 years.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend perhaps try to bring out statistics which are rather more up to date if we are considering legislation on this matter? It is amazing that as computers get faster and faster the results coming out of them get slower and slower. Does my noble friend agree that it seems slightly out of date not to be able to give the figures for 1987 when people have been killed?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, information on road injury accidents is sent to the department by police forces on a STATS 19 form. The forms generally arrive after local checking about three months after the month in which an accident occurred. Information on blood alcohol content of people killed in a road accident is obtained from coroners' reports sent to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The reports then have to be matched with fatal casualties from the STATS 19 data to provide the required information. Not all coroners co-operate in sending returns and some are very slow. This is a voluntary exercise. It is hoped to close the 1987 file shortly and the 1988 file before the end of the year.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, while I understand that the Minister should give information about the legislation relating to drink driving, and very properly so, he has not really answered the question on random testing. I do not ask him to answer now, but can he give an assurance that random testing—and there are different forms of random testing—will be considered seriously for the near future?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for not expecting me to answer now. I shall certainly give the matter consideration.

Social Security Benefits
3.19 p.m.
Lord Carter Lord Carter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many people have, as a result of the transitional protection arrangements, received either no increase in social security benefits this year or an increase lower than the rate of inflation.
Lord Henley: My Lords, an estimated 3·2 million income support recipients received a full increase at this year's uprating. An estimated 1·2 million received no increase or a partial one.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but is he aware that last year 2·2 million claimants did not receive a full uprating in line with inflation and that 1 million in fact lost money? As he said, this year, over 1·2 million have received either no increase or an increase lower than the rate of inflation. Will he explain to the House the purpose of a system of social security under which the 1·2 million people who are the worst off in society, and many of whom are disabled, become worse off each year?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord and other noble Lords will know, there were massive changes in the social security system last year. Those changes also produced far greater simplicity in the system and greater fairness between claimants in similar circumstances. It is not possible to make such changes without there being some hard cases. That is why we brought in the transitional payments to ease the problem.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, surely those transitional payments were given because the people concerned were in need and had to have transitional payments. How can the Government now say that they do not need them any longer at a time when inflation is going up? Surely, after all we heard in the House yesterday about the plenitude of the economic strength and resources of the Government, there is no reason why anyone should be worse off under the Social Security Bill.
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, but income support was brought in because it is simpler. Obviously, as those people who lost and received transitional payments catch up with their new figures, those transitional payments will go. To preserve the transitional payments, as the noble Baroness seems to suggest, would preserve those inequalities. If the party of the noble Baroness, of which she is such an ornament, were still in power, there would be much less chance of it paying.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is to be congratulated on using the word "changes" rather than the word "reforms" in his answer to the question? By the use of that word, he has moved a little nearer to the truth than other government spokesmen because the word "changes" embraces the possibility of a change for the worse, which in most cases is what has occurred.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is a very interesting semantic distinction, although I do not accept it.

Nuclear Missiles
3.22 p.m.
Lord Kennet asked Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they will not agree to negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact for a reduction of short-range land-based nuclear missiles on the central front to agreed lower levels.
(Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the stated objective of the Warsaw Pact is the elimination of nuclear weapons from Europe. NATO's long-standing strategy of flexible response requires maintenance of an effective mix of up-to-date conventional and nuclear forces, including land-based missiles. This conflict of objectives does not provide a fruitful basis for negotiations.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, are the Government aware that the Prime Minister's mistrust of the rest of Western Europe is fully reciprocated? Are they further aware that, because she has no concept of Europe beyond the operation of market forces and nuclear weaponry, the louder she expresses her present views the more inaudible they become there?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I could not agree less with the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. His comments appear to indicate that he does not understand even the most basic elements in the process of trying to take forward the cuts which he appears to seek, which have already been taken forward in START and which, we hope, will shortly be taken forward in respect of the conventional force imbalance and on the chemical war front.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would not the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Europe leave the Soviet Union and its allies with an overwhelming superiority, thanks to its great superiority in conventional arms and its powerful apparatus for chemical warfare?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. If the suggested negotiations towards equal ceilings of short-range weapons took place, matters could become much more serious. Negotiations would drag on and Soviet pressure for a third zero would increase. We cannot be sure that all alliance governments would have the resolve to resist in the face of a sustained public relations campaign, which is what this amounts to.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the West German Chancellor, Dr. Kohl, is not in favour of a new generation of short-range nuclear weapons on the soil of West Germany? Is the noble Lord not aware that, in this, Dr. Kohl reflects the view of the great majority of the West German people and that the majority of the members of NATO are sympathetic to that point of view? In
1370
those circumstances, therefore, is it not essential that the Prime Minister, when she meets Dr. Kohl over the weekend, shows an appreciation and understanding of the feelings of a democratic ally, acts accordingly and does not try to bully him?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is not quite right in his suggestions. Of course the Federal Republic of Germany position is important, but the Germans themselves acknowledge that decisions on NATO strategy will be taken by the alliance as a whole.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend remind the House that it is a fact that the Soviets have, in the last two or three years, brought in their new generation of short-range nuclear weapons and, therefore, that we are not, in accuracy, flexibility or numbers, in any way comparable with what they now have deployed against us?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes; my noble friend is quite right. The Soviet Union has introduced over 200 SS.21s into Eastern Europe since 1981 to replace the missiles. Furthermore, Soviet FROG nuclear-capable artillery has improved continuously throughout the 1980s as towed systems have been replaced by more modern self-propelled systems.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is that not an extremely good reason for negotiating a reduction in short-range nuclear weapons? Everyone knows that the Soviet Union has a large superiority in nuclear weapons at the moment. I cannot understand —perhaps the noble Lord will explain this point—why the Government are not prepared to enter into negotiations to adjust that balance in combination with an adjustment of conventional forces. The lack of imagination shown by Her Majesty's Government in regard to this opportunity, which has occurred in the last three years, to push forward disarmament negotiations is a source of astonishment not only to us but to our allies.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the lack of imagination is for those who do not imagine quite what the Soviet Union might seek to achieve from that sort of arrangement. The fact is that one can have arms control negotiations that make sense only when the prospective parties share a common goal. That might apply. It applies in the ca se of START and in conventional and chemical warfare, but certainly not to short-range missiles. Furthermore, no one has suggested a plausible method of verifying equal ceilings on SNF missile systems. The Warsaw Pact would soon argue that only a third zero could be verified. I must ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that NATO could walk away from the negotiating table then.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, in the circumstances of the case, they are not only in danger of losing the sympathy of the German public but are in some danger of losing the sympathy of the British public as well? Would it not reinforce the Prime Minister's difficult task in changing her own mind if she were to take

1371
into consideration the fact that all that is being asked is that the Government shall be willing to negotiate? By refusing to take up that position and rejecting the idea of negotiating on the matter they are placing themselves in a position where they are in danger of being seen as the aggressor rather than the defender.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I should have thought that nothing would be more calculated to remove confidence in what we are trying to do than breaking down what has essentially kept the peace in Europe for the last 40 years.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that, with the mercifully improved climate of peace in Central Europe, the danger of the Western powers losing their will-power, their nerve and their sense of unity has always been an apparent and possible danger that we must face? Will he therefore wish the Prime Minister well in her efforts with President Bush to try to hold this great alliance together so that the great benefits that have come from that, including the present climate of peace, may be continued in the future?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, my noble friend has put his finger on the most important aspect of the whole issue. As the House will know, there has already been a 35 per cent. reduction in NATO's stockpile of nuclear weapons in Europe since 1979, whereas the recent Soviet indication is that they would cut only 24 out of 1,608 short-range missile systems.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the essential matter is to preserve the unity of NATO and that that can only be achieved if the Prime Minister is ready to see the point of view of other members of NATO? Does he further agree that at the present time that is not the case? If other members of NATO—and I shall not give a list of names because I am sure that noble Lords know them perfectly well—seek to put another point of view, is it not important that the right honourable lady should be prepared to consider it and discuss it rationally? She should not go there and refuse to see any point of view other than her own.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, it would be a mistake for the noble Lord to think for one minute that that view is held by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister alone. As has already been said, what is important is that NATO is an alliance which has been effective for the past 40 years and the decision that will ultimately be taken must be one for the alliance as a whole.
Lord Fraser of Kilmorack: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what must be avoided at all costs is a situation in which by some mischance we have made Europe safe for another conventional war? There are many noble Lords in this House who are old enough to remember that conventional weapons can be quite unpleasant too.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that that is the case. One of
1372
the very real risks arising from the kind of suggestions that have been made from other quarters is that we may go down the precise road that the other noble Lord does not want to take.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the Minister seen in today's Independent the very factual letter from Dr. Frank Blackaby about NATO and the Warsaw Pact and exactly who has modernised their forces and when? If he has read the letter is he in a position to correct any errors that may appear in it?
Lord Glenarthur: No, my Lords, I have not seen it.

Prisons (Scotland Bill) [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to prisons and other institutions for offenders in Scotland and connected matters. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Fraser of Carmyllie.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Electricity Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy(Baroness Hooper): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Electricity Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedule1,
Clause 2,
Schedule 2,
Clauses 3 to 10,
Schedules 3 to 5,
Clauses 11 to 24,
Schedule 6,
Clauses 25 to 31,
Schedule 7,
Clauses 32 to 35,
Schedule 8,
Clauses 36 and 37,
Schedule 9,
Clauses 38 to 66,
Schedule 10,
Clauses 67 to 86,
Schedule 11,
Clauses 87 to 93,
Schedule 12,
Clauses 94 to 97,
Schedule 13,
Clauses 98 to 107,
Schedules 14 to 16,
Clause 108.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Security Service Bill
3.34 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, noted during the Second Reading of this Bill, this is indeed an "historic moment". For the first time in our history the security service is to be placed upon a statutory basis.
The decision to introduce legislation to achieve this has been welcomed on all sides by your Lordships. On all sides too there have been tributes to the courage and skill of the security service and to what it does for the country's survival and well being. Those two common strands have I believe provided the shared landscape against which our debates on this Bill have been held.
I believe that in due course the Bill will be seen to have had a very significant effect on the way the security service is perceived in this country. The legislation will provide members of the service with the reassurance and confidence that only legislation can provide of knowing that their vital work in the interests of the nation as a whole is conducted on the firm basis of statute.
But this Bill will go further than that. It will provide reassurance and confidence too to the citizens of this country. It will reassure them that the security service is there to protect the whole nation and that it has been enabled to do so effectively under proper ministerial guidance and authority. People will know too that Parliament has provided a means for complaints to be investigated without putting at risk the safety or security of the nation.
I should like to pay tribute to the careful analysis and examination which has accompanied the amendments moved by all noble Lords involved, particularly, perhaps, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. I pay tribute too to the clear-sightedness and wisdom which your Lordships have brought to all our debates and decisions. It would be tiresome for me to recite the names of all those who have participated; but perhaps I might particularly mention the notable contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Mayhew, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and Lord Annan, and my noble friends Lord Whitelaw, Lord Dacre, Lord Thorneycroft, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
My Lords, with a certain degree of confidence I invite your Lordships to give this Bill a third reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the very great attention that he has given to this Bill in all its stages. Indeed, he dealt with it single-handed from the Government side and all through the various long discussions that we have had, moving with agility from the Woolsack and
1374
taking two steps (I think) to the left—but not, alas, in any political sense of the word.
During our debates my noble friends and indeed other noble Lords have readily acknowledged that our country needs a security service to fight against international terrorism and espionage, and that its members (who are often placed in the front line of danger in the fight against terrorists) should be sustained in their work. Nevertheless, a balance must be struck between the operational needs of the security service and the need to maintain the values and requirements of our democracy, including its safeguards of the liberty of the subject.
The Bill as it now leaves this House, unamended in spite of many efforts in various parts of the Chamber by amendment to improve it, fails unhappily to achieve the balance to which I have referred. That failure is compounded by the restrictive provisions of the Official Secrets Bill, to which this Bill is closely related, and by the stubborn refusal of the Government to allow in the Official Secrets Bill the defence of public interest.
We welcome the fact that at long last M15 is to be put on a statutory basis. That, it may be noted, still leaves uncovered M16 and GCHQ. Perhaps their turn will come in due course. We shall await events with interest. Therefore as the noble and learned Lord has put it, this is an historic moment which sees a change in the constitutional position of MI5. But I submit that it is an historic moment of which best advantage has not been taken in this Bill.
Nevertheless, we welcome the provisions in the Bill for a security service commissioner and a tribunal to investigate complaints. However, during our discussions in Committee we became aware of the serious limitations that the Bill places on the ability of a complainant to make his right to complain really effective. We regret that the Government have stubbornly ignored many amendments put forward from different parts of the House and in Committee to protect the citizen's liberties and rights. For instance, there appear to be no limitations on what the security service may do under a warrant issued by the Secretary of State on his sole authority.
We submit that the Bill fails to provide adequate and effective safeguards by way of independent scrutiny—and we had a powerful and long debate on that—against abuse of power by the security agencies. The outcome at the end of the day, therefore, is that the British subject is thus left less protected against abuse of executive power than is his equivalent in Canada, Australia or the United States.
There are thus matters in the Bill of which we approve, other matters which we strongly oppose and others which we deem essential but which regrettably have been omitted.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to echo and endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said about the general agreement and consensus on the main purpose of this Bill: to recognise at last the existence of MI5 and to put it on a statutory basis.

1375
On these Benches we have welcomed that fact from the start. We have indeed welcomed the provisions for complaints. However, one matter which became overwhelmingly clear during the debates on the Bill was that the present arrangements for accountability and supervision of MI5 have since the last war failed the nation. That is a matter which has never been denied by the Government throughout the passage of the Bill. The sad thing about this Bill, which might have been a landmark in this part of the law, is that it leaves this House with exactly the same provisions for accountability and supervision as have existed since the end of the last war. MI5 still remains accountable only to the Prime Minister and to the Home Secretary.
Support for the principle of some supervising body, both in another place and in this House, came from no fewer than three ex-Prime Ministers, two distinguished ex-Home Secretaries, an ex-Foreign Secretary, an ex-defence Minister, a number of Privy Counsellors and, in this House, a number of persons who had worked in MI5 and—a matter that was never denied by the Government—apparently no fewer than three ex-directors general of MI5 itself; yet the noble and learned Lord remained throughout totally intransigent on this principle. On these Benches we feel that this is a very sad aspect of a Bill that, having passed through this House, could have attracted general approval and enthusiasm. Surely everybody in this House must agree, first, in admiration of the work that is done by the service and, secondly, that the security of the nation is perhaps the most important of all subjects under discussion here.
However, it is sad that the Bill leaves this House with no provision in the sense for supervision or accountability to the public for the activities of the service, and that the noble and learned Lord has remained so opposed to advances which have been made in other democracies throughout the world on this question of the balance. It is a matter to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has referred.
Apart from that fundamental sadness, we welcome the existence of this Bill and only hope that these forebodings will not be realised in the future.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I have more enthusiasm than the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, for this Bill. First, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing it forward. It marks a very considerable advance in regularising in our constitution the position of our security service. It takes account of the need to arrive at a balance between what are clearly conflicting views. One view is that one should emphasise above all the rights of the citizen. Reference has just been made to the idea of a supervisory body and so on. Another view is the concern that most of us must feel with the need to protect the service from being too closely investigated or publicised in the situation in which it has to work.
We live in an enormously dangerous world. We live in a world in which sabotage, terrorism and
1376
spying are as prevalent as perhaps they ever have been. We owe a great deal to our security service. It has in very large measure protected us in this country from the dangers that that situation produces. This Bill strikes a reasonable balance. I feel rather strongly, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, has said, that the right to know exactly what the service is doing should be confined to the responsible Ministers. With the best will in the world, if one has not only a supervisory body but the staff that such a supervisory body would have to have, one risks breaches of security that might be very harmful. It is right that those who are responsible for the safety of our country or for its governance should be the people, and the only people, able to obtain full knowledge of what is being done. We should trust them, as we have every reason to trust them under all governments, to exercise that grave responsibility seriously.
I support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said about the firm and effective conduct of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He carried the full burden, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, of a complicated Bill. The fact that he resisted firmly amendments which in the view of many of us would have damaged the effectiveness of the Bill naturally reinforces our appreciation of the way in which he has handled the Bill. It has been a great success for him. I believe that the Bill is a very considerable achievement by the Government and I wish it well.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, although I have taken no part in the proceedings on this Bill, I have followed its course with great interest. It will not entirely surprise noble Lords to know that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, can hardly contain his enthusiasm for the Bill. It would have been surprising had he been unenthusiastic about it. But the Bill is typical of that example to which I referred just now of being a change rather than a reform.
However, there is one point on which the Bill can reasonably be regarded as being a reform. It is the point to which reference was made by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench and by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. For the first time we shall have on the statute book an Act covering the security service. That means that, having such an Act, it is open to an amending Bill. That seems to me to be the biggest advantage of the Bill that your Lordships are about to pass this afternoon.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I should like to thank those of your Lordships who have spoken for your kind remarks about the matters on which we have been able to agree. I reckon it as a particular achievement that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, sees in this Bill a real reform.
The arrangements which the Bill proposes are new in respect of the commissioner and the tribunal. However, it would be inappropriate for me to reopen the questions which your Lordships have already decided—and in my view, with all respect, wisely decided—in the course of our discussions on the Bill. Therefore, I renew the Motion that I moved.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed.

Companies Bill [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Companies Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Belstead: My Lords, at the same time, I must apologise to your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Young of Graffham is not present at the moment. As a result, with my apologies to the House, I beg to move that we adjourn during pleasure for a period of five minutes.
Moved, That the House adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, did the Leader of the House move that the House should be adjourned for five minutes?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think it is true to say that the Motion moved was that the Bill be now read a third time.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I should rise to my feet to explain that I did indeed move that the House be now adjourned for a period of five minutes. My noble friends Lord Young and Lord Strathclyde are now present. With my apologies to the House for rising to move the Motion, I should like to ask leave to withdraw the Motion that the House do adjourn during pleasure for five minutes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will support me in withdrawing that Motion.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as this is a debatable Motion, I certainly do not wish to prolong it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Question is that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes.
Lord Williams of Evel: My Lords, as this is a debatable Motion, I just wish to welcome the Secretray of State, Lord Young of Graffham, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on to the Government front Bench so that proceedings on the Bill can continue.
Lord Belsted: My Lords, I beg to move that my Motion be withdrawn.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Group accounts]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 18, leave out from ("not") to ("to") in line 19 and insert ("later than six months after the end of the financial year before that").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the House for not being here slightly earlier to deal with the Bill. Fortunately the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has given us so much to do in the last few weeks that we were still wrapped up in dealing with some of the amendments which we promised to bring forward at this stage of the Bill; namely, the Third Reading.
Amendment No. 1 is in response to an amendment agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, that a small change to the Bill was needed to ensure that a company could not avoid the effect of a notice served under new Section 228 by shortening its financial year. This amendment meets that commitment. It gives shareholders six months from the end of the previous financial year in which to serve a notice under new Section 228 requiring the production of consolidated accounts. This gives shareholders the same rights as under the Bill as originally drafted, but means that any subsequent change of year end date by the company cannot affect the validity of the notice. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, said, this is in answer to a point that we made at Report stage and we welcome the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Additional disclosure required in notes to accounts]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 27, leave out second ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I shall also speak to Amendment No. 3. These amendments simply change the reference in new Section 232 which serves as a pointer to the content of Part I of Schedule 6 to the 1985 Act. They make no substantive change to the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert ("and sums paid to third parties in respect of directors' services").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Auditors' report]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 15, line 16, leave out ("sent to shareholders under section 238") and insert ("laid before the company in general meeting").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Noble Lords agreed on the recommitment of Part V of this Bill to amendments which allow private companies by elective resolution to dispense with certain requirements of the Act. These amendments tie up loose ends in Part I following the earlier

1379
changes. They flow from those changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Private companies: election to dispense with laying of accounts and reports before general meeting]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 5 and 6:
Page 29, line 24, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line and insert ("A private company may elect (by elective resolution in accordance with section 379A)").
Page 29, line 27, leave out from beginning to first ("the") and insert—
("(2) An election has effect in relation to the accounts and reports in respect of the financial year in which the election is made and subsequent financial years.
(3) Whilst an election is in force, the references in the following provisions of this Act to the laying of accounts before the company in general meeting shall be read as references to the sending of copies of the accounts to members and others under section 238(1)—

(a) section 235(1) (accounts on which auditors are to report),

(b) section 270(3) and (4) (accounts by reference to which distributions are justified), and

(c) section 320(2) (accounts relevant for determining company's net assets for purposes of ascertaining whether approval required for certain transactions);

and the requirement in section 271(4) that the auditors' statement under that provision be laid before the company in general meeting shall be read as a requirement that it be sent to members and others along with the copies of the accounts sent to them under section 238(1).
(4) If an election under this section ceases to have effect, section 241 applies in relation to the accounts and reports in respect of the financial year in which the election ceases to have effect and subsequent financial years.
Right of shareholder to require laying of accounts.
253A.—(1) Where an election under section 253 is in force,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Other interpretation provisions]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 39, leave out line 49.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this removes the reference to the word "material" in the index of defined terms in Clause 20. There is no change of substance. This reference presently lies high and dry following the removal in Committee of the definition of "material" from new Section 262. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power of Secretary of State to require second audit]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde Moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 43, line 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line and insert ("45 of the Court of Session Act 1988").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 25. These amendments concern three erroneous references in Part II of the Bill to Section 100 of the Court of Session Act 1868. That section has been repealed and re-enacted as Section 45 of the Court
1380
of Session Act 1988. The amendments substitute the new provision for the repealed one. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Directions to comply with international obligations]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 48, line 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line and insert ("45 of the Court of Session Act 1988").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Delegation of functions of Secretary of State]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 50, line 36, at end insert ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment simply restores to Clause 44 the word "and" which was inadvertently omitted when your Lordships accepted Amendment No. 88 on Report. The word is necessary to indicate the relation between Clause 44(2)(a) and Clause 44(2)(b). The amendment makes clear that both the functions set out in paragraph (a) and those set out in paragraph (b) cannot be transferred by a delegation order to the statutory body. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 92, insert the following new clause:
("Sex discrimination
In making appointments or arrangements for determining who should be elected to or offered the position of a director or non-executive director of a company, the company shall not do any act which would be unlawful under section 6 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, if the company were the employer for the purposes of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Lockwood who I believe is unavoidably delayed at one of your Lordships' Committees. I shall just say a word briefly about this matter. On several occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill we have discussed certain problems which arise in connection with what in the margin here is described as "Sex discrimination". It appears that the companies legislation is written largely on the assumption that almost everyone who has any connection with companies must be male. There is no doubt that that is offensive to women, even to those who are not normally regarded as being part of the feminist movement.
We have not made a great deal of progress in persuading the Government towards our point of view on these matters. However, at one time or another it appeared as though the Secretary of State was on the verge of responding favourably but somehow drew back. I hope that in a moment my noble friend will say a few words about the amendment. It is more modest than any of the others that we tabled, although I should like to see something stronger.
According to the Sex Discrimination Act it is unlawful to discriminate against women on matters

1381
of employment purely because they are women. Therefore, it seems reasonable that in connection with directors, including non-executive directors, a company should act as though it were bound by the principles of the Sex Discrimination Act and treat the case as though it were a matter of employment.
I have put the case as best as I can and I hope that now, thankfully, my noble friend will add to my comments. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I should like to apologise for my absence. I was upstairs in a Select Committee and your Lordships galloped ahead faster than I had anticipated. As my noble friend has indicated, this is a different amendment but its purpose is the same as those tabled at earlier stages. It is to bring about an increase in the number of women directors.
In Committee I pointed out the small proportion of women who are appointed as directors at either executive or non-executive level. It is important to note that executive directors are likely to be appointed on their ability and the progress that they make within a company. In other words, they bring a particular expertise. The non-executive director, as the report and recommendations from Pro Ned indicate, brings a wider perspective to companies. Therefore, one can have a wider experience on the board and issues can be looked at from that wider perspective. In that regard it is appropriate that we should look among the women of this country for more appointments or elections.
I do not suggest in this amendment, and I did not do so in previous amendments, that there should be a quota of women. Nor do I suggest that women should be appointed merely because they are women. An increasing number of women are gaining experience in industry, in some of the professions which are relevant to the Bill, in law and in accountancy. Public services and voluntary organisations also equip women with an expertise which could be helpful to boards of directors. They could be well qualified for positions as non-executive directors.
My last amendment was criticised because it asked for a fair proportion of women. I was asked what was a fair proportion and whether, when 52 per cent. of the electorate are women, we wanted 52 per cent. of women on boards. Of course I should have no objection to that, but I do not wish there to be any misunderstanding about my purpose. Therefore, this amendment is directly lifted from the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. Section 86 of the Act places a responsibility on government when making appointments to ensure that they take into account the women of the nation. The Act also brings Section 86 within the scope of Section 6, which deals with discrimination against applicants and employees. It also brings into play the concept of indirect discrimination as well as direct discrimination.
The current amendment places a responsibility on companies actively to seek to promote women where appropriate and not to discriminate directly or
1382
indirectly against them. It means that there must be an examination of their procedures if they are to comply fully with the intent of the amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. It is modest and pays regard to other legislation. It is important that companies are reminded that women should be considered equally with men for the most senior appointments where that is appropriate and where there are women with suitable qualifications for the job.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I entirely agree that there are many opportunities for women to be on boards of directors of companies and that they should be encouraged. However, I suggest that the phraseology of this third try is inappropriate because of its reference to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The Act was formulated to deal with the particular relationship between employers and employees. It appears inappropriate to extend it to the relationship between the boards of directors and their shareholders. The obligations and duties of directors far exceed the obligations of an employee to a company. I believe, as does the CBI which advises me, that the introduction of sex discrimination provisions to the appointment of directors under that Act is inappropriate and it should be opposed by your Lordships.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say why it is inappropriate for the Sex Discrimination Act to apply to the appointment of directors when it is not inappropriate that it should apply to government appointees?
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the Sex Discrimination Act was intended to deal with the situation between employers and employees. The relationship between directors and their companies is different, so it is an inappropriate use. I believe that the noble Baroness must try again with a different approach, but it must be in another place.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, I listened with interest to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lords, Lord Peston and Lord Ezra. As the noble Baroness said—and I agree with her—women are in the minority in the boardroom. I should like to make quite clear the fact that we on this side of the House are sympathetic to the breaking down of any prejudice against the choice of women as company directors and the elimination of the after-effects of any earlier prejudices. We have no quarrel with attempts to increase the representation of women on boards of companies by voluntary means.
Nevertheless, we are opposed to this amendment because we do not regard it as an acceptable means of attempting to redress the imbalance. I should like to explain why. First, I should like to address the reference to non-executive directors. As your Lordships know, company law in this country does not recognise the existence of the non-executive director as a distinct category of director. All

1383
directors have an equal and shared responsibility as regards the conduct of the company's affairs at board level. It is our view that against this background it would be unhelpful and confusing to pass into legislation an amendment which makes a specific reference to non-executive directors, as opposed to directors in general, without defining that distinction or making clear its significance, if any.
The second reason—and here I have great sympathy with my noble friend Lord Mottistone—for our opposition to this amendment is based on the fact that it is inappropriate. Employment which is the context of the section of the Sex Discrimination Act that the noble Baroness wishes to apply to company directors is in the employer's gift, but membership of the board is not in the company's gift. As was emphatically underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in an earlier debate, directors are not appointed; they are elected. It is true that the board of a company may put forward candidates for election or may temporarily co-opt a director. But shareholders also have rights to propose candidates or to nominate themselves for election as directors. I do not believe that arrangements which are designed to fit the circumstances of employment can simply be transferred wholesale to the entirely different and in many ways more complex situation of the election of directors.
It may be that at some stage in the future proposals will be put forward with the intention of removing sex discrimination from elections, whether for company directors, trade union officials, parliamentary candidates or more widely. If that happens, the implications of the proposals will need to be carefully considered and discussed. The present occasion has given the noble Baroness the opportunity to express her views on women on company boards. However, as I have explained, in this case the Government cannot accept the amendment put forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand the reason for that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may thank the Secretary of State for his reply, and one well understands how he argues his case. However, I am rather mystified because I did not interpret the clause to mean the use of the Sex Discrimination Act qua Sex Discrimination Act. I thought that the clause referred essentially to what would be unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act, implying that that would be how we would approach the matter had we been able to persuade the Government to move on this issue.
In other words, one does not make the error of saying that directors are employees, but we are simply trying to find a logical way of solving the problem. At this stage I do not believe that one can press the matter to a Division. However, I believe that one day our successors will be somewhat surprised that we were loath to move forward in an area where I believe we all agree that something needs to be done. Anybody who looks at the boards of directors of our major companies Cannot help be startled that there are so few women—and I looked at this matter especially for this Bill. The business
1384
of those companies is often largely to do with women and yet women are still not involved. However, I do not press the point.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I should explain in order to make the position clear. The Sex Discrimination Act refers to employment. Employment is a conscious decision of the employer whether the employer is an individual or a company. The election of a director is a collective decision by a large number of people and the same rules cannot apply. It may well be that one day there will be another solution, but we do not believe that this amendment is the solution.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am indebted to the Secretary of State because I was trying to make that point. One is not arguing that this is a matter of employment but we are trying to argue the logic of the case. However, one has had a chance to make the point. I am glad about that. I interpreted the Secretary of State as saying that he is glad that we had that opportunity. I believe that we must find a way of coming back to this matter—and I address this much more to noble Lords opposite—and we must find a way of persuading companies to appreciate this matter in their own interests, because it seems to me that we are talking here about people who have a valuable contribution to make. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 [Consequential amendments]:
4.15 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 92, line 52, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule I to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (matters relevant to determining unfitness of directors), in paragraph 4 (failure of company to comply with certain provisions), for sub-paragraph (h) substitute—
"(h) sections 398 and 703C (duty of company to deliver particulars of charges on its property).".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 14. The amendments make changes to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 which are consequential on the changes made by Part IV and Part V of the Bill respectively. They preserve the existing effect of Schedule 1 to that Act which sets out matters for determining the unfitness of directors. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Young of Graffham Lord Young of Graffham moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 106, insert the following new clause:
("Financial assistance for purposes of employees' share scheme
In Chapter VI of Part V of the Companies Act 1985 (financial assistance by company for purchase of its own shares), in section 153 (transactions not prohibited), for subsection (4)(b) (provision of money in accordance with employees' share scheme) substitute—
"(b) the provision by a company, in good faith in the interests of the company, of financial assistance for the purposes of an employees' share scheme,".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall the amendments raised in Committee by the noble Lords, Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, designed to encourage employee share ownership schemes. At that time we on this side of the House said that we had sympathy with the objectives of these amendments but that it was important to find the right formula rather than a quick one. Nevertheless, we promised to give the highest priority to the matter.
Since Committee we have discussed with the advocates of employee share schemes the effect of such schemes on the restrictions which present legislation places on financial assistance by a company for the purchase of its own shares. We have also taken note of views expressed in your Lordships' House, and we have reflected further on how to minimise the risk of abuse if the rules were changed.
The resulting amendment widens greatly the scope for a company to give financial assistance for the purposes of an employee share scheme. The assistance would no longer be limited to the provision of money for the acquisition of shares but would apply to all forms of financial assistance for the purposes of an employee share scheme. For example, a company would be able to assist an employee share scheme by repaying some or all of the capital or interest charges on borrowings taken out by a scheme for the acquisition of the company's shares. At present this is prohibited because the provision of the money is not for the acquisition of fully paid shares. It would also become possible for a company to give a guarantee or some other form of security or indemnity if that was required by a bank which was willing to lend money to an employee share scheme. The proposal should also remove some of the other difficulties which have been experienced when setting up trusts to administer employee share schemes.
In preparing the amendment we were very aware of the need to provide safeguards against possible abuse—for example, in a takeover situation —without unnecessarily inhibiting genuine schemes. I believe that, having considered and rejected a number of more complicated solutions, we have found a formula in the words,
"in good faith in the interests of the company",
which does just that.
We are aware of the valuable role employee share schemes can play in encouraging the spread of wider individual share ownership. As a result of an amendment agreed in Committee, the Bill already contains a clause to enable model articles of association to be introduced for partnership companies; and one of this year's Budget proposals was the introduction of a new corporation tax relief for a company's contributions to an employee share scheme. I am sure that this new clause will keep up this momentum and meet the needs of those who are most involved in setting up employee share schemes. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Secretary of State for coming forward
1386
with the amendment at this stage in response to our amendments tabled in Committee. Perhaps I may say that the noble Lord has fully lived up to his commitments of giving the matter the highest priority and, indeed, has been good enough to send me and my honourable friend Mr. Bryan Gould a draft of the amendment before it was tabled. For reasons simply of haste I did not want to hold up the process of tabling the amendment and therefore I sent a message to the noble Lord's private office that I did not wish to hold up the amendment in order to comment on the drafting.
It may be that the phrase,
"in the interests of the company",
does what the noble Lord the Secretary of State says it does. Nevertheless, for the moment I keep an open mind on whether the interest of a company are not determined in certain situations by the board of directors of a company. The board of directors of a company might in certain circumstances be able to hold up financial assistance, judging it to be in the interests of the company, whereas in reality it is not in the interests of the employee share scheme which is interested in that assistance.
I do not want to press the matter but gently to comment on the drafting because I imagine that when the amendment goes to another place there will be further debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for meeting his commitments to myself and to the House, if I may say so, in full. For the moment we are happy to accept the amendment as it stands.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too support the amendment. We are fully in favour of extending employee share schemes and welcome the widening of the possibility of finding financial support for them. Therefore, we are in favour of the amendment as it stands and support it.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Secretary of State, most particularly for having given this matter the highest priority. At the previous stage we spent some little time on the degree of priority because we felt that it was absolutely essential that the matter should be resolved before the Bill left this House. Therefore, I am particularly glad that the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has now borne fruit.
We shall have to see what happens to the amendment in another place, but I am told by those whose affairs are most likely to be affected by this amendment that it is entirely welcome and satisfies the needs that gave rise to our earlier discussions. Therefore, I support it.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for his handsome acknowledgement of the way in which this side of the House always listens carefully to what is said. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and to my noble friend. This is a demonstration of some of the amendments which have come before the Committee and the House and which represent an improvement to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108 [Annual returns]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 111, line 46, at end insert —
("(4) In Schedule I to the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 (matters relevant to determining unfitness of directors), in paragraph 4 (failure of company to comply with certain provisions), for sub-paragraphs (f) and (g) substitute —
"(f) sections 363 to 364A (annual returns);".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 15:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause:
("Proxies
In section 372 of the Companies Act 1985 (proxies), after subsection (3) insert —
"( ) In the case of a company having an issued and fully paid share capital in excess of £2·5 million, every notice calling a meeting of the company issued to those of its members entitled to attend and vote at the meeting whose registered addresses are in the United Kingdom shall be accompanied by a reply-paid form of proxy".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15 I speak also to Amendment No. 16 which is consequential and merely brings the penalty for a breach of the provisions of Amendment No. 15 into line with the penalties applying to breaches of any other part of Section 372 of the Companies Act 1985 dealing with proxies.
Of the four shareholder protection amendments (as I call them) that I started with in Committee, this amendment—or, strictly speaking, a variation of it—is the one that has attracted the most widespread support from various parts of the House. Therefore I jettisoned the other three amendments and am concentrating on this one. On Report, my noble friend Lord Grantchester, with his great experience of these matters, pointed out that my amendment on these lines was technically defective in one minor respect. For that reason I did not press it at the time. I have now duly put right the technical defect and at the same time further narrowed the scope of the amendment, which I hope will be pleasing to the Government, so that the obligations it imposes will apply only in respect of those shareholders with addresses registered in the United Kingdom. This follows the pattern of much other company law; for example, that relating to rights issues.
The broad arguments for this amendment have been rehearsed twice before and they do not need to be gone into in great detail again today. We are trying, albeit in a small way—I realise that there is nothing earth-shaking about this amendment—to promote true shareholder democracy by obliging a maverick 1 per cent. or less of medium and large-sized public companies to fall into line with the conscientious and public-spirited 99 per cent. majority who send out reply-paid forms of proxy in the form of either proxy cards or envelopes.
During our previous debate on this matter I fear that the Government completely confused wider share ownership with shareholder democracy. The two are of course quite separate, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out. All who have put their names to this amendment believe that wider share ownership is good, but not if the new
1388
shareholders are to be exploited and treated cynically as a largely passive buffer to blunt the predatory instincts of the large institutional investors.
The answer to the problem is not, as the Government suggested previously, for the aggrieved shareholders to sell their shareholdings. The cost of doing so is disproportionately high nowadays, when minimum commissions have risen so staggeringly since Big Bang. Moreover, shareholders who take such a course may have to sell at a loss or, assuming that the company has done well under its previous management, they may have to sell at such a profit as to incur massive capital gains tax liabilities. Furthermore, the Government should remember that, after all, shareholders own their companies. In contrast, some directors may not hold shares in the companies which they run. The owners therefore have a right to be consulted and to be involved. It is a right and not a privilege.
The Government also appeared to suggest that a laissez-faire attitude was in order and that companies were entitled to do almost anything they wished with regard to shareholders' rights, with the exception of the most blatant abuses. The fact that we have before us today a 236-page Bill containing 166 clauses and 17 schedules totally contradicts that attitude. What is company law all about if it is not about imposing obligations to behave properly on companies and their directors, officers, auditors and agents?
Contrary to the suggestions from the Government Front Bench—and, indeed, the Back Benches—at our previous debates it is not a matter of haggling over the cost of a 14p stamp; it is a question of nuisance and time, which most busy people cannot afford. Let us value the average person's time at £5 an hour, and I am certain that noble Lords on the Government Benches who oppose this amendment value their time at a great deal more than that. If the average person does not have the privilege of two post offices within easy walking distance which are open until late at night and therefore has to wait, say, 12 minutes in a queue to buy that 14p stamp, it costs not 14p but £1·14. What is more, shareholders often receive more than one proxy card for signature where, for example, it is a question of altering the articles of association or a capital reconstruction of one kind or another.
Earlier this week I, together with tens of thousands of other shareholders, received from the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham—I am sorry he is not in his place, and I do not suppose that he personally posted them—two such proxy cards. The noble Lord is an honourable and conscientious individual and is aware of his moral duty to his shareholders. He is also doubtless keen that they should contribute to the affairs of their company. It goes without saying that the proxy cards were reply-paid. I hope that noble Lords on the Government Benches agree that all public company chairmen should behave in a correct and honourable way similar to their noble friend, and not like the few bad eggs who are contemptuous of shareholders' rights. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I support this amendment, which is designed to make it easier for

1389
small shareholders who cannot easily attend the meetings of companies in which they hold shares, in order that they may indicate their views to the directors on the resolutions proposed to be put to the meeting. It requires all companies to conform to the best modern practices. I believe that it is in the interests of the companies themselves, which put out various resolutions for consideration at meetings, to know the views of as many of their shareholders as possible on the resolutions that it is proposed to pass.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too wish to support this amendment. I have had some experience of AGM's. It will be highly desirable for smaller shareholders who cannot be present to be encouraged to make their views known. The big institutional shareholders will always make their views known and the mass proxy votes will come from them. These days it surely must be an objective that we encourage the smaller people if we want—as the Government are endeavouring to do—to widen the nexus of shareholding.
Shareholders must be encouraged to participate as actively as possible. If they cannot come to meetings they should be given every facility for expressing their opinions in their absence. This modest amendment will enable more small shareholders to give their views without having to fumble around for stamps or go to the post office. They can reply immediately and express their opinions on matters of importance to the company and to themselves.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the House knows, I supported this amendment at Report stage because I believe that it has important implications. I shall not go over all the arguments that I used then because they stand by themselves. I shall correct one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, simply for the record. He reported me as saying that I was in favour of wider share ownership. I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House that I am neutral on that question.
I am in favour of wider share ownership by employees, as I have indicated to your Lordships. I support the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in his argument. If there is to be wider share ownership there should be wider participation by shareholders who are owners. I believe that this is a perfectly sensible amendment and I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. As I said at Report stage, there are shareholders up and down the country, and there are another 3 million to 5 million shareholders as a result of the Abbey National exercise. It is very important that they should be encouraged to take part in the affairs of their company.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I oppose the amendment for the same reasons that I gave at Report stage. The question of cost is not a point. The CBI has advised me that this is a quite unnecessary additional statutory burden on companies. Many companies do what is proposed; it is voluntary, and that is all right. But if it becomes a statutory burden the companies may be liable for a breach of the
1390
condition if they fail to do what is required. Furthermore, shareholders who feel strongly about a resolution which is to be voted on in a company can easily afford the postage. There are enough burdens on companies through company law and there is no need to enforce yet another one. This extra burden is one that the ordinary shareholder can easily bear for himself. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Grantchester, for introducing this amendment. A moment or two ago the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was so encouraging, but he has disappointed me. I thought that he had been converted to the great virtues of wider share ownership. I shall exercise a little patience and time will cure all.
It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and all the supporters of this amendment are attempting to deal almost with a particular case by a change in the law. We shall need much more evidence of real abuse before being able to accept that legislation is an appropriate solution. I do not believe that the Government should subscribe to the concept that there should be a law against it or that the law should make it happen. I do not believe that is the answer we should apply to every single problem. Are we really being asked to believe that the rights of shareholders are being infringed merely because a shareholder must use his or her own stamp rather than being sent a reply-paid card? Surely it is nonsense to suggest that the shareholder democracy is being overthrown for some companies because an absolute minimum of effort is required in order for shareholders to exercise their rights.
At some point one simply has to say that legislation on the detailed exercise of shareholders' rights passes beyond the point of furthering those rights in any worthwhile way and then becomes burdensome. It is our belief that this amendment is just on the wrong side of that boundary, which is why we oppose it as a matter of principle. The reality is that the law presently provides that every notice calling a meeting of the company must contain a statement, with reasonable prominence, that a member entitled to attend and vote is entitled to appoint a proxy. Moreover, the Stock Exchange listing requirements stipulate that listed companies should send all persons entitled to vote at meetings proxy forms with provision for two-way voting.
To add a reply-paid envelope would make little or no practical difference, not least because, as the noble Lord himself said, the large majority of public companies already follow this practice. Indeed, it can be said to be in the interests of the management of the companies to do so because in that way they get a better response to the proxies they seek. Even if a company does not voluntarily do this it is not easy to visualise circumstances in which a shareholder who is sufficiently interested to want to appoint a proxy will be deterred from doing so by the cost of a postage stamp or even by the necessity of having to go out to buy one.
I must therefore conclude, as we have done before, that the substance of this proposal seems to be

1391
entirely a matter for the internal organisation and running of the company's affairs and its relationship with its own shareholders. In all the circumstances we still do not consider that this is a matter for legislation.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly terms a modest amendment: a modest question of shareholder protection. I am very disappointed at the Government's response, as I leant over backwards to revise this amendment to make it technically perfect and to narrow it in order to exclude shareholders who are living outside the United Kingdom. I also said that I would not proceed with the other shareholder protection amendments which might have been slightly more controversial.
The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said that shareholders who feel strongly about what is happening to their own company can easily afford the postage. Yes, but they cannot afford the time. Not everyone has a secretary to stand in a post office queue to buy stamps: I believe that the noble Lord forgets that. Many shareholders are retired people living in cottages a long way from the nearest town. They may wish to register their feelings even though there is probably no realistic chance of their vote doing any good. Nevertheless, without undue burdens in terms of cost and time to themselves, they may want to register their vote because after all they own a fractional, minuscule part of the company.
I am very disappointed. Given that 99 per cent. of public companies with an issued capital of £2·5 million or more behave correctly—it may be more than 99 per cent.—it seems so strange that the Government are determined to protect the few rotten apples in the barrel. I am sure that they do not intend to.
This is a matter on which honourable Members of all parties in another place ought to be able to decide. Unless I press the amendment they will not have the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 15) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 102.

DIVISION NO.1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Airedale, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Amherst, E.

Craigavon, V.

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Diamond, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Blackstone, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Blyth, L.

Ennals, L.

Bonhan-Carter, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ezra, L.

Butterfield, L.

Falkland, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Grantchester, L.

1392

Gregson, L.

Nicol, B.

Hampton, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Peston, L.

Hooson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Saint Brides, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Scanlon, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Serota, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Shackleton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stallard, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stedman, B.

Leatherland, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Thurso, V.

Tordoff, L.

Lockwood, B.

Underhill, L.

Longford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Long, V.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ampthill, L.

Manchester, D.

Arran, E.

Mancroft, L.

Bauer, L.

Margadale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bellwin, L.

Beloff, L.

Merrivale, L.

Belstead, L.

Mersey, V.

Bessborough, E.

Middleton, L.

Blatch,B.

Milverton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Morris, L.

Butterworth, L.

Mottistone, L.

Caithness, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Nelson, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Norfolk, D.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cottesloe, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Cox, B.

Orkney, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Oxfuird, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Piatt of Writtle, B.

Dormer, L.

Porritt, L.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Elibank, L.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Reigate, L.

Elton, L.

Renwick, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Rodney, L.

Ferrier, L.

St. Davids, V.

Forbes, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Fortescue, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Shannon, E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Somers, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Swansea, L.

Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Henley, L.

Trafford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Tryon, L.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Joseph, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.47 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Amendments consequential on Part I]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 18 to 23:
Page 194, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) In paragraph 4, omit sub-paragraphs (b) and (c). (2B) In paragraph 5, omit sub-paragraph (b).").
Page 194, line 5, after ("15A") insert ("(renumbered 15B)").
Page 196, line 16, at end insert—
("Transport Act 1981 (c. 56)
. In section 11(4) of the Transport Act 1981, for "section 235" substitute "section 234".").
Page 196, line 22, leave out paragraph 26 and insert—
("26.—(1) The Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 3(3)(b)(i), for "section 244" substitute "section 242(4)".
(3) In Schedule I, for paragraph 5 substitute—
"5. The extent of the director's responsibility for any failure by the directors of the company to comply with—

(a) section 226 or 227 of the Companies Act (duty to prepare annual accounts), or

(b) section 233 of that Act (approval and signature of accounts).".").

Page 196, line 25, leave out paragraph 27 and insert—
("27.— (1) The Financial Services Act 1986 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 117(4) and (5), for "section 227" substitute "section 226".
(3) In Schedule I, for paragraph 30 substitute—
"30.— (1) For the purposes of this Schedule a group shall be treated as including any body corporate in which a member of the group holds a qualifying capital interest.
(2) A qualifying capital interest means an interest in relevant shares of the body corporate which the member holds on a long-term basis for the purpose of securing a contribution to its own activities by the exercise of control or influence arising from that interest.
(3) Relevant shares means shares comprised in the equity share capital of the body corporate of a class carrying rights to vote in all circumstances at general meetings of the body.
(4) A holding of 20 per cent. or more of the nominal value of the relevant shares of a body corporate shall be presumed to be a qualifying capital interest unless the contrary is shown.
(5) In this paragraph "equity share capital" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.".").
Page 196, line 26, at end insert—
("Banking Act 1987 (c. 22)
.—(1) The Banking Act 1987 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 105 insert—
"Meaning of 'related company'
105A.— (1) In this Act a 'related company', in relation to an institution or the holding company of an institution, means a body corporate (other than a subsidiary) in which the institution or holding company holds a qualifying capital interest.
(2) A qualifying capital interest means an interest in relevant shares of the body corporate which the institution or holding company holds on a long-term basis for the purpose of securing a contribution to its own activities by the exercise of control or influence arising from that interest.
(3) Relevant shares means shares comprised in the equity share capital of the body corporate of a class carrying rights to vote in all circumstances at general meetings of the body.
(4) A holding of 20 per cent. or more of the nominal value of the relevant shares of a body corporate shall be presumed to be a qualifying capital interest unless the contrary is shown.
(5) In this paragraph "equity share capital" has the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1985 and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986.".
(3) In section 106(1) (interpretation), for the definition of "related company" substitute—
" 'related company' has the meaning given by section 105A above;".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are all minor amendments to the Companies Act and other enactments which are consequential on Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Recognition of professional qualification]:
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No 24:
Page 205, line 9, at end insert—
("10. In this Schedule the word "qualification" means qualification for appointment as auditor of a company in accordance with Part II of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of the amendment is to clarify that a qualifying body is not required to restrict its professional qualification—its membership—to persons who have completed at least three years practical training of which a substantial part was spent being trained in company audit work, and that paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 9 applies only for the purpose of a member becoming a registered auditor.
This clarification is sought because not all professional accountancy bodies have a compulsory requirement that practical training for membership shall be restricted to employment in the office of an accountant recognised under Section 389 of the Companies Act 1985. Such professional accountancy bodies which do not have this stipulation accept, as satisfying their requirement in respect of practical experience, approved accountancy training in industry, commerce and government sere ice as well as with accountants recognised under the Companies Act.
The Association of International Accountants has drawn my attention to this blemish, as it sees it, in the Bill. I understand that there has been much discussion between the association and the department. The association has asked me to convey to the noble Lord, Lord Young, how grateful it has been for the understanding which has been shown in the negotiations, albeit, as I understand it, that the view is that the amendment is neither appropriate nor acceptable. However, in view of the exchange of correspondence between the association and the department, it would be helpful and satisfactory if the Minister could confirm that his assurances on the matter will be in accord with those contained in the department's letter of 14th March 1989. If, indeed, he were to give that assurance, I should be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am indeed grateful for the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and for the courtesy with which he spoke about the Department of Trade and Industry. I can assure him that there is no danger of

1395
the Bill restricting the range of qualifications which a professional body may offer. It simply sets conditions for the specific qualification which is concerned with the audit of companies. I can also, as requested, confirm that the position as set out in a letter from the department to the AIA on 14th March is quite correct. I hope with that assurance that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. In view of the assurances given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 [Supervisory and qualifying bodies: restrictive practices]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 211, line 3, leave out from ("section") to end of line 4 and insert ("45 of the Court of Session Act 1988").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Repeals]:
Lord Strathclyde Lord Strathclyde moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 235, line 51, column 3, after ("74,") insert ("75").
Page 235, line 55, column 3, at end insert—
("In Schedule 11—

(a) paragraph 4(b) and (c);

(b) paragraph 5(b).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments make minor additions to the repeals schedule and are consequential upon changes made elsewhere in Part I of the Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Bill read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
When I commended the Bill to your Lordships' House on Second Reading, I linked it to my department's objectives of promoting open, efficient and properly informed markets and of limiting regulation to areas where it is in the public interest. We said that the Bill was needed to adapt to changes in the business environment, to implement Community objectives and to implement deregulatory measures. But, while the many provisions are designed to lead to a simpler and less burdensome framework for business, we also acknowledged that they were in many cases detailed and technically complex. Indeed, during the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House we expected to receive advice and help and we looked forward to receiving your Lordships' expert suggestions for improving the Bill.
Over three and a half months have now passed since the Second Reading of the Bill and the House has, I am told, spent over 40 hours on the Bill in
1396
Committee and over 10 hours on Report. Noble Lords have discussed nearly 700 amendments, over 400 of which were government amendments. Many of the amendments have reflected the points which have been put to us by experts outside the House or by noble Lords who are themselves experts on various aspects of the Bill. Many others have served to clarify aspects of this wide-ranging Bill.
For our part we have, as I predicted on Second Reading, brought forward new clauses in Committee and on Report to implement proposals which had been announced in advance of the publication of the Bill. I refer especially to clauses in Part V of the Bill designed to reform the ultra vires doctrine and to implement the elective regime for private companies.
There are many matters upon which the Government are still in the process of coming to a view and which may lead to further changes to the Bill in another place. These include the system of regulation under the Financial Services Act where, as in so many matters contained in the Bill, we have undertaken a public consultation exercise. There are also a number of points upon which we are reflecting which were raised in discussions on Part II of the Bill, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, and, on some other parts, by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking.
However, there is one matter which has been discussed during the debates on the Bill and upon which the Government have now reached a decision. I am sure that your Lordships would wish me to indicate briefly what we propose to do in this connection. I refer of course to what are known as the Dearing proposals on the making of accounting standards. Sir Ronald Dearing's Accounting Standards Review Committee was appointed in November 1987 by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. Its main proposals for new standard-setting machinery were addressed to the CCAB and have been broadly endorsed by that body. Certain proposals, however, call for new legislation and were therefore addressed to the Government.
In discussion of amendments put down at earlier stages of this Bill, we gave an undertaking to come forward with our proposals on these recommendations once our consultation had been completed. The consultation has now confirmed the desirability of implementing most of the legislative proposals and government amendments will be introduced in another place. The main effect of these amendments will be, first, to require directors of public limited companies and large private companies to state in the notes to the annual accounts whether they are drawn up in accordance with applicable accounting standards and to draw attention to any material departures.
Secondly, we will propose a new statutory power under civil law for the Secretary of State and certain bodies (to be authorised by the Secretary of State) to apply to the courts for an order requiring the revision of accounts that do not comply with the Companies Act. It has, however, been decided not to adopt the Dearing Committee's recommendation to reverse the onus of proof in the event of legal proceedings involving the question of whether the accounts of a company gave a true and fair view.

1397
As this example shows, reconsideration of aspects of the law as it applies to companies is a continual process. All sorts of changes are proposed, from within as well as outside government. Many of these require careful consideration and discussion because, however sensible they may seem from one point of view, they may on reflection be found to have undesirable effects elsewhere. Experience in your Lordships' House with this Bill has reflected that reality. We have had earnest and learned debates on many of the features in the Bill. We have also had a few lighter moments. In the end the Government have to take a view on how far it is right at any moment to accept proposed changes in the law and, in many of the technical areas of the Bill, this has been recognised and respected in the different parts of your Lordships' House.
I am grateful for the care and expertise which noble Lords in all parts of the House have expended on this Bill. On the Benches behind me I should like to mention in particular my noble friends Lord Boardman, Lord Peyton, Lord Mottistone and Lord Morris, who have all taken a close interest in many parts of the Bill and other of my noble friends have made significant contributions on individual points.
I have already referred to the noble Lords, Lord Benson and Lord Hacking. We have heard powerful and persuasive arguments from those noble Lords on the Cross Benches; we have also had the benefit of significant contributions from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Roskill and Lord Brightman, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I also wish to thank those on the Benches opposite who have contributed to the work of the House on this Bill. I refer first to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Seear, who have made pertinent and well-argued contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has, as always, impressed us with the breadth of his expertise on these matters, the way in which he has virtually single handed been involved in most, if not all, aspects of this major and wide-ranging Bill and the unfailing eloquence and courtesy with which he has made his contributions.
From the Opposition Front Bench we have been faced by no fewer than six noble Lords. By profession they are, I believe, an academic lawyer, an accountant, a banker, an economist, a farmer and a solicitor. I list those occupations in alphabetical order. I hestitate to do it in any other way; but in any language they have made a formidable and talented team.
We have admired the learning and the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn; the urbanity and the intellect of the noble Lord, Lord Miscon; the lucidity and common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Peston; and the expertise, in one case long acquired and the other perhaps of a more recent growth, of the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Carter. The talents of those noble Lords have been united behind the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. He has a powerful armoury which comprises mastery of many of the subjects contained in the Bill, instant selection of the perceptive and penetrating question, and, above all, an uncanny sense of when the Government are
1398
perhaps debating with themselves whether to play forwards or backwards to a particular delivery.
The combined effect of the talents deployed in different parts of your Lordships' House has improved the Bill in many ways which could not have been predicted when we met on Second Reading. It would be wrong to let the occasion pass without expressing my debt to my noble friends on the Government Front Bench: my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser, who did not flinch from entering the ring with the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, to discuss an area of law where the noble Lord is an eminent authority.
My noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara lent his talents to deal effectively and equitably with two contrasting areas of the Bill. Above all, my noble friend Lord Strathclyde has spent many hours in Committee and on Report dealing with points of every description, coming from all parts of your Lordships' House. He has acquitted himself well, showing unfailing courtesy and commitment. When my noble friend wound up your Lordships' Second Reading debate, he said that he hoped that by the time Third Reading was reached the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would wax lyrical about the virtues of the Bill. I feel that I should conclude my remarks on that note so as to give the noble Lord the opportunity to do just that. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Young of Graffham.)
5.2 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Secretary of State for staying to the end of the passage of the Bill and for giving your Lordships the Government's final message before the Bill goes to another place.
As I said on Second Reading, what the Bill left out was more important than what it put in. There was in our view a major lacuna in the Bill, which was the problem of employee share ownership. I am glad that the Government have conceded the principle of employee share ownership and the financing by companies of those schemes We regard that as a major and important concession.
The Government have also filled in some of the gaps as we went along: the ultra vires gap; the written resolution gap; the elective regime gap; the market dealing insolvency gap. It is not an entirely satisfactory way to deal with such matters, and that led us to ask for recommitment on certain matters because we felt that we were being bombarded with government amendments without having a proper opportunity to deal with them. I am afraid that I take a somewhat old fashioned view, that the Government should make up their mind what they want and then come forward with the legislation required to effect it.
There are, as the Secretary of State said, still major gaps in the Bill: amendments to the Financial Services Act, and the implementation of the Dearing recommendations. They will no doubt be tabled and discussed fully in another place. Your Lordships will have an opportunity to comment upon

1399
them—although not to debate them in the detail that we should have liked—when Commons amendments come back before your Lordships.
Your Lordships have made one important insertion in the Bill; that is, the treatment of contributions for political reasons. It is in our view an extension of shareholder rights, which is practised by some companies already, and we hope that the Government will not use their majority in another place to reverse your Lordships' decision. To do so would give rise to the suspicion that the Government, who are meant to be the government of the whole country, are exercising their power, not only against shareholder rights, but in favour of the Conservative Party. I can think of nothing that would discredit the Government more. I hope that at the end of the day the Secretary of State will show himself to be the Secretary of State of Her Majesty's Government and not the Secretary of State of the Conservative Party.
The Bill has had a slightly rocky passage through your Lordships' House. We had the recommitment of Part V. We had five days on Report instead of three. I am grateful to the Government for giving us that time. The time was required. We almost had a five minute adjournment of the House this afternoon. Nevertheless, we have had good debates. I want to congratulate the Secretary of State on meeting his commitment to listen to the arguments put forward by your Lordships. I should also like to congratulate him on the skill with which he has responded to the major debates that we had in Committee and on Report.
In congratulating the Secretary of State, I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who has been unfailing in his courtesy and who has borne the heat and burden of the day and the long hours of debate. It has been something of a baptism of fire. He has come through, I hope, not scorched by the exercise. He avoided the ultimate fate of being burnt at the stake. We are most grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he conducted the Bill from the Government Front Bench.
I am also grateful to my noble friends. The Secretary of State recited the various professions that we have available on our side. We have managed to put up what I hope has been a constructive opposition. We have not tried to wreck the Bill; we have tried to improve it. I agree with the noble Lord that the Bill has been improved. It is too early for me to wax lyrical, as the Secretary of State invited me to do, or to wish the Bill well, because we shall have to wait and see what the Government produce in the way of Financial Services Act and Dearing amendments in another place before we can take a final view of the Bill.
As I said on Second Reading, we should have liked to have seen a more comprehensive review of company legislation. There are still a number of loose ends about. However, I recognise that the Government had to bring forward something to meet the accounting directives. That was a necessity.
We look forward to the day when the Commons amendments come back before us. Some of us look forward with eager anticipation; others with a certain
1400
degree of tiredness, having taken the Bill through its passage in your Lordships' House. I can only say that I am grateful to the Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the Government for their courtesy. We look forward to fighting another day.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who unfortunately is absent because he has to attend a memorial service out of London, I should like to say that we much appreciate the kind remarks made by the Secretary of State which were addressed to my noble friend. He had to bear the brunt of the Bill. Our Benches are not as fully supplied as our friends next door with the panoply of talent that they have been able to muster on this occasion. We shall try to do better next time around.
The Bill leaves us in better shape than when it came. In a way, I am not too much against the fact that there were such a large number of amendments, because the Bill required a great deal of thought and consultation. That consultation, especially with the professional bodies, has been carried out and much of their advice has been taken into account. There are a number of other matters which we should have liked to see in the Bill. Those omissions may be repaired during its passage through another place. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, we look forward to dealing with the amendments from another place when they appear, but in the meantime I believe that we have done the work well in this House, according to our usual high standards.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Strathclyde for the courtesy with which they accommodated the amendments which I put forward on my own behalf and as advised by the CBI; for accepting what they could; and for explaining what they could not. I also greatly enjoyed debating with noble Lords opposite, the more especially when we were in disagreement. I thought that what might be called a rather over-encompassing Bill, covering such a wide range, went through with much greater overall courtesy and accommodation between the two sides than perhaps it might have done. I think that that is a matter for congratulation to everybody who took part to any extent.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before I respond to the kind comments that the noble Lord the Minister made concerning my own small contributions in the debates on this Bill, may I give a personal apology for not being in the House when my amendment was called? I have been discourteous and I much regret it. I was hoping that the Third Reading of this Bill would come on at a later stage. I was also hoping that the traffic would be slightly easier from the City of London to your Lordships' House. However, both matters impeded me and in the result I am afraid that I was discourteous to your Lordships.

1401
I had some doubt whether it was right for me to move my amendment. On the reading of our Companion it seemed that I might be stretching the rules slightly by introducing a new matter at Third Reading by way of a tabled amendment. I wrote personally to the Minister and indicated my concern as to whether it was appropriate for me to move this amendment at Third Reading. In doing so, I indicated that I would nonetheless like to raise this matter in my Third Reading speech.
This is a problem that goes back to debates in which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I participated when the Financial Services Bill was wending its way through your Lordships' House in July and October of 1986. Indeed, we debated precisely the contents and drafting of paragraph 22 of Schedule 1 of the Financial Services Act, as it now is. This was, and is, the paragraph to which my amendment is directed. Suffice it to state that the Act—and this is my submission to your Lordships —fails to take proper account of the concept of a trust, or the functions of a trustee or a personal representative, and the investment protection regime which it introduced does not recognise the degree to which trustees and personal representatives are otherwise regulated by the law.
The Under-Secretary of State at the noble Lord's Ministry recently received two letters. One was from the president of the Law Society written on 19th April; and the other letter was from the president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants dated 17th April. In both of those letters this problem was drawn in some detail to the attention of the Minister. Clearly under no basis is the Minister able to deal with this at this stage; but nonetheless I wanted to put a marker, as it were, into the pages of this Bill. If the Minister can come back with some encouragement that this matter will receive further attention, I should be extremely grateful.
The other matter that I want to mention to your Lordships as this Bill passes from us concerns a more general comment on the Financial Services Act. The Minister said just now in his speech that his department is currently going through a consultation process on the Financial Services Act. Indeed, I have in front of me his department's consultation paper dated 1st March. Since then a memorandum has been submitted by the Law Society's Company Law Committee which comments in some detail not only on that consultation paper but upon the earlier papers issued by the Securities and Investments Board.
In a nutshell, as most of your Lordships know, there is considerable concern in the financial services industry over the complexity of the regulatory law which has been created under the Financial Services Act. It arises partly out of the complexity of the Act itself, and particularly the schedules thereof, partly out of the complexity of the SIB rules and because of the "equivalence" requirement upon SROs, partly out of the complexity of the rules of the various SROs.
1402
It would greatly help your Lordships, and certainly me and the Law Society and other persons concerned, if the Minister could indicate how far he thinks he will be able to take this consultation process, and to what degree he will be able to use this Bill in another place as a vehicle for resolving the difficulties to which I have generally referred. Having made those two observations to your Lordships, I again thank the Minister for his kind comments about me and wish this Bill well in another place.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for his most generous comments on the conduct of this matter. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, had let me know that he was unfortunately unable to be with us. It is a great pity that he could not see the closing stages of this long race. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Mottistorie, who in so many ways is a powerful advocate of the virtues of the Isle of Wight, that during the course of this Bill he has been an equally powerful advocate for the CBI.
Finally, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that not only have I heard from the Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants, but I have heard from two other accountants' institutes, and all those matters will be considered. Regarding the representations on the changes to the Financial Services Act, I do not think that in the dying stages of this Bill it would be right for me to deal with those matters. However, I shall write to the noble Lord about the points of concern that he has raised.
On Question, Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Social Security Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Security Services Act 1989,
British Railways Act 1989.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past five o'clock.

  SIXTH TV UHF NETWORK STUDY
  SIXTH TV UHF NETWORK STUDY
  BR FARES: ARTS WORKERS
  BR FARES: ARTS WORKERS
  WASTE MANAGEMENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  WASTE MANAGEMENT: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
  HOME OFFICE: GUIDELINES FOR REPRESENTATIONS
  HOME OFFICE: GUIDELINES FOR REPRESENTATIONS