Sitting of 19 December 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Bentley John Heddle Esquire, the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  BARLOW CL OWES
  Return ordered,
  of the Government's observations on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Barlow Clowes.—[Mr. Forth.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Schools (Safety)
    Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy to ensure that safety in schools is maintained.
    The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend's policy is to assist local education authorities and governing bodies in meeting their legal responsibilities for reasonably ensuring safety in schools by providing advice and guidance and maintaining oversight of matters of particular interest and importance.
    Mr. Livsey: On my birthday, 2 May, the Under-Secretary of State promised my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that further action would be taken about the risks in schools for the safety of children, especially the general state of disrepair into which many schools have fallen and the fire risk. Last year, there were 25 school fires costing £250,000 each. What has the Minister done to provide further resources and what plans does she have to provide for the greater safety of our school children?
    Mrs. Rumbold: First, all local authorities and governing bodies have a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 and the fire safety regulations to ensure that school buildings are safe. The hon. Gentleman will know from the Autumn Statement that annual capital guidelines of £485 million of expenditure have been announced, together with a percentage of capital receipts which will be available to local authorities for expenditure
    180
    on repairs, maintenance and desirable improvements of schools. That is additional money and rather better than the figure of £352 million for capital expenditure in this current year.
    Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent work done by St. John Ambulance which teaches first aid in schools? Will she ensure that a first aid course is compulsory in all schools?
    Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I am well aware of the importance of the work of the St. John Ambulance brigade. We are looking at the guidance on first aid issued to schools and hope that it will be sufficient. If necessary, we shall strengthen it.
    Ms. Armstrong: How can the Minister be content with the safety of staff and children in schools when she and her hon. Friends are presiding over a backlog of £3 billion worth of repairs?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady should be careful how she uses figures. The £3 billion to which she referred was for desirable repairs, £1 billion of which were postulated in a buildings report three years ago. Inevitably, some of those repairs must have been made as local authorities have had £1·6 billion available to spend over the past three years.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will establish a city technology college in the north-west London area.
    Mrs. Rumbold: A number of sponsors have expressed an interest in sponsoring a CTC in the London area. We are willing to consider any proposal that meets the programme's criteria and has the support of industry.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the suggestion that such an institution might be established in the Brent Cross area and the excellent potential of such new institutions, what does my hon. Friend think the effects would be on neighbouring boroughs, including my constituency?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The criteria for drawing up the catchment areas for CTCs are decided as and when CTCs are established. My hon. Friend is right to say that they are an extremely valuable addition to our complement of educational buildings and schools.
    Mr. Flannery: May I express the hope that no CTC will be established in north-west London? If it is established, can that be done with money from private industry, as we were promised, instead of siphoning off Government money, as happened in Nottingham, where upwards of £8 million was taken for one school and 500 others will be deprived?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman should talk to parents in Nottingham who are clearly voting with their feet in support of the city technology college. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's hope that there will be no CTC in north London.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that there should be a city technology college on the Whitefield school site in north-west London, as it

    181
    has been warmly welcomed by the governing body of the school, and it will be warmly welcomed by parents in the surrounding area?
    Mrs. Rumbold: If we had sufficient support from industry—that is, 20 per cent. or more—and if the section 12 notices relating to such a proposal came forward, the Government would be happy to consider the proposal favourably.
    Mr. George: Perhaps I can help the Minister. If she wants to establish a CTC, she can give away the one that is about to be established in my constituency. Why, when the local authority is trying to close two or three secondary schools in the area, is there a requirement—by that well-known education authority, the Black Country development corporation—to establish a further school?
    Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the difficulties that some local authorities have in persuading parents to accept the schools that they support in the maintained sector, and the new thoughts that come to parents when they consider CTCs and what they provide. The excellence of those schools is demonstrated by the number of parents supporting them and the number of teachers who wish to teach in them. It is clearly the will of the people to have new choices, and to support different types of school within the maintained sector.

    School Days
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the length of the school day and year in 1989 and 1959.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Under the Education (Schools and Further Education) Regulations 1981, as amended, schools—nursery schools and classes excepted—must meet for 380 half-day sessions in a school year and provide at least three hours of secular instruction for pupils under eight years and at least four hours for pupils of or above that age. The equivalent provisions in 1959 contained no significant differences.
    Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that 25 to 30 years ago the average school teaching day finished at about 4 o'clock? In most secondary schools now the day ends at about 3 o'clock—an hour earlier than 30 years ago. As many schools claim that they do not have time to teach the national curriculum and optional subjects, is there not a case for the secondary schools' teaching day to be extended?
    Mr. Howarth: We all sometimes feel the temptation to be nostalgic. I doubt whether my hon. Friend means to contend that in general teachers work less hard than they did in what was, no doubt, the golden age when he was a teacher. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the hard work and professionalism of teachers today. However, he has made an important point. The performance of schools as they organise themselves to teach the national curriculum will depend on management policy. The disparity in the number of hours of teaching offered to children from one school to another is striking. In that context, last May we put out a draft circular for
    182
    consultation, inviting governors and head teachers to review the balance of time spent on teaching and other activities.
    Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend think that the present school day should be extended so that those young people who find it difficult and unsettling to do their homework at home would have the option of doing this work at school?
    Mr. Howarth: The organisation of the school day and the duties undertaken by teachers in directed time are matters for the head teacher to decide. Most schools organise themselves to deliver the national curriculum successfully, but some find it more difficult. Some schools offer up to three hours more teaching per week, with the same length of school day. Head teachers are anxious to be flexible, imaginative and sensitive to the needs of their pupils, but it is at their discretion.

    Research Students
    Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the annual postgraduate award for research students living away from home outside London paid by the research councils; and by how much it has changed in real terms since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The basic postgraduate grant paid by the research councils in 1989–90 is £3,725 a year. That is 1·5 per cent. more in real terms than the equivalent grant paid by the research councils in the 1979–80 academic year.
    Mr. Lamond: Would it not be sensible for research councils to be given more funds, despite the welcome increase that the Minister has just described, so that they can at least get somewhere near to competing against the money available in the City and commerce, to which young people are drawn, as we might want some of them to go into research? This is quite different from a student grant, as I am sure the Minister appreciates. In view of the costs incurred by research students, £3,725 will not encourage them to take up research.
    Mr. Jackson: I should tell my hon. Friend—I think of the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend since we travelled round the Soviet Union together in a large black limousine—that the number of studentships awarded by research councils has increased by 11 per cent. during the past 10 years. The level of research grant is for the research councils to settle, but they are recruiting increased numbers at the present grant.
    Mr. Key: Although the Medical Research Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, is grateful that the payment has been increased by £600 in the current financial year, there is a real problem of recruitment, competing against the private sector at a time of demographic contraction. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the implications of that for the quality and the number of students who go into research?
    Mr. Jackson: It is difficult to measure what one means by quality in this context. About one third of those who go on to postgraduate study have first-class degrees. That proportion has been more or less the same throughout the research councils for many years.
    Dr. Bray: Will the Minister acknowledge that £3,725 is simply not a living rate and is a major disincentive which is having a drastic effect on quality? The proportion of first-class degrees is not a sufficient measure. I invite him to visit some leading research teams, such as that at the laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge, to hear what they have to say. Is he aware that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund offers studentship grants of £7,269 and that the Wellcome Trust offers the same? It is utterly intolerable that the Medical Research Council and others should be unable to follow suit.
    Mr. Jackson: The amount that we are paying is 1·5 per cent. more than was paid by the Government in which the hon. Member served 10 years ago. I visit many institutions and I am not aware that there is a problem with recruitment or quality. I think that the proportion of first-class degrees is a reasonable guide.
    Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware of awards such as those made by organisations such as the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases? Should we not recognise the work that is done at the taxpayer's expense and welcome the tremendous contribution of many national charities which fund a great deal of medical research out of charitable donations?
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The charities make an enormous contribution, especially to medical research. That shows what can be done. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) referred to research assistantships, many of which are paid for by charities. Most of them are post-doctoral. Their number has increased four times during the past 10 years. Many are funded by the private sector and charities, and many more are funded by the Government.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates he has for higher education research and development expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom and in France, Germany, Japan and the United States of America, respectively.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Definitions of the higher education sector as reported to the OECD vary substantially, so any figures must be treated with caution. Published OECD figures for 1986 are 0·33 per cent. for the United Kingdom, 0·34 per cent. for France, 0·37 per cent. for Germany, 0·56 per cent. for Japan and 0·40 per cent. for the United States. But these are inputs, and this Government are concerned with outputs. As measured by our share of scientific papers published, the United Kingdom's research output remains second only to that of the United States.
    Mr. Boyes: Is it true that we spend only half as much as Japan on our education research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product? How can the Secretary of State expect the United Kingdom to compete in a highly technological world when we spend less on research than do other major OECD countries? Is that not particularly important to constituencies in the north-east, where we try to create and attract new technological
    184
    industries to replace our previous traditional base of steel, coal and merchant shipbuilding, which have all been destroyed by this Government?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's latter point has nothing to do with the question. He asked me about specific countries, but I should tell him that we spend more on research and development than many other countries. Even more important, the comparable figures for OECD countries are for 1986 and are out of date. Since 1986 we have increased our science budget in real terms by 17 per cent., which is bound to be reflected in the comparisons. In the last two public expenditure surveys, we have increased the cash amount by £490 million—a significant increase.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: Has my right hon. Friend comparable figures for the provision of funds for higher education research and development by private industry and commerce? Is there not a case for trying to attract more funds from those sources so that we can have better research and development in the future?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not have the figures to hand, but they would show that, over the years, we have contributed less through those sources than some other countries. I am glad that, in the 1980s, universities and colleges have successfully attracted more funding from industry, as my hon. Friend recommended. I entirely agree with his objective, and our position is improving.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that in addition to our relatively poor performance during the five years from 1986–87 to 1991–92, as evidenced by the answers that he has just given, there will be a fall in expenditure on research and development in real terms by 10 per cent.? According to Government figures, expenditure will fall from £4·8 million to £4·3 million. Is not the reality that, according to the Government's figures, they have not only cut their commitment to research and development, but grossly underfunded our science base?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have just told the House that our expenditure on the science budget since 1986–87 is substantially up in real terms. One can only guess as to the exact amount spent on research and development as a whole in universities. The Universities Funding Council said that this year we would spend about £780 million more on research and development. There has been a considerable increase in the amount spent.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend cast his eyes beyond solely expenditure on research, and say how we fare on the success and results of research, particularly in comparison with western Europe and the United States?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. In citations and published output we continue to perform extremely well. As I said, we are second only to the United States in terms of scientific papers in main journals. It is interesting that in the 1980s we have maintained our porportion of world output, whereas Germany and France, despite an increased scientific budget, have reduced their output.

    Primary Schools (Computers)
    Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the supply of computers in primary schools will meet the demand of the national curriculum.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that schools have enough microcomputers to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. Under our education support grants programme, £25 million is being set aside over a three-year period beginning last year to assist LEAs to purchase microcomputers for educational use in schools. For 1990–91, the Department has asked the authorities to give particular attention to the needs of primary schools.
    Dr. Reid: The Minister must be aware that the National Curriculum Council states that our schoolchildren should be able to use computers as early as possible. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools has discovered that more than one third of schools' computer hardware and software is inadequate. Why are Britain's children being sold short? How long will we have to wait until our children receive exactly the same technical back-up of hardware and computer software as our foreign competitors to allow them to develop their skills and contribute towards the nation's future technological health?
    Mr. Howarth: Under the national curriculum, we require that every child in key stage one, which is the first three years of primary education, should have hands-on experience of computers. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is quite in error and that Britain leads the world in information technology in schools. We have more microcomputers, more teachers trained in their appropriate use, and a more extensive presence of information technology across the curriculum than any other country. That places us in a very strong position for the future.
    Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that whether it be teachers, textbooks or computers, since 1979 spending per pupil in primary schools has increased by 35 per cent. and in secondary schools by 40 per cent? Is it not a fact that the Conservative party continues to strengthen our state schools?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sound economic policies must be the basis on which to generate the resources that we all want for education. Only this Conservative Government can deliver those sound policies. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the programme to equip primary schools with computers has been proceeding very well. There are now, on average, three microcomputers in each primary school.
    Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister realise that primary school teachers in Bradford have difficulty using computers because there are so many leaking roofs that they fear for the electricity supply in the damp conditions? Will the Minister ensure that, as a requisite for teaching computing or any other subject, Bradford receives a sufficient allocation to ensure that its schools have decent premises and permanent extensions rather than having to manage, as they have for many years, with temporary classrooms, some of which need replacing with further temporary classrooms because they are worn out? I am thinking especially about Buttershaw first school in my constituency.
    Mr. Howarth: The capital allocation needs of Bradford have been objectively and fairly considered on the same basis as every other authority, and that will continue. We
    186
    support the introduction and development of information technology in schools through specific grants, which are a separate source of funding.
    About £25 million is being set aside under education support grant for the purchase of microcomputers, with an additional £30 million for the employment of advisory teachers to help classroom teachers get to grips with information technology. Under the local education authority training grant scheme, £16 million is being set aside for training teachers in the use of information technology in schools. Bradford's bid for a share of those funds will again be fairly considered, as will bids from any other authority.

    Curriculum
    Mr. Forman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to devise a coherent curriculum for 16 to 18-year-olds.
    Mr. MacGregor: The most recent step is that I wrote to the School Examinations and Assessment Council on 28 November, asking it to develop proposals to enable young people to switch more easily between academic and vocational courses. I have also asked SEAC and the National Curriculum Council to work with other appropriate bodies on the incorporation within advanced-level courses of knowledge, skills and understanding relevant to working life.
    Mr. Forman: I welcome that constructive step in Government education policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overriding need to raise the lamentably low staying-on rate for 16 to 18-year-olds? Does he further agree that we could well examine the international baccalaureate and the modular approach to courses? Would that not make it more attractive to pupils of all ranges of ability to stay on at school?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree that more young people should stay on at school. However, the rate has been improving in recent years and about 42 per cent. of young people aged 16 and 17 are now staying on in full-time education. A further considerable number are staying on part time. But we are still not doing as well as our major overseas competitors, and I am anxious for an improvement. I am glad to say that the GCSE is already being shown to motivate more 16-year-olds to stay on at school. My hon. Friend raises in his second point a number of bodies which are developing vocational courses, and I have asked SEAC to consider whether we have the right mix.
    Dr. Thomas: The Secretary of State will recollect that he shares responsibility for the work of SEAC with the Secretary of State for Wales. Is he satisfied with the co-ordination with the Welsh Office on this issue, and is the Welsh dimension of SEAC's work being sufficiently addressed by the council?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am satisfied about that. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know that SEAC pays particular attention to Welsh interests.
    Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the A-level is an increasingly lonely examination—an all-or-nothing one-day pass or fail exercise—and will he

    187
    compare it with the approach that is now being given to the GCSE to see whether more continuous assessment could be introduced?
    Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's first point. It is important to maintain the strengths and excellence of A-levels, and that is what we aim to do. But, given the numbers of extra young people now staying on after the age of 16 as a result of the GCSE, there will be some for whom the academic rigours of the A-level will not be appropriate as they stay on. That is why I have asked SEAC to look at the possibility of developing what technically are called credit transfers—to enable people, once they are in the A-level stream, to switch to vocational courses, if to do so suits them better.
    Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) suggests that there is need to reform the A-level. When industry, through the CBI, and higher education, through the university vice-chancellors and polytechnic directors are asking for the reform of the A-level, and when the Government's own committee chaired by the vice-chancellor of Southampton, Professor Higginson, has asked for the reform of the A-level, is it not about time that the Government got the message and recognised that a broader examination at the age of 18 is the key to a broad curriculum between the ages of 16 and 18?
    Mr. MacGregor: My answer to my hon. Friend did not imply what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is important in this context to broaden the range of subjects that young people take when they move into the A-level stream. We are developing the AS-level to give that broader range. It has started comparatively well. It always takes time for an innovation to settle down. There are some problems that I have asked the advisory bodies to consider, but it has started well, and in my view that is the right course to pursue.

    City Technology Colleges
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the programme of development for city technology colleges.
    Mr. MacGregor: The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Three CTCs are now open and at least a further eight colleges will open in 1990 and 1991.
    Mr. Dunn: While welcoming the Government's determination to press on with the CTC programme, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time positively to encourage local education authorities to run some of their schools along CTC lines?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the CTC in Dartford is making good progress, and that that is a CTC run exactly along the lines that we planned from the outset. As for his suggested broadening of the type of CTC that might be considered by local education authorities, I believe that that area could be further developed. Our top priority at present is to get completed the 20 to which we are committed as a target. The development of the CTC curriculum is another important area on which we have committed some expenditure. It is important for all local education
    188
    authorities to gain from the innovations and changes that CTCs make to ensure that they are spread within the education system as a whole.
    Mrs. Mahon: Is not the spending of huge amounts of public money on CTCs getting close to curruption? Is it not time that the Government looked to their responsibility to pay for education for the whole nation, and stopped funding a small, elite group?
    Mr. MacGregor: That is the oddest description imaginable of money spent on an innovation that will bring considerable benefits to inner-city areas, assist in the development of technological innovation in education and help industry and education to work together more closely in schools. It is also important for the hon. Lady to see our spending in context. Next year we shall be spending about £28 million on CTCs, and just under £15,000 million on the maintained sector as a whole.
    Mr. Pawsey: As one of the only two hon. Members of the House who went to a technical school—the other being my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)—I well understand, as does my hon. Friend, the benefits of a good technical education. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the carping, moaning and grumbling of Opposition Members, to accelerate the current programme and to develop more CTCs?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. It is interesting to note that parents who are in potential CTC catchment areas take an entirely different view from that of Opposition Members. The colleges now being developed are clearly oversubscribed.
    My hon. Friend asked me to expand the programme. We have a big job ahead in achieving our target of 20 CTCs—there are always difficulties to be overcome in such circumstances, for instance sorting out planning, building sites and staffing, but we are making good progress, and I think that it is right to concentrate on that.
    Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State recall that his predecessor said that 20 CTCs would be in operation by the end of this year? As only three are in operation so far, why does the Secretary of State not recognise that the programme is an immoral and wasteful failure? Her Majesty's inspectorate has said that half the children in secondary schools are being educated in sub-standard accommodation. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not immediately cancel this wasteful CTC programme and use the money to repair some of Britain's crumbling schools?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already told the House that the target set by my predecessor turned out in practice to be overambitious, owing to the difficulty of getting the practical realities off the ground. To describe the programme as immoral is, however, ludicrous. The plain fact is that practical problems are always involved in the business of gaining planning permission, finding sites and linking sponsors to those sites. That is what has caused our failure to meet the original timetable, but we are sticking to our target, and it is clear from the response that this has been an excellent innovation.
    Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend not appalled by the continuing opposition from so many members of the Labour party to yet another extension of choice? Will he confirm that, far from being elitist, CTCs draw their pupils from the widest range of ability possible?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. If the Opposition abandoned their blind prejudice and looked at what is happening in the CTCs, they would obtain a very different view. They would see just how well the colleges are performing in inner-urban areas containing a considerable ethnic mix. I suspect that, just as they have changed their attitude to the closed shop, taxation and so many other matters, Labour Members will gradually come to recognise that we are right, and will cease their opposition to this innovation. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to listen to these important questions?

    Staffing Levels
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on staffing levels in junior and infant schools.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: The ratio of pupils to teachers in primary schools has improved from 23·1:1 in 1979 to 22:1 in 1988. There are now more primary teachers relative to pupils than ever before. This improvement has given local education authorities and schools greater flexibility in the deployment of teacher time. The average class size in primary schools is now 25·9 pupils—down from 26·3 in 1979.
    Mr. Archer: That is good stuff, but is the Minister aware that I have received correspondence from the head teachers of many primary and junior schools in my constituency which expresses deep anxiety about the staffing problems and consequent crisis in morale? As his Department introduced the national curriculum, can he assure those head teachers that every school will contain a suitably qualified teacher for each subject in that curriculum?
    Mr. Howarth: The Government are very conscious that much is being asked of teachers in our current education reforms and that much is being achieved. The teaching profession deserves recognition, respect and gratitude for its professionalism. The criteria for the accreditation of teacher training courses have been modified, and as a result we shall look forward to every teacher trainee for primary teaching having 100 hours of training in science, in addition to the training already provided in the other core subjects of mathematics and English. Beyond that we are providing grants for in-service training to enable primary teachers to upgrade and update their professional qualifications.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large increase in resources per primary school pupil over the past 10 years has led to a record pupil-teacher ratio in Britain? Will he confirm the results of a recent national survey on parents' attitudes which show that the majority of them are not worried about resources or staffing in schools and overwhelmingly support the Government's policies for a national curriculum and rigorous assessment of pupils and teachers which have been embodied in the Education Reform Act 1988?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national curriculum has been very widely welcomed by parents and by the teaching profession. It represents a
    190
    redefinition of every child's entitlement to an education that will prepare them for the 1990s and it deserves the fullest support of all parties in the House.
    Mr. Straw: As the Minister is so confident in the Government's record, will he offer parents a clear and categorical guarantee that no child will be without a properly qualified permanent teacher in his or her classroom in January?
    Mr. Howarth: Overall, the supply of primary teachers in Britain is more than enough to meet the requirements. Of course we are well aware that there are problems of shortages and difficulties in retention and recruitment in certain geographical areas—notably London and the south-east. As the hon. Gentleman knows, education authorities are responsible for the employment and deployment of teachers. We are working actively and vigorously to support them. A £50 million programme is in operation to assist authorities to devise the recruitment packages that they need. We shall continue to develop and refine that programme, working in their support.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when considering resources, particularly in junior and infants' schools, we shall move away from the slavish regard for class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios and consider resources in a much wider way? Sometimes large classes are the right approach and resources should be spread more widely to provide other teaching aids.
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to say that class sizes are an indicator of limited value. The quality of teaching counts above all. However, our improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio has given authorities and heads more flexibility in the management of their teacher forces and has provided more scope for teachers to undertake in-service training. My hon. Friend is also right that it is important that we continue to make good progress in making available to schools new material and teaching aids. For example, we are working on a programme to make available interactive videos in our schools.

    Student Loans
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the Government's proposal to set up a system of top-up loans for students.
    Mr. Jackson: Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students we have received about 4,700 letters, including 63 petitions. Of those, about 350 have been received since publication of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not understand from the reception that his proposals have received that the system of top-up loans is universally recognised as unfair and unwarranted? Does he accept what students at Leicester polytechnic told me this morning—that combined with the removal of housing and social security benefits during vacations, many students will be left worse off than people on the dole? Should students not have the means to have the peace of mind to study?
    Mr. Jackson: Top-up loans will represent a substantial addition to the resources that are available to most students and the hon. and learned Gentleman should

    191
    recognise that. We had a substantial majority for the Bill on Second Reading and I am pleased to report that we are making good progress in Committee.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend not consider it wholly misleading for a students' union to write to inform hon. Members that the majority of students are against these proposals? When one looks at the table attached to that communication, one sees that only 6 per cent. are against these proposals and that 94 per cent. did not respond in the survey from Edinburgh students' union.
    Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a great deal of misrepresentation and some degree of genuine misunderstanding. As we make progress with the legislation, our proposals will he better understood and widely welcomed.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.
    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, including one with Mr. Shevardnadze, the Soviet Foreign Minister.
    Sir Michael Shaw: On this, her last Question Time of the 1980s, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the great progress that has been made during the past 10 years in the well-being of our country and in the new competitive spirit of all our industries? Furthermore, will she reflect on the dramatic and helpful changes that are being made in the rest of the world? Will she look forward and seek to —[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
    Sir Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend seek to explain to us the role that she sees for her Government and for this country in the future?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. During this decade, we have created more jobs than ever before in this country, we have higher living standards than ever before, better social services than ever before, a wider spread of ownership than ever before and a higher standard of respect in the world than we have had for many a long year. In the next decade, we look to extend educational opportunity, to increase the training that is available to young people and to take a leading part in the single European market. With our staunch defence and our belief in the market economy, I hope and believe that we shall be able to give extensive help to the countries in eastern Europe that are seeking what we have taken for granted for so long.
    Mr. Kinnock: When 600,000 people working in the Health Service are already covered by pay review arrangements, why will the Prime Minister not consider extending a pay review body to the 22,000 ambulance staff?
    The Prime Minister: Pay review bodies, as the right hon. Gentleman should recall, are given to those who do not go on strike, such as the nurses.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows very well, as she has known for the past 15 weeks, that ambulance staff are not on strike—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Kinnock: Why will not the Prime Minister acknowledge the fact that, if she allowed the dispute to go to arbitration, she could bring it to a speedy and enduring resolution, which would ensure that ambulance staffs never went through this experience again? Or is it the case, as millions in this country now believe, that the Prime Minister does not want a resolution to the dispute?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are some militant ambulance men who want to withdraw the emergency service across the country to force through their pay claim. Moreover, from Friday 15 December, most emergency crews in London have refused to respond to urgent calls through the 999 service and have invited calls direct from the public, with which they cannot deal properly. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite generous offers have now been made to ambulance men varying from 9 to 16·3 per cent. depending on where they work and on the extent of their medical training. That increase is backdated to 1 April, and there are now arrears waiting for ambulance men to pick them up varying from £653 to £1,290. I hope that they will consider that that is a reasonable offer and that they will wish to return to work, as we should like them to do.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister speaks of ambulance men. Has she not heard that the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel—the kind of organisation that she likes—has turned down her pay offer by a majority of five to one? Does not the Prime Minister get the message from that? If she does not, I do, millions of people in the country do and members of her own party do. The message is that urging from the Prime Minister will not resolve the dispute; arbitration will.
    The Prime Minister: Those particular ambulance men voted on a day when the trade union official of the main ambulance union suggested that there might be another offer on the table. As the right hon. Gentleman knows there has been a final offer. There are many people in this country who think that an offer ranging from 9 to 16·3 per cent. with considerable lump sums waiting to be picked up, is reasonable. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to join me in asking the ambulance men to return to work and, in particular, to have the truce over Christmas that was offered to them.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to welcome the activities of those in British industry who are taking part in the economic integration of the two Germanys? Does she agree that such stability is the best way to stop people voting with their feet? Will she assure the House that the Government will continue to look at opportunities for English language training, know-how agreements and cultural and political exchanges that may further the process?
    The Prime Minister: The single most important thing as regards East Germany is to do everything that one can to

    193
    support the setting up of a genuine democracy with plural parties and we shall do all that we can to encourage that. We always do all that we can to encourage the teaching of English language. The British Council is very active in that regard and its services are greatly in demand. Within the existing arrangements—within the framework of the Warsaw pact and NATO, the four-power agreement on Berlin and the Helsinki agreement—we shall do everything that we can to see that democracy comes to East Germany.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, on the issue of Hong Kong, she now faces a moral test of her premiership as great as that which she faced over the Falkland Islands? Does she realise that the long-term stability of Hong Kong and the honour of this country now rest on her finding the courage to face down the bigots on her own Back Benches and to ignore the moral bankruptcy and opportunism of the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman would calm down a little, he would realise that we most certainly have a duty to those Crown servants in Hong Kong who have enabled us, and will enable us, to carry out British administration right up to 1997. We also have a duty to do everything that we can to keep the prosperity of Hong Kong going right up to 1997. That will mean making special arrangements for some people who are keen to keep that prosperity going. There are two groups of people. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement tomorrow about the arrangements that we propose to make for them.
    Mr. Tracey: In the 1990s, will my right hon. Friend hold out the prospect to the British people of continuing her consistent policies upwards instead of the continual U-turns which seem these days to characterise the Labour Opposition?
    The Prime Minister: The policies that have done so consistently well during the 1980s will continue throughout the 1990s, adding to wider opportunity, wider ownership, better training and all the things that we—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It might help the House if the Prime Minister were to speak into the microphone. I call Dr. David Owen—
    Several Hon. Members rose
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Dr. David Owen.
    Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Shevardnadze that it does not lie with the Soviet Union to put any veto on a free decision of the people of West Germany and of East Germany to unify if they so determine?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the undertakings that have been made, for example, the Helsinki Final Act, which was signed by 35 nations and which states that there should be no violations of borders that can be changed only by peaceful agreement; the four-power arrangement in Berlin and the two alliances are the background against which any other changes must take place.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Once again, the European Commission is threatening our traditional Christmas
    194
    dinner by banning fresh turkeys. Will my right hon. Friend disregard this gobbledegook and ensure that we have fresh turkeys on the menus next Christmas?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that there will be plenty of fresh turkeys on the menus and on British tables this Christmas, but I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.
    Mr. McCartney: Does the Prime Minister accept that the reality of the last decade under her leadership has been a doubling in homelessness? What does she say to the fact that this Christmas 120,000 homeless men, women and children will have no room at the inn under her Government?
    The Prime Minister: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. There are more than 21,000 hostel bed spaces in London, including over 3,000 emergency and direct access beds, of which sometimes 200 are vacant at night. They are not all taken up. We have provided another extra 21,000 hostel bed spaces in the rest of England since 1981 and we have allocated £250 million during the next two years for more provision for those who are homeless. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are now 2 million more houses in Great Britain than there were 10 years ago.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ombudsman has refused to release his report to the House until 3.30 pm and that many Members want to read it before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes his statement? As soon as Question Time ends, can my right hon. Friend find time to ask her right hon. Friend to seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to delay the statement until 7 o'clock so that hon. Members can have time to read the report before my right hon. Friend makes his statement?
    The Prime Minister: The time of the production of the report is a matter for the ombudsman and the other matter may be for Mr. Speaker to decide. My recollection, subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a private notice question before the statement on Barlow Clowes.
    Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bradley: As a pensioner, the Prime Minister will be aware that one of her achievements of the past 10 years has been to cut the real value of pensions to elderly people. In this season of good will, would it not be a good idea to announce today a substantial increase in retirement pensions so that all our elderly people can enjoy a happier and healthier 1990?
    The Prime Minister: No. The value of pensions to elderly people has not been cut. The promise to protect pensions against price increases has been honoured and, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in October we announced that old and needy pensioner couples could receive an extra £3·50 a week in addition to their pensions.

    195
    The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that this autumn we abolished the earnings rule for pensioners, at a cost of about £375 million, and we have also given a good deal of extra help to the disabled and to war widows. That is a good record. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour Government could not honour the inflation-proofing of pensions and that they cancelled the Christmas bonus twice.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statement.

Type 23 Frigates
3.31 pm
Mr. Martin O'Neill(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will answer the question on type 23 frigate orders of which he has been given notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): Competitive bids were sought from British shipyards for a batch of between one and four type 23s. Three yards—Cammell Laird Shipbuilders in Birkenhead, Swan Hunter Shipbuilders in Newcastle upon Tyne and Yarrow Shipbuilders in Glasgow—responded, and it has been an extremely keen and commercial competition, to the taxpayer's benefit. All three yards are to be thanked for taking part in it.
The competition demonstrated that our commercial approach is continuing to encourage improved efficiency in the industry, enabling it to compete more effectively here and abroad. It also underlined the benefit of ordering in batches and the better value for money that results from it. On this occasion, having invited tenders for up to four ships, we have decided to order three. To order four now, even all from one yard, would not give us significantly more attractive unit prices than ordering three. The new ships will be named Westminster, Northumberland and Richmond.
After evaluation of the bids, we have decided, subject to contract, to place the order with Swan Hunter Shipbuilders of Wallsend in Newcastle upon Tyne.
Swan Hunter's has won our order fairly and squarely on commercial terms. The value of the order is commercially confidential, but I can say that the average unit cost of the three new ships is significantly less in real terms than for the last order, which in its turn was lower than for previous ships of the class.
It follows that both Swan's and the other yards were extremely competitive this time. We are sure that they will be keen bidders for our future requirements. They will, for instance, be able to bid for another batch of type 23s, for which we hope to invite tenders next year.
Nine type 23s are now on order for the Royal Navy. It remains the Government's policy to maintain a surface escort fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates. This latest order demonstrates as clearly as possible our commitment to NATO and to our nation's defence. At the same time, today's announcement confirms that we remain resolute in pursuit of value for money.
Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his announcement, which confirms the one that was made this morning in Press Association tapes. Although his statement will bring a sigh of relief to workers and their families on the Tyne, it will be a source of bitter disappointment to fellow workers elsewhere. Can the Minister give some hope to the rest of those employed in British warship building, by confirming the number of type 23s for which he will be seeking tenders in the forthcoming year?
Will he also confirm that he accepts the view of the Select Committee on Defence that orders of around 2·6 frigates per annum are necessary to maintain a surface fleet of about 50 vessels? Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that price was the only factor involved in the
198
competitive tendering process? Does he acknowledge that although that process can drive down prices, it can also drive the losing yards out of business and thus prejudice future competition?
Finally, what prospects can the Minister offer in the way of alternative and additional work on the Clyde and Mersey—for example, in maintaining our defence forces' amphibious capability? The Government have talked about that for many years, but they have yet to come up with any tenders.
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman gives a welcome, albeit grudging, to my announcement. Of course, the yards that have been unsuccessful must be disappointed—but not, I trust, despondent. On the previous occasion when an order for type 23s was announced—last July, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) forecast the possible closure of Swan Hunter, but that did not happen. Instead, I am able to announce today that an order has gone to that yard. I am unable to say how many frigates are likely to be ordered next year, although we shall again seek to invite tenders for a batch of frigates. At the time of last year's announcement by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, called on the Government to maintain the momentum by ordering two more frigates this year. We have done rather better than that. We have ordered three.
Mr. Barry Porter: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will come as a bitter disappointment to the workers of Cammell Laird? I hope that he will take into account the possibility that, by next year, Cammell Laird may no longer exist to tender for orders.
Mr. Neubert: We take wider considerations into account, and my announcement is good news for the Navy, for NATO and for the yard that won the order this time—in the same way that it was good news for Yarrow's when it won last year's order. Cammell's has a substantial amount of Ministry of Defence business and it will be able to bid for the new type 23 order that we hope to place next year. We are also evaluating Cammell's tender for an aviation support ship, which it has submitted together with its parent company. We must hope that with improving productivity and increasing competition—the competition for the previous order was extremely keen—other yards will be successful in the future.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister will know that his announcement will cause deep disappointment among the employees of Yarrow's —a goodly number of which are constituents of mine who found work at that yard following the closure of Scott Lithgow. However, I am sure that Yarrow's employees will not be too deeply dismayed because they know that they work in a first-class yard. Can the Minister say how commercially and financially realistic the successful bid was?
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman's final question concerns a matter of commercial confidentiality. I commend the HMS Norfolk—the first of class that came from the Yarrow yard—of which we have received

199
excellent reports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Yarrow was also very successful in winning the previous two competitions.
All that has been said is possible only against the background of a sound economy under a Conservative Government. The strength of our economy and the soundness of our defence policy is the greatest reassurance that one can give for the future of shipbuilding in this country. If the Labour party conference proposal of a £5 billion cut in Britain's defence was ever put into effect, the prospects for British shipbuilding would be bleak if not non-existent.
Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is splendid news, not only for Tyneside, but for the Royal Navy, reflecting Swan Hunter's proven record for the delivery of frigates on time and without defects? Does he accept that it is a splendid boost for Tyneside as we enter the 1990s, with thousands of jobs ensured for years ahead? Does he further accept that Swan's has matched its proven record of quality and commercial success in winning the order against fierce competition?
Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has been exceptionally active inside and outside the House in the promotion of the interests of Swan Hunter's work force. He deservedly shares in its success today. Over recent years, the yard has established an enviable reputation. HMS Chatham was delivered without a single recorded shipbuilders' liability defect. It is a tribute to the efforts made in it and other yards that we had such a successful competition, which led to this outstanding result.
Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Minister confirm the remarks that he made a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), that wider considerations were taken into account in making the decision? Is that not a contradiction of his previous statement that he made a purely commercial decision? Does that not lead us to the conclusion that basically it was a political decision? Is it not the case that once again the Scottish Office has lost inside the Government machine?
Mr. Neubert: Given that Yarrow won the previous two competitions for type 23 frigates, it comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to complain because it was not successful in this competition, which was extremely keen. Price was a major consideration, which is the purpose of inviting tenders in batches and orders from competitive yards. However, that was not the only consideration. As a responsible Government, we must take all considerations into account. This represents the best value for money and the best for the Royal Navy and the defence of Britain.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend will know that the value of batch ordering has been urged on his Department for a number of years. I am glad to note that it continues to respond to that advice. Will the next batch be of equal size—three? Will he give the in-service dates of the three frigates, and will he say whether they will be equipped with the type 23 command system?
Mr. Neubert: My hon Friend has a respected record of interest in these matters. At this stage, we cannot say how many there will be in the batch for which we hope to invite tenders next year, nor is it our practice to announce in
200
advance acceptance dates for such warships. I reassure my hon. Friend that the new frigates will have the new command system from their build.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister need to be reminded how serious the implications of his statement are for the future of Cammell Laird? While he is thinking about that, may I ask him two questions? First, can he say when he will put out to tender the new work for frigates next year? Secondly, has he had time to reflect on the bidding skills of the board of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.? Would it be fair to say that its skills do not yet match those of the men and women who build boats at Cammell Laird?
Mr. Neubert: I readily understand the disappointment that will be felt by the management and men of Cammell Laird, their families and all those whose livelihoods depend on the successful securing of new ship orders. A competition is a competition, and it was fairly and squarely won by a yard that is in an area of above average unemployment. I cannot give the number of frigates that might be ordered next year or the timing of the placing of the order, but Cammell Laird has that prospect for the future. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the policy of the VSEL board.
Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome in the north for this magnificent news for the north-east, which has implications across the region for construction and other spin-offs? I predict that there will be cheering on Tyneside tonight. Will my hon. Friend confirm that no one area has a God-given right to build ships? The only right that anyone has to build ships for the Royal Navy is, after proper competition and on full economic grounds, through producing the best possible defect-free product for the Royal Navy.
Mr. Neubert: Yes. The order and the competition that precedes it demonstrate, first, the British commitment to our defence, which is important, secondly, the benefits of ordering by batches and, thirdly, the competition that that creates. There are other advantages. Tonight there will be rejoicing on Tyneside because, we calculate, this order is equivalent to 10,000 jobs being sustained for four or five years. It is a valuable boost to employment in an area with above-average unemployment.
Mr. Ted Garrett: Does the Minister recognise that I for one give not a grudging welcome to his announcement, but a delighted one? I speak for the people of Wallsend. The shipyard is in my constituency and is where most of my employed constituents work. Does he agree that the tributes made this afternoon are to the credit of the work force, the management and the excellent trade union relationships? Finally, may I say that it gives me great personal pleasure that one of the ships is to be named after the noble county of Northumberland?
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in character and I join him in paying tribute to the work force at Swan Hunter that has secured this order. I can also pay tribute to the other yards that I visited and that are showing signs of improved productivity and extremely keen bidding. It was a most competitive competition and there had to be losers as well as a winner, but all the yards can be commended for their efforts to secure the order.
Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend will know that we look forward to welcoming HMS Chatham on the Medway in the near future after its successful commissioning. This is splendid news for Swan Hunter, the private management of which has grown in our respect in the past four years since privatisation. Does this order have ramifications for building a third auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel? Can my hon. Friend say anything about that yet?
Mr. Neubert: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on HMS Chatham, which come so close to home. I cannot say anything about auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels now, but the order has no implications of the kind that my hon. Friend suggested.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Minister's announcement but, like many hon. Members, I understand the disappointment that will be felt elsewhere among the unsuccessful yards. Does the Minister agree that that disappointment might be mitigated if the Government were now to adopt a consistent pattern for ordering ships, as the Select Committee on Defence urged them to do? Does he agree with the Select Committee's point that
"a single year's orders is not the same thing as a consistent ordering pattern over a number of years, and the two should not be confused."?
Mr. Neubert: That is the view of the Select Committee on Defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted. It is for us to decide at each stage what the needs of the Royal Navy are and what orders we should place to support a fleet of escort ships. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Government's policy is to have a fleet of about 50. I am pleased to say that as a result of the order announced today and with the number of existing ships, the total in the fleet is 49.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have a busy day ahead of us, with two statements and an important debate. I shall call one hon. Member from each side. Then, I regret, we must move on.
Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend's announcement is the third in a row in which three ships have been ordered. For the benefit of the Opposition Front Bench, will he spell it out once more that these orders are placed not just on front-end costs, but on other valuable issues, such as quality, ability to deliver on time and maintaining a competitive base?
Mr. Neubert: I know that this is the Christmas season, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not see three ships coming in automatically. This time we have been able to order three ships. He is right that quality, delivery on time and general productive performance are important factors in securing a successful order.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister confirm that quality also played a part in his choice of yard for the order? His announcement will be greeted with a great sigh of relief on Tyneside, in the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), and by me. All that our shipbuilding community has ever sought from the Ministry of Defence has been fair play. We have tried hard to accommodate ourselves to the current procurement regime and to survive. Will the Minister confirm that today's announcement reflects that our community has done just that? I am sorry that it was not possible to share the order with Yarrow, but I was even sorrier last time when Yarrow won all the frigates and it was not possible to share one with us.
Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman's comments are genuine and heartfelt. I have no hesitation in repeating my tribute to the quality of work at Swan Hunter, which undoubtedly led to the improved performance that has enabled it to make such a successful bid. It is a lesson for all yards that they must continue to work for better performance, to sharpen their competitive edge for orders here and overseas.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take points of order later, after statements.

Barlow Clowes
3.50 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Barlow Clowes.
The report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Barlow Clowes is published today, as are the Government's observations on it. Copies of both are available in the Vote Office.
The House will be pleased to know that, after very careful consideration, the Government have decided, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and out of respect for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, to make substantial ex gratia payments to all investors who have suffered loss. I shall give the details later. Equally, I want to make it clear that the Government do not accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings, nor are the Government legally liable.
These are important questions upon which I want to make the Government's position clear. I am therefore publishing separately today the Government's observations on the PCA's report. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will read these observations carefully: I will not rehearse the detailed arguments here.
There are, however, a number of unusual features which taken together distinguish this case from other business failures. Although at the relevant time the Government had started on the process of overhauling the legislative background, before April 1988 the regulatory machinery was inadequate. It is also true that a large number of investors, many of them elderly, have suffered hardship. Many believed, although wrongly, that they were investing in gilts. They were led to believe that their investment was safer than it was.
When disagreeing with the findings in the PCA's report, the Government are not asserting that the conduct of the Department was beyond criticism, given the benefit of hindsight, but in the Government's view, the Department's handling of the case was within the acceptable range of standards reasonably to be expected of a regulator.
For the reasons that I have given, the Government have decided to offer substantial payments, without admission of fault or liability, to investors who have suffered loss.
The Government have decided that investors who invested up to £50,000, including reinvested interest calculated at building society rates, should be able to recover 90 per cent. of their investment. It is important to maintain the principle, which the PCA recognises, that investors should bear some of the loss themselves. This is particularly so for larger investors, who must be expected to bear a greater part of the responsibility for their own decisions. To reflect this, the Government have decided that investors should be able to recover 80 per cent. of their investments between £50,000 and £100,000 and 60 per cent. of investments over £100,000. The detailed terms of the scheme are set out in the Government's printed observations.
The scheme will be administered on the Government's behalf by firms which are already acting in the liquidation and receivership of the Barlow Clowes businesses. A letter has today been sent to all investors, giving them an outline of the Government's proposals. Detailed terms will be sent in mid-January, and we hope that processing of payments will be completed in February.
204
The Government believe that there are others whose role in the Barlow Clowes affair deserves close examination and who cannot escape part, at least, of the blame for what happened. It will be a condition of payment that investors assign to me their rights in the liquidation and receivership and against third parties. I give notice of our intention to pursue vigorously any claims which show prospects of reducing the cost to the public purse of these payments.
Parliamentary approval of this expenditure will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate in due course. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £150 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Receipts from subsequent recoveries will be credited to the Consolidated Fund.
Recent legislation and recent jurisprudence make it clear that regulators are not liable to investors in the exercise of their regulatory functions. The Government do not believe that it would be right for this case to be treated as a precedent, and if similar proposals are made in the future, they intend to respond to them in the light of the principles set out in their observations. However, because of the exceptional combination of circumstances in the Barlow Clowes affair, the Government have decided to respond generously to relieve the hardship caused to large numbers of people.
Mr. Gordon Brown: I welcome, after 18 months, this first payment to Barlow Clowes investors after the clear and unmistakable evidence in the ombudsman's report of five significant areas of maladministration by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Many pensioners have until today lost their life savings, and retired workers their redundancy payments. Can the Secretary of State confirm, in as precise detail as possible, what the average payment is likely to be, whether payments are to be made to the dependants of the 600 people who have died, whether there will be any contribution from intermediaries whom Lord Young has already criticised, whether he will definitely take court action against those whom he considers responsible to recover taxpayers' money, and whether the first payments are likely to be made before February so that investors who have waited for more than a year, some of them on the edge of bankruptcy, will not experience further delays?
I must ask why we have had to rely on the ombudsman to confirm the mismanagement, maladministration and incompetence that was widely known about more than one year ago. Will the Secretary of State explain—I acknowledge that he was not the Secretary of State at the time—why it took an internal inquiry, a departmental inquiry and now the ombudsman's investigation, instigated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, before justice began to be done?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the House will find it strange that he is prepared to pay out at least £150 million but he continues to deny the Government's responsibility for mistakes and does not even apologise for his Department's role? Will he confirm that, while the need for compensation is agreed, the reason for the payment of this public money—our public money—is not the fecklessness, gullibility or incompetence of the small investors but the fecklessness, gullibility and incompetence

205
of the Government who, for months and years, ignored all the warnings about Barlow Clowes that were available to them?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ombudsman's conclusion is that mismanagement happened throughout the 1980s, not just in 1985 and afterwards, when the firm was licensed and relicensed? That mismanagement continued during the 1980s, with the failure to heed at least 10 warnings, including warnings from the stock exchange, the Bank of England and the regulatory bodies. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who in the Government intends to take responsibility for this negligence on a vast scale that is costing huge sums of public money?
Will the Secretary of State now show that his Department has learnt some lessons so that public money will never again be used in this way? Will he compel financial intermediaries to take out indemnity insurance against negligence and fraud, ensure minimum standards of competence among intermediaries and take up the Securities and Investments Board's proposals for tougher regulation?
Will the Secretary of State demonstrate that his aim is not just to lure investors into the market place but that he regards it as his duty to give them proper protection from the unprincipled and the unscrupulous?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman made many presumptions about the record of the regulators in my Department and what they may have done wrong. As he says, there are five charges of maladministration in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioners for Administration. I recommend him to study at length and with care those accusations of maladministration and the Government's response to them. He will notice that the only one to which the PCA attaches great significance is a new point that has never been raised before concerning the partnership in Jersey. I invite the hon. Gentleman, partial as he is, to decide whether his own thinking bears out what he said from the Opposition Dispatch Box this afternoon. He may find it does not. The first criticism of regulators in my Department dates from 1975. Therefore, he should not seek to make a party political point about the time during which these matters took place.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the payments will be. I repeat that they will be 90 per cent. of sums up to£50,000, 80 per cent. of sums between that and £100,000, and 60 per cent. of sums above £100,000. Those figures are based on taking 90 per cent. of the capital value, plus the compound interest due from the last time that interest was received by the investor up to the date of liquidation. To that 90 per cent. will be added the interest due since then. That is a generous way of recompensing those, particularly the smaller investors, who have lost money.
I confirm that the dependants or estates of the deceased will be eligible to claim their share of compensation. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is up to the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association or the Securities and Investments Board to determine what to do about financial intermediaries.
We shall pursue as vigorously as we can third parties from whom it might be possible to recover some of the costs. I hope that all the money will be paid out in February, but that requires investors or their estates to
206
make the necessary claims as quickly as possible after they receive the forms so that we can issue the payments to them. Although the gross cost of what I have announced is £150 million, the liquidators expect to be able to return more than £60 million from the funds that they still have so that the net cost will be much less, and even less if further sums are recovered from third parties.
We have decided to make these generous payments, despite the fact that the Government do not accept liability, for the reasons that I have given, plus the important additional reason, which I think the hon. Gentleman will respect, that we felt that we should respond to the recommendations for making redress put before the House by the PCA. That we have done.
Mr. Ian Stewart: On behalf of many of my constituents and no doubt those of other hon. Members, I thank the Secretary of State for his full statement and the handsome scheme of recompense that he has announced this afternoon. No doubt it will be welcomed up and down the country.
When the Secretary of State reflects on the lessons to be learned from this sorry story, will he take it from me that it did not require a great deal of insight in 1985 to appreciate that the business of Barlow Clowes was not then being run in a fashion that would make it an obvious candidate for a licence? His Department's explanation that a cessation of business then would have been against investors' interests is difficult to understand, because if the money had been there, the investors would not have missed out, and if the money had not been there, there would have been no case for granting a licence at that time.
Mr. Ridley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I am sure that the payments will be greatly appreciated by those who have suffered grievous loss. Many of them are poor people. On my hon. Friend's second point, I invite him to consider the extent to which what he alleges was indeed a lack of insight or whether it was a lack of hindsight. There is a great danger of mixing the two.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome today's important step forward for the victims of this huge and vile swindle. The Secretary of State is aware of my special interest on behalf of two elderly constituents who lost not only their total life savings but their home.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the further hammer blow that has hit my constituents and others today? They have received demands from the Inland Revenue for thousands of pounds of taxation that they were told by Barlow Clowes had been deducted at source. If the Government are not to take back with one hand what they give with the other, will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop further suffering for elderly and vulnerable people?
Mr. Ridley: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that point about taxation, because I may be able to help him. I am grateful for what he said about my statement. As I understand it, the Inland Revenue believes that the payments that I announced today, both of capital and in lieu of interest—it is not interest, but compensation for the interest that was not received—would not usually be subject to income tax. There will be some cases where there is a complication with the question of whether

207
investor's funds were transferred from the international fund to the national fund. I advise hon. Members whose constituents have a tax problem immediately to get in touch with the Inland Revenue or my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am sure that the Inland Revenue will be only too keen to ensure that the tax law is correctly and appropriately applied in all cases. It will be a considerable relief to hon. Members to know that the payments that I announced today will, in general, attract no tax.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the first hon. Member to warn the Department of Trade and Industry about the activities of Barlow Clowes in late 1984 and again in early 1985, as a result of information given to me by my constituent Mr. Peter Hayes of the Plan Invest Group, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I thank him and the Government for the generous level of compensation that has been announced. It will be most welcome to the small investor, about whom all hon. Members are deeply concerned. My right hon. Friend has restored the confidence of investors in those institutions and the capital market.
Mr. Ridley: I am glad that my statement pleases my hon. Friend, whose role in this affair must be acknowledged worldwide.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Did you note Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State advised my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to study the report carefully? Because of the way that matters have been handled today, with the report coming out at 3.30 pm and a statement being made immediately afterwards, it has not been possible to do that. We have had only a quick reading of it and of the statement.
Is it not odd that, although the Government disagree with the findings of the ombudsman—he should have the congratulations of the House because he found five cases of maladministration—they are nevertheless paying up because, they say, they like the ombudsman? It is a curious way for a Government to proceed.
Many of us will want to contact our constituents this evening and tomorrow because the mail is difficult at this time of the year. I notice that page 21 of the report states:
"Investors will have approximately one month to decide whether they wish to accept the Department's offer".
The statement says:
"A letter has today been sent to all investors … Detailed terms will be sent in mid-January."
Does that mean that we should tell our constituents that they have a month from mid-January or a month from now? That is the sort of question that we will be asked, so what should we answer?
Mr. Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman reads it, he will see that the Parliamentary Commissioner's report includes the Government's decisions in relation to what he has suggested. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wrong for the major statement of important Government policy that I have just made not to be the subject of a Government announcement to Parliament. There may be a procedural difficulty here, because it is rare that a Parliamentary Commissioner's report is the subject of a statement to Parliament rather than a written communication to the hon. Member concerned. If that is
208
not a happy procedure, I am sure that the relevant procedural Committee of the House would wish to consider it, but there are difficulties on both sides.
I have written to all investors—including, I hope, the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman—informing them of my statement today. They will receive detailed forms in the middle of January and it will be for them to claim the compensation that I have announced. If they fill in that claim form rapidly, they should receive the compensation early. I cannot guarantee that they will receive the compensation if they do not return their claim forms early —[Interruption.] I have said already that they will receive the claim forms in the middle of January. [HON. MEMBERS: "One month."] I said that we hope that all claims will then be paid during February. They cannot be paid during February if the liquidators do not receive the returned claims forms. It is entirely up to those investors who are due compensation to make sure that they get in their forms, or we cannot pay them in February. There is no cut-off date. I said that we hoped that all claims would be met by then.
Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the generous response by the Government to the victims of this affair? Does he agree that this may be a serious situation here, with the Government disagreeing with the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Will my right hon. Friend look into that further so that the matter can be considered perhaps by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of which I have the privilege of being Chairman?
Mr. Ridley: The Government are perfectly entitled to have their views about the chain of reasoning which the PCA has employed in this case; my predecessors had doubts at the time of the Le Quesne report. We, too, have similar doubts, although on slightly different grounds, this time. The Government cannot be coerced not to put forward their view of such matters.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the important point is that the Government have accepted the recommendations for compensation, even though they cannot accept the reasoning. I invite the House to study the arguments on both sides, and perhaps many hon. Members will come to the conclusion that the Government were right in their reasoning.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: The constituents of all hon. Members, including mine, who have been affected by the Barlow Clowes affair will welcome the compensation that the Secretary of State has announced. But the idea that the confidence of investors will be restored is more dubious in view of the Minister's rejection of the ombudsman's finding, which I read leaves the ombudsman absolutely unconvinced. I suspect that our constituents will be able to draw their own conclusions as to who they believe has the best judgment, the ombudsman or the Secretary of State. But can they at least be reassured that even if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the findings, he will ensure that his officials study them and act on them to make sure that these events do not recur?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should know that recent legislation, to which he may have contributed, and all recent court judgments have made it clear that

209
regulators are not liable at law for matters of this sort. That is still the position. If the Financial Services Act 1986 had been in place when these events occurred, 15 years ago, there would have been no question but that investors could have been compensated by the Securities and Investments Board scheme only if the rules of that scheme had been met. For that reason we have a different position now. But I do not believe that the principle should be allowed to be established that regulators are liable at law for any loss suffered as a result of their actions.
Mr. Michael Grylls: Obviously the House is very pleased to hear of such generous compensation, which will help many vulnerable people who were worried about the results of the Barlow Clowes affair. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind, however, that the money will come from the generality of taxpayers, most of whom did not invest in Barlow Clowes and who therefore will receive no compensation? Is it not essential for my right hon. Friend to pursue every possible avenue with the utmost vigour in his efforts to get all the money back for the good of the generality of taxpayers?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one lesson to be learnt from the affair is that high-return investments often carry the highest risk? If they pay some attention to that factor, the public may learn the lesson so that such an awful tragedy does not occur again.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the Government will seek to make the maximum possible recovery, through the courts, from any third parties who appear to have been to blame.
My hon. Friend is right: a high-risk investment is likely to be one with a high return. It was, I believe, in recognition of that factor that the Parliamentary Commissioner suggested that there should be an abatement, which he agreed should amount to 10 per cent. for investments of up to £50,000 and a little more for larger investments.
It cannot be assumed that higher and higher returns can be offered, along with the safe knowledge that if they get through the regulator compensation will follow. That is a clear reason for not allowing a precedent to be established.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State make it clear whether he will now publish the report by Mr. Ziman and Mr. Hoffman, the DTI inspectors who were appointed on 4 June 1988 under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985, to inquire into Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers? If not, why not?
Mr. Ridley: I have not yet received the report. When I receive it, I shall have to check with my legal advisers to find out whether I can publish it immediately, but I intend to publish it as soon as that is established.
Mr. Stephen Day: May I join my hon. Friends, and some Opposition Members, who have been active on behalf of the investors in thanking my right hon. Friend warmly for his statement? Does he agree that, although the vast majority of investors will be delighted at the announcement, they will find the discussions now hovering round the technicalities of what was and was not done rather irrelevant? For the first time, those investors will be able to celebrate Christmas again. I am sure that
210
they simply wish hon. Members to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a very generous statement.
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the relief from hardship and loss is the most important aspect of today's announcement, and I hope that hon. Members will not try to make too many legalistic points that will detract from its significance.
Rev. Martin Smyth: We accept what the Secretary of State has said about the need for us not to make too many legalistic points, and I confirm, on behalf of many people in Northern Ireland, their thanks for this generous settlement. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that today's statement has not really maintained trust in financial institutions, particularly if greater responsibilities are not to be placed on the shoulders of regulators?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said, but I believe that there is another side to the case. The risk involved in choosing where to put his money can never be entirely taken from the investor; otherwise he would always choose the highest-risk—sorry, highest-return—investment that he could find. The return must clearly be tempered in relation to the risk.
Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the compensation terms that he has announced today are warmly welcomed? However, will he reflect that a basic problem of the case was that many decent but often inexperienced people felt, rightly or wrongly, that the Government had endorsed the probity of the company? What has he done and what does he intend to do to ensure that such a false impression is not given again?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know that since then the House has passed the Financial Services Act 1986 which puts the responsibility for regulating such matters on the Securities and Investments Board, which has its own clearly delineated and contained compensation fund. In future, the SIB will be responsible for regulation. That is a much healthier state of affairs than the old one under which those events took place which, I am glad to say, no longer applies.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the ombudsman identified five grounds of significant maladministration by departmental officials and a great number of people have lost money on the licensed securities market, will the right hon. Gentleman now institute an inquiry within the Department on what happened to investors in Harvard Securities, Afcor Investments, Investors Discount Brokerage and Tudorbury Securities—whose activities were repeatedly drawn to the attention of departmental officials, and which have left great numbers of people with worthless investments?
Mr. Ridley: I do not believe that I should follow the hon. Gentleman into discussing other cases that are not the subject of the statement.
Mr. Kenneth Warren: When did my right hon. Friend first hear about the problems of Barlow Clowes, and was he informed earlier by any other Department of State?
Mr. Ridley: I heard of the problems of Barlow Clowes at the time of the collapse. Of course, I was not in the Department of Trade and Industry then. Since I have been in that Department, I have been all too well aware of the problems of Barlow Clowes and have heard little else since July.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there is another statement after this one and a very important debate. I shall allow three more questions from either side and then I regret that we shall have to move on. However, there will be opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to discuss the matter on the Adjournment motion tomorrow.
Mr. Peter Hardy: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Secretary of State said that the Government are not at fault and do not have the responsibility for investors in Barlow Clowes. Yet the Government took exactly the same approach to those affected by the collapse of McDonald Wheeler, which purported to have the blessing of the Government. If the Government can pay generous compensation for those sadly hurt by the collapse of Barlow Clowes, how can they justify their refusal to pay compensation to those affected by the collapse of McDonald Wheeler?
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is already trying to widen my announcement and to make a precedent in a way that the Government had not intended. I must slightly correct his introductory remarks. I said that the Goverment were not legally liable for the collapse of Barlow Clowes, but I did not say that the Government were not at fault. If the hon. Gentleman reads my statement and the observations on the report, he will realise that that was not an accurate shorthand for what I said. For three reasons, there were some blemishes in the Department's handling of the case. There was a legislative vacuum in the sense that the Financial Services Act was not in place, and there was the hardship caused to many poor investors. We responded as I believe the House would wish us to respond to the suggestion of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid. That is the important point. It is wrong for the House to try to open up other cases in which the circumstances are, no doubt, wholly different.
Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend has reached a most honourable settlement, which is entirely characteristic of him. My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier that the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Securities and Investments Board, whiich is now in place, should prevent further such frauds. However, will he reflect that in September 1985 the financial services division of his Department asked the solicitors office for advice? That advice took two months to come, even in an interim form, and three months to come in a definitive form, and it was six months before counsel's opinion was even invited. Does my right hon. Friend agree that
212
lawyers, although not apt to be very speedy, have in this case excelled themselves in their tardiness and that the delay has proved to be very expensive?
Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. However, I must riposte by saying that the Government have a collective responsibility for the decision that I have announced today, just as I share the collective responsibility for the decision that was taken at the time of the Le Quesne report that the Government were not liable and should not pay compensation. I must point out that the Parliamentary Commissioner did not find the particular event in the history of this unhappy matter to which my hon. Friend referred to be of great significance.
The event on which the ombudsman based the bulk of his claim that compensation should be paid was the fact that the officers of the Department failed to notice that the Jersey partnership had different partners from those of the United Kingdom partnership. It may or may not have been as a result of the failure to make that observation that further losses were suffered by investors. That is the point on which the claim of maladministration was mainly based and it will be for the House to decide whether it believes that that was the correct judgment.
Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am still concerned about the timetable of payments to my many constituents who were affected? I also have constituents who are still waiting well beyond the deadline for money from the investors' compensation scheme from the Greenan collapse. Will the Secretary of State ensure that extra staff are taken on, if necessary, to ensure that timely applications are paid out by the end of February and will he give us an absolute guarantee on that?
In view of the crucial and harmful role in this disaster that was played by the Jersey partnership, will the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary now examine seriously the role of the offshore islands in this financial area?
Mr. Ridley: On the latter point, I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the document carefully. There was a complicated series of events, and there is no possibility of banning offshore islands. Islands are there and always will be, so the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is impractical. On timing, I must make it clear again that when investors or their estates receive the form, they should make a claim within 28 days of receiving that document. If, for some reason, they do not make that claim, there are arrangements for late payments to be made, but it will be for investors to make the application. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will encourage their constituents to send in the claim as early as possible so that they can receive the compensation as early as possible.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no question of the Government's being primarily responsible to the investors in this affair? Bearing in mind the fact that it would be difficult or even impossible for many investors to prove any Government liability, and bearing in mind the costs of any legal claim, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's offer should be seen as generous—or even very generous—and should be welcomed accordingly?
Mr. Ridley: Everything that my hon. Friend says is correct. This is a very generous offer, which follows what the Parliamentary Commissioner suggested, and the main reason why we are making it is that we have respect for the Parliamentary Commissioner's office.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Although we recognise the generosity of the Government to all those who needlessly lost money in the Barlow Clowes affair, my constituents will be wondering why it has taken all this time for the Government finally to give compensation. Until the publication of the ombudsman's report, all the signs were that the Government were extremely loth to get involved. As a result, they have caused those who lost money needless suffering. In my constituency, one couple had to sell their home because it seemed to them that they had no prospect of being compensated, and the husband has since died because of the stress of the Barlow Clowes collapse. If the Government had acted immediately on information that was widely available, the damaging impact of the affair could have been avoided.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has heard what I said. We received the Parliamentary Commissioner's report only a short while ago. It has been considered by the Department and finalised by the Parliamentary Commissioner in almost record time, I believe, to get the news out as quickly as possible. I really do not think that we have dragged our feet. It took the PCA a considerable time to conduct his investigation but he must be responsible for that, not me. I must make it clear that we are paying compensation in the special circumstances of this case only because of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Although I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him to accept that many investors in my constituency—some of them elderly and some who were first-time investor—took advice from professionals? Will he try to ensure that such a tragedy does not occur again because such people are very vulnerable to the information and advice that they are given?
Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of the Securities and Investment Board, whose job it is to ensure that intermediaries behave in an entirely responsible way towards innocent investors who do not quite know the risks.

British Rail (Objectives)
4.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about British Rail's objectives for the period 1990 to 1993.
I have today written to the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, setting out the objectives that I have agreed with him. Copies are available in the Vote Office and will be published in Hansard.
Since British Rail was first set three-year objectives in 1983, the management has had a clear framework for planning its business. It has achieved undoubted success in working to the objectives that my predecessors set in 1983 and 1986. Railway investment has risen sharply. BR is now investing twice as much as in 1983, and the result is that investment in 1989–90 is the highest for some 25 years. It is to go up by a further 75 per cent. over the next three years. At the same time, British Rail's need for subsidy has been falling steadily, as BR has improved efficiency and has attracted many more passengers. Over the next three years I want to see substantial further progress on safety, quality and financial performance.
Providing a very high standard of safety must remain the railways board's top priority. We allowed for £125 million for specific new safety expenditure over the next three years in the recent public expenditure round. BR is acting positively and quickly on the report published in November on the Clapham junction accident. I repeat the assurance that I gave at that time that finance will not stand in the way of implementing the report's recommendations. I shall look at what further measures may be required once the board's assessment is available in the new year. We are committed to ensuring that BR will continue to have the necessary funds for safety. I give the House the assurance that there will be no economising on safety. British Rail has also begun work in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and the railway inspectorate on a comprehensive safety plan. I have asked the board to submit this to me by October, and to update it annually thereafter.
British Rail's three commercial businesses—InterCity, freight and parcels—have made good progress towards the financial objectives set in 1986. InterCity has achieved a major turn-round into profitability. The objectives I am setting call for further progress towards earning a proper commercial return on their assets. Intercity's objective for 1992–93 will be a current cost profit of £95 million at today's prices.
The overall objective for rail freight will be a profit of £50 million, and the board will be preparing plans for bulk freight to earn at least an overall 8 per cent. return on its assets by 1994–95. I also want to see improvements in the financial performance of the rest of the freight business, with still greater involvement of the private sector, so that it is ready to seize the new opportunities presented by the Channel tunnel.
On British Rail's parcels business, I have endorsed the £9 million profit target which the board has set.
On the two remaining businesses—Network SouthEast and the Provincial sector—I am very conscious of the need to strike a balance. I want to see continuing but carefully phased reductions in subsidy, which should be possible without excessive fares increases.

215
I hope that, by the mid-1990s, Network SouthEast will start earning a commercial return on its assets, and I am asking the board to produce plans for that. Meanwhile, I am endorsing the board's own objective of reducing the grant requirement to zero in 1992–93. I am satisfied that by then Network SouthEast should not need a revenue subsidy. It is carrying so many more passengers now, and the high and growing level of investment is improving quality and reducing running costs. Increased revenue from a higher number of passengers, and lower running costs from more modern equipment, reduce the needs for subsidy from the taxpayer.
On the Provincial sector, I am again endorsing the board's objective, which is to reduce the grant from about £400 million this year to £345 million by 1992–93. It is clear that large subsidies will be needed for Provincial for the foreseeable future, although there should be scope for some further savings and I am asking the board to examine ways of achieving further improvement of the order of £20 million by that year.
Neither reductions in subsidy nor the huge increases in investment will lead to large fare increases. These objectives are based on BR's own forecasts included in its corporate plan, which it will be publishing today. The plan assumes only modest real fare increases. I shall be looking to the board to continue to improve productivity to minimise the direct pressure of costs on fares.
I share the board's determination that quality of service should improve. Demanding quality standards for provincial services were set last July. The board has now agreed to a tougher Network SouthEast punctuality standard. These are tough targets, but the benefits of the investment already authorised will be building up over the next three years and will enable BR to give passengers a better service.
Demand for Network SouthEast and Provincial services is expected to continue to grow and BR will need to decide how best to accommodate it. Where, exceptionally, new capacity cannot pay for itself, a cost benefit evaluation will be carried out to enable me to decide whether capital grants would be justified on wider social and economic grounds.
The achievements of the past six years are a tribute to the hard work of the BR board and all railway staff under the leadership of Sir Robert Reid. With the opening of the Channel tunnel, the next decade will bring new opportunities. The Government are committed to securing a safe, efficient and high-quality modern railway network. The new objectives set out a clear framework for further progress towards these goals. I commend them to the House.
Mr. John Prescott: Does not the Secretary of State understand that today's announcement continues the disastrous penny-pinching approach that the Government have adopted towards British Rail since they came to office? Is it not the case that in the 10 years from 1983 to 1993 the Treasury will have denied British Rail £3·5 billion in financial support by reducing the 1983 levels of support? Would it not have made sense to spend that money on ensuring that Britain could play its full part in the railway revolution that is now sweeping through Europe? Is it not the case that, instead, safety, quality and reliability have suffered, fares have rocketed and we are missing out on the major opportunities offered by the Channel tunnel?
216
When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no point setting tougher targets for quality of service unless the resources are there to implement them? Why has he ignored the views of the passenger body, the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which only two weeks ago told him that there was a direct link between the cuts in Government grant over the past decade and the poorer quality of service?
The right hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail does not always match his considerable public relations skills, but he will now have to answer the question about fares that he ducked last week in the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: does he now accept that today's announcement that Network SouthEast must have a commercial rate of return by 1995 means fare increases of at least 4 per cent. above the rate of inflation every year for the next 10 years? Is not that the exact figure in the assumption, used by the Department of Transport in assessing the options in the road assessment studies, on which he reported to the House last week? He seemed to be somewhat confused about the matter last week and promised to write to us. We are still awaiting his letter.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that today's target will be greeted with outrage throughout Britain, especially in London and the south-east? Does he not realise that passengers are fed up with paying the highest fares in Europe for a dirty, overcrowded, unreliable service, and that the latest cuts will mean higher fares and even poorer quality service?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about passengers' willingness to pay more for a better quality service, yet fares are already twice as expensive in Britain as in Belgium, and one third more costly than in Germany, France and the Netherlands. How much more should passengers pay for a seat on a train which is on time and to guarantee a safe and reliable journey?
The right hon. Gentleman constantly claims that we can have either higher investment levels or higher levels of Government financial support, but that we cannot have both. Why not? They do in France, in West Germany, in Spain, in Italy and in Belgium. What is so unique about Britain?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Britain is at the bottom of the European league of Government financial support for railways? We are still bottom of the league for investment. Why is it only on fares that we are at the top of the table?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that not one penny of the investment claims that he makes comes from the Treasury and that all of it comes from higher fares, chronic overcrowding, property and land sales, redundancies and low pay? Will he explain that some 90 per cent. of the investment over the next three years will be for the routine replacement of trains, signalling and rail and structures and will not necessarily help to expand capacity in the system?
Passenger bodies are complaining to the right hon. Gentleman and to many hon. Members about the chronic overcrowding. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Network SouthEast passengers will be outraged that BR is already saying in its corporate plan that it will not be able to meet the target that he has set for reducing overcrowding in the system, despite the increase in fares that will flow from his statement this afternoon? Is it not

217
true that, according to the passenger bodies, train cancellations have doubled on the provincial services and have increased by 50 per cent. on Network SouthEast?
Why are there no environmental objectives in the statement? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the increasing bulk freight's rate of return on assets from 2·5 to 8 per cent. will reduce even further rail's share of the freight market, especially in view of the CBI's calculation that the cost of road congestion is £15 billion a year? How can it make sense to drive even more freight on to the roads? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed that with the Secretary of State for the Environment?
The right hon. Gentleman assured the House that finance would not stand in the way of the implementation of the Hidden report following the Clapham disaster, but what does that mean in practice? Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on the statement to give an assurance that safety—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I hope that the House will always listen to points about safety. We have not listened in the past and we have now paid a terrible price for that. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the safety deficiencies identified by Sir Anthony Hidden will be paid for by grant aid either in the form of PSO funding or a direct safety grant and will not have to be paid for by passengers in even higher fares?
Finally, does the Secretary of State endorse the view of the chairman Sir Bob Reid when he said last week:
"Our duty is not to run a service that is desirable; it is to run a service that will be profitable"?
If he does, let me offer the right hon. Gentleman some advice. He should take some time off from his tour of the nation's auction rooms peddling valuable old number plates to study the transport systems of other European countries and, yes, perhaps even use them. He may then realise that there are some things that may not be considered profitable in the narrow and petty-minded terms of the Government but which are desirable for a vital and modern nation. They include a concern for safety, for the environment, for quality of life, for economic regeneration and for the whole of Britain, and they are all sadly lacking from the statement.
Mr. Parkinson: When I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the thought that strikes me is that he is never happier than when he is attacking the work of the 131,000 people who work in British Rail and bad-mouthing their efforts.
Let me quote a passage from a White Paper produced by a Labour spokesman a little wiser than the hon. Gentleman. It says:
"To use subsidies to disguise from people the cost of the services they are paying for is pointless, and to subsidise richer people at the expense of poorer is perverse."
There is no sense—I have made this point over and over again—in the people of Hull subsidising the service in London and the south-east which is used by people who are earning much more than they are and for which there is already an excessive demand. To subsidise a service for which there is excessive demand is an absurd waste of money and it is a silly way of reallocating the national income.
One would never believe it from listening to the hon. Gentleman, but BR has more passengers in every aspect of its business in Network SouthEast and Provincial and is investing more than ever before in Network SouthEast and
218
Provincial. Two years from now, more than 80 per cent. of the rolling stock on Provincial will be less than five years old and will effectively have been renewed.
The hon. Gentleman's picture of a declining railway suffering from lack of investment simply does not accord with the facts. The only point that he can make—it was the only point that he made in the course of his remarks—is that the subsidy is lower than it used to be. We have explained that we plan gradually to phase out the subsidy for Network SouthEast, to reduce it by £55 million from£400 million in the next three years on the Provincial network, and that that reduction, coupled with the growth in business, should not give rise to any substantial increases in fares. It is absolutely—[Interruption.] There is one simple point between the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and myself. He believes that the Government's commitment to the railways or to any other service is the extent of the subsidy that they provide. We believe that it is a matter of improving the service and of increasing investment.
Mr. Peter Snape: Why do the Government not prove that?
Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends are very enthusiastic about bad-mouthing Britain's railways and Underground systems. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on a visit to Paris, praised the French for modernising five Metro stations a year and investing money. We are modernising 10 stations and investing twice as much—but all that we hear from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is criticism. We are investing more money per route mile than the French. It is bad news for the hon. Gentleman that we are making progress and improving the system. We intend to carry on doing so, and to ensure that the fares do not increase excessively. We intend to ensure also that Britain has a modern railway system.
Mr. Edward Heath: We naturally want to give careful thought to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. I hope he will realise that it is difficult for many right hon. and hon. Members to attach much weight to any forecast or undertaking given by British Rail at the moment. That is particularly so in the light of British Rail's treatment of the fast link from the Channel tunnel. British Rail had four plans to consider, and after long debate and many public meetings, it reached the conclusion only six months later to cancel everything that had been discussed, arranged or agreed—and announced that it was taking an entirely fresh look at the problem.
Leaving that matter on one side, my right hon. Friend made the important comment at the end of his statement that particular problems will go to him for examination and a decision. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a difference between a subsidy—even though I may not accept everything that my right hon. Friend said about subsidies—and expenditure that is required for environmental considerations. The Government have pledged themselves to expenditure to protect the environment. It is not possible to have a railway that is profitable and which, at the same time, takes account of environment requirements. No railway in Europe does so.
Mr. Parkinson indicated dissent.
Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend shakes his head in disagreement. If a railway is to follow its own profitable inclinations, its track will run straight through a town. Everything will be pulled down, compensation will be paid, and that will be the end of the matter. If a railroad is to take account of all environmental considerations, as we would like it to do, it must have a source of revenue other than its normal ticket taking.
The Channel tunnel fast link is also a matter of national concern because it will continue on to the north of England and to Scotland, when further environmental considerations will have to be taken into account. I hope that my right hon. Friend's concluding comment means that he is prepared to do now that which his predecessors did not do—accept that expenditure on the environment and on tunnelling is a necessary form of expenditure by Government, and that the question of a railroad's profitability does not arise.
Mr. Parkinson: As my right hon. Friend knows, the estimated costs of the fast link escalated enormously. No one really knew what the final costs would be. The figure of £3·5 billion was really a guesstimate. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the ground, no one could be sure what would be the true cost of tunnelling. It could have been billions more than the £3·5 billion originally estimated. That is why British Rail and its partners reached the conclusion that, although they could confirm the line to Swanley, they should look for other less expensive ways of connecting from there to Waterloo and then on to King's Cross. They are now doing so. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that the environment must be taken into consideration, I cannot agree that the cross-Channel link should be tunnelled under London regardless of cost.
Coming nearer to home, the north Kent lines, which are also important to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), are the subject of an announcement of specific orders for £257 million of new rolling stock in the modernisation of that whole network. While I cannot satisfy my right hon Friend on the fast link, I promise his constituents that their local lines are in the course of being substantially improved.
Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the fact that British Rail is achieving its objectives, and also that it is attracting many more passengers—because that is what the statement says. However, is the Secretary of State aware that practically all its passengers travel in discomfort because of overcrowding? What steps will be taken immediately to introduce new rolling stock—and I mean immediately, rather than over the next three years that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?
The statement also promises that there will be no large increases in fares but that there will be "modest" increases. Can the right hon. Gentleman elucidate on the meaning in that context of the word "modest"? Most of the travelling public would like to know. Also, is the Secretary of State aware that the northern regions need to know urgently what connections there will be between them and the Channel tunnel? When might we expect an announcement on that aspect?
Mr. Parkinson: The investment plans of £3·7 billion over the next three years include orders for a whole range of rolling stock. If the hon. Gentleman reads the press, as I know that he does, he will have learnt this morning of the
220
announcement of another order valued at £350 million. In September, I announced a £257 million order for rolling stock. Our plans are being translated into action. As I mentioned earlier, we aim at modernising the rolling stock on the whole of the provincial network, and a substantial start has been made. The hon. Gentleman will see that for himself, if he looks around various provincial stations, as I do, and notices the new Sprinter trains on track.
British Rail has predicated its five-year plan on fare increases around and slightly above the rate of inflation. There are no plans for substantial increases above the rate of inflation. In some cases there are no plans for increases. In others, there are plans for substantial increases. The second year of the plan provides for substantial increases in the fares of long-distance commuters. We have made that announcement and there is no secret about that fact.
The long-distance commuter is paying on average only a tiny proportion of the standard fare, yet travels at peak times. The long-term season ticket is too good a bargain, and that is why there will be increases in various sections —[Interruption.] When I travelled to Brighton the other day, I shared a compartment with a passenger using a season ticket, and whereas I paid a return fare of £24·40, the season ticket holder was paying only £9·50—and agreed that he was enjoying a substantial bargain.
As to Channel tunnel links to the north of England, Sir Robert Reid's remarks have been much misunderstood. He said that, as announced, a service will be run from the regions to the Channel tunnel. However, at this stage we cannot forecast what the demand for it will be. The service will be increased if necessary, but if excessive provision is made it will be reduced. We are determined to give the regions proper access to the tunnel. The initial proposals represent a best guesstimate. If they need to be expanded, they will be expanded, but if they prove excessive, they will be reduced.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government and British Rail should be congratulated on doubling the rate of investment in real terms since 1983 and on planning for a further 75 per cent. increase over the next three years? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that much of that investment is concentrated on rolling stock in the south-east, which is long overdue for renewal? Following the Clapham junction disaster, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that finance will be made available for the rapid introduction of in-cab radio telephones, as there is some concern that that will not be done?
Mr. Parkinson: Yes, there are substantial programmes to increase expenditure on rolling stock in the south-east. I have made quite clear the Government's position on Hidden. The Government do not know, because British Rail is in the process of working it out, what the cost of implementing Hidden's recommendations will be. When British Rail has done that, it will discuss it with us. We made some provision in the public expenditure plans and we shall discuss further financing with BR. I have made it clear to the House, and repeated it categorically today, that safety will not in any way be compromised by a shortage of funds. The necessary funds will be available.
Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the necessary funds for safety are made available to ensure that all junctions with single-track lines are reconverted to dual-track lines so

221
that accidents such as the one at Bellgrove in Glasgow never happen again? Will he instruct British Rail accordingly?
Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Many pieces of single track up and down the country work successfully. The cost of changing them would be enormous, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific areas where he believes that there is a specific threat to safety, I should be happy to hear from him. In the main, single-track working works well.
Mr. Robert Adley: May I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for having to leave immediately after asking my question to go to a Select Committee upstairs?
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the cost-benefit analysis. Does he accept that there is any relationship between the increase in complaints and the reduction in the public service obligation grant? Does he accept that the pursuit of efficiency must not be carried to the point where it undermines an essential public service? Does he ever think why efficient, prosperous and free-market West Germany spends three times as much taxpayers' money on its railways as we do?
Mr. Parkinson: I invite my hon. Friend to consider whether overcrowding has something to do with the fact that 25 per cent. more people are catching trains. I should have thought that their presence is the direct cause of overcrowding. That does not seem to suggest, as the Opposition attempt to suggest over and over again, that people are being priced off the line. Half the time the Opposition complain about people being priced off, but for the other half they complain about overcrowding.
My reply to my hon. Friend is no: the increase in the public service obligation grant has coincided with a substantial increase in other revenues. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that British Rail is not capable of cost saving or improving its efficiency, because that certainly is not the view of its management, who negotiated and accepted the objectives that I declared today. They are happy that they can meet them.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What price tag is attached to the phrase, "no economising with safety"?
Mr. Parkinson: I have already explained to the House that we are unaware of the cost of implementing the recommendations of the Hidden report because costings are still being done. I gave British Rail the objective of reporting within three months, one month of which has passed. It will come back to me after that time. When we are aware of the size of the bill, we shall discuss how it is to be paid.
Sir Hector Monro: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on investment, but does he accept that I am entirely unconvinced by British Rail's statement on the Channel tunnel link with the west coast of Scotland? Does he accept that we must have the facilities in place when the tunnel is opened or trade will never develop?
Mr. Parkinson: The problem with the west coast line is a passenger one. British Rail is not convinced that there will be sufficient passenger demand to travel from Glasgow to the continent by rail, simply because of the time
222
involved. There will be many quicker ways of getting there. Proper provision will be made for freight to serve the west coast, because I realise that industry, especially round Glasgow, is extremely important. It appears that there will be not as much demand from passengers because of the time that it will take to complete the journey.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said in his letter to Sir Robert Reid about investment in local regional services, particularly where the level of return does not immediately meet the 80 per cent. increase in the asset base? He said that a cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken on social grounds and grounds beyond the straight economic criteria. Will he tell the House precisely what those grounds are and what he will be taking into consideration?
Mr. Parkinson: I recognised in my statement that subsidy will be a continuing feature of the existence of local Provincial services. We accept that, which is why the reduction in subsidy over the next three years is relatively modest. We expect that to be a continuing feature of the Provincial network. We recognise that there are wider social and economic reasons, especially in the provinces, for considering investment in services. Against that wider background, we shall therefore be prepared to consider the case for investment in the provinces.
Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated by not only the users of British Rail but its many employees. As there are some 5,500 British Rail employees in my constituency of York, will he say why so far one significant omission from the objectives has been his plans for denationalisation? As they look forward to Santa's Christmas stocking, they should like to learn of the plans for that.
Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend say something about performance-related pay and the fact that British Rail has shifted the goal posts? Most hon. Members are conscious of the clock and are aware that "on time" means on time. British Rail has now fudged being on time from five minutes to 10 minutes late and related higher management pay to that. When can we return to accuracy and honesty with British Rail timetables?
Mr. Parkinson: As my predecessor made clear, the Government are considering whether and how denationalisation should take place. I must admit that that has not been a high priority for me since I arrived in my new job. It was made clear by my predecessor that it could not take place before the next Parliament and that that would be in at least three or four years' time. I have had rather more immediate problems to deal with, but the question is still on the agenda. I shall consider it and report to the House in due course.
The new performance targets represent a tightening up and meet a request made by the Select Committee on Transport, which said that off-peak and peak periods should be distinguished. We have agreed an overall target for performance and a subsidiary target for peak-time performance. In the past, peak-time performance was obscured by the overall performance figures. The figures are more open than they have been before, and it will be possible more easily to monitor performance.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How long does the Secretary of State imagine that the travelling

223
public will take seriously someone who tells the Transport Select Committee that the roads are not capable of carrying a sufficient number of passengers and that, therefore, we must have an integrated service with railways and who talks about the need for environmental concern, but who increases fares and puts such squeezes on the finances of British Rail that it will find it exceedingly difficult to do any of the things that he has promised his electors?
Mr. Parkinson: I do not wish to take up the time of the House repeating myself, but last year we invested more money in British Rail than for 25 years. In the next three years, that will increase by 75 per cent. I know that that is very disappointing for the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] A Labour Government invented the concept of the external financing limit. It may be new to the hon. Lady, but it is not new to us; it was invented by her Government. Investment in British Rail is at an all-time high. The sooner she stops bad-mouthing it, the better will be the prospects for her constituents.
Mr. Keith Speed: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the commendable objectives that he has outlined today can be achieved only with a better trained, better motivated and better paid work force?
Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for the brevity of his question. It came as a pleasant surprise after listening to Opposition Members. I agree that that is at the heart of the matter. It is encouraging that management and unions are now discussing greater flexibility so that they can attract the quality of people that they need to man the system.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the past four months a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and the Minister for Public Transport have visited the north London link line for Stratford to Silvertown in north Woolwich in my constituency and that ever since then the quality of the service has taken a severe dive? Why does he insist on a percentage return on so-called book assets? Clearly that must prejudice the maintenance of property, facilities and equipment which would provide flexibility and reliability, and therefore increase the reliability of the service? Would not the removal of those facilities encourage deterioration and attack the morale of the staff who are the railways' biggest asset?
Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the deterioration in the service on that line and has called for a special report on it. I must make it clear that he is convinced that his visit was not the start of the decline. Maintenance and investment in safety are not taken into account in seeking the rate of return. Safety is specifically excluded from any consideration of the rate of return on the assets.
Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the forthcoming and welcome statement that he has made and say that I wholly disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about it? It was as welcome as my right hon. Friend's recent evidence to the Select Committee on Transport. I appreciate that British Rail will invest an additional 75 per cent. in the next three years. Will my right hon. Friend now look
224
sympathetically and benevolently at the request to approve the electrification of the cross-city line, which I had the honour to open when I was chairman of transport in the west midlands in about 1979? At that time the stock was 20 years old and it is now that much older. May I hope that the long-awaited plans for British Rail which have at last arrived on my right hon. Friend's desk will meet with his approval, so that we can again surge ahead with this new method of motive power on that line?
Mr. Parkinson: thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that he noticed in yesterday's announcement that the spine road for Birmingham Heartlands was approved. I hope that we shall be notching up a second achievement for Birmingham in the near future when we announce our decision about electrification. Over the next three years £3–7 billion will be invested. British Rail's five-year plan is for a £5 billion investment in the next five years. These are massive sums. They disappoint the Opposition, but they will delight the travelling public.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Should not this statement have been made by, preferably, a Treasury Minister? May I suggest to the Minister that he travels by French Rail and sees an example of subsidy for public purposes, such as safety, the environment, getting rid of congestion and regional development? Does not the narrowness of the statement tell us about the narrowness of Thatcherism in the past decade?
Mr. Parkinson: No. The hon. Gentleman, who normally knows better, is once again simply measuring everything by the extent of the public service obligation. That is not the only measure of a Government's commitment to the railway system. If it is, I must point out that the Provincial network will receive £345 million at the end of this three-year period, which is no mean sum. The Government and the country recognise that certain rail lines cannot pay their way and need subsidy, but that is no excuse for those that can pay their way remaining subsidised.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcemmnt will create enormous optimism and hope among the hard-pressed commuters of Kent? They will feel that they have received a Christmas present under the tree. However, they will have some doubts about whether the box has anything in it, because, first, British Rail plans to use two passenger lines for freight in this most congested area of the United Kingdom and, secondly, some construction work is thought to be required to build the Channel link through London. The assertion by a senior British Rail manager that British Rail hopes that it can do that by weekend working only has not struck complete confidence among my constituents.
Mr. Parkinson: It does not inspire me with confidence either. My hon. Friend has been the staunchest advocate of his constituents' case in resisting the proposals on the Channel tunnel rail link and I am sure that he will continue to be. Some of the alternative schemes offer a substantial threat to Kent, particularly the notion of doubling the number of lines so that freight can run parallel to the new passenger line. That would represent a major intrusion and I hope that my hon. Friend will think carefully about it as he continues to advocate it.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement is wholly out of touch with reality for the commuters in my constituency and the rest of Greater Manchester who, for the past seven months, have waited regularly for trains that do not turn up, turn up late or turn up with insufficient carriages? The service has been so poor that the number of passengers travelling in Greater Manchester has decreased rapidly. What will the Government do to ensure that British Rail can provide the service that is essential if people in Greater Manchester are to be attracted from the roads to good-quality public transport? It is not being provided now.
Mr. Parkinson: There have been problems in Manchester and I understand that one of the reasons has been the failure of new rolling stock. Some people, including the hon. Gentleman, always insist on our buying British. British has not always been best for the rail system—[Interruption.] It is getting better. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Government have announced a substantial grant towards Metrolink in Manchester and the provision of a £23 million proposed rail link to Manchester airport. Although there have been difficulties, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that they are being tackled and that Manchester is getting its fair share of investment in the infrastructure.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: While the success and improved efficiency of British Rail to which my right hon. Friend referred may have been happening, is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I received a letter from Sir Robert Reid, chairman of British Rail, saying that the service from London to Southend has reached a wholly unacceptable level? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the serious problems in some areas and the utter misery of some commuters, there is a case for a trouble-shooting squad to look at special problems? Can he give some hope to my constituents—perhaps even the pledge of coming to visit Southend to see our transport himself?
Mr. Parkinson: I will be happy to come to Southend with my hon. Friend and see transport there for myself. I recognise that, after the north Kent line, the Southend line is probably the worst line left in England. We have announced a huge programme for north Kent and I am aware, because my predecessor was not uninterested in this subject, that Southend desperately needs the same treatment. I shall press British Rail to give it priority.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State not realise that the proposals for a direct service from the regions to the links with the Channel tunnel, and the proposals for King's Cross are, at best, second best for the regions? The regions, and the north-west in particular, need direct connections, bypassing London with public investment, and we need improvements to the west coast line and the electrification of the Manchester to Blackpool and the 'Roses' lines, and we want them now.
Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. Although there have been criticisms of the provision from the regions to the Channel tunnel, 3 million seats will be available from the regions through London to Paris and Brussels. That is a huge increase in the availability of transport to the continent from the regions. If there is a demand for more, the service can be
226
increased. I do not believe that it is reasonable to say that provision for the regions is not adequate. It is a guesstimate, but it can be increased if it needs to be.
Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend spoke of his support for British Rail's plans to improve the service to its customers. I invite him to tell the House which other nationalised industry, past or present, has shown any particular expertise in caring for the needs of the customer?
Mr. Parkinson: I think that most people would agree that privatised companies offer a higher standard of service. I am afraid that it is a great disappointment to Opposition Members, but it is a simple fact that when it was nationalised, a tiny proportion of British Telecom's public boxes worked. Now, more than 98 per cent. are regularly available for use. My hon. Friend is right; it is more difficult for a nationalised industry to give service. Nevertheless, British Rail, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert, has made a major effort. There is an improvement, and we want to see that continue under the new chairman.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great pressure on the next debate, and there is an opportunity to raise this matter in the debate on the Consolidated Fund, particularly for hon. Members who represent London constituencies. Therefore, I will allow three more questions from each side, and then I shall call the Front-Bench spokesmen.
Mr. David Hinchliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of British Rail's improved efficiency, which he referred to in the statement, is that elderly ladies are being mugged because of the removal of staff from many railway stations? An example is Kirkgates, which is one of the two major mainline railway stations in my constituency; all the staff have been removed. As a direct consequence, passengers are afraid to use that station. Will the Secretary of State consider the issue, and press British Rail to improve the situation and make funding available so that all stations have some staffing, in the interests of passenger safety?
Mr. Parkinson: I will look into the situation at that station in Wakefield. As the hon. Member knows, although there are proposals to reduce staffing on stations, they are accompanied by a substantial increase in monitoring equipment.
Mr. Edward Leigh: My constituency enjoys the dubious distinction of having had more railway lines under threat of closure by British Rail last year than any other constituency. I was relieved that my right hon. Friends said in his letter to the chairman of British Rail that in certain cases improved productivity may produce better results than bus substitution. While my right hon. Friend cannot give a definite commitment on the fate of those lines, will he keep British Rail up to the mark, and ensure that there is adequate publicity for lines? In recent years, we have been struck by the extent to which rural lines are run for the benefit of producers and the rolling stock, rather than the customer.
Mr. Parkinson: In my letter I draw attention to the fact that the case for bus substitution, or for investment and improved efficiency on the railways, should be taken into

227
account before arriving at a decision. It is also true that we are less enthusiastic about the possibilities for bus substitution than we were two or three years ago.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State accept that people in Northern Ireland would like to share the benefits that will arise from 1992 and the Channel tunnel? Does he agree that improved rail and passenger facilities at Stranraer, on the west coast of Scotland, would help the economy of the south-west of Scotland and of Northern Ireland? We could all benefit from improved rail facilities.
Mr. Parkinson: I think that I had better discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether we can find a way to give the access that the hon. Gentleman wants.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the service provided by British Rail in my constituency is not what it might be, if the level of complaints is anything to go by? Does he agree that, as long as the railways are in the public sector, the levels of service and investment will always be inadequate? Does he agree that it is about time that we got that great industry where it belongs—in the private sector? We should break it up, along the lines of the pre-war railway companies, and get it away from the dead hand of state control.
Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for an increasing number of people when he argues that privatisation could play a part in improving the performance of the railways. That is being considered as a separate matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State came to the House last week and provided more than £1,000 million in public money to the road lobby, including his former employer, Tarmac? This week, he had a chance to provide money for British railways and he has refused. The truth is that he and his Government are better characterised by selling second-hand car number plates than running a national public railway.
Mr. Parkinson: One can always tell when the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground—his vehemence exceeds his ignorance. In the three-year programme that we announced the other day, we plan to spend £5·7 billion on the national road programme. We plan to spend £6 billion on public transport, so the hon. Gentleman is, as usual, talking offensive nonsense.
Mr. Gerald Bowden: When reappraising British Rail's objectives, and to optimise the opportunities that the Channel tunnel offers, will my right hon. Friend urge British Rail to reconsider its present plans, and the alternatives that are being discussed for a direct, fast and cost-effective link for passengers and freight from the whole of the United Kingdom to continental Europe?
Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the range of possibilities were considered by British Rail before it took its decision to link up with Eurorail, pursue the line to Swanley and find an alternative route through to King's Cross and Waterloo. I have had a cursory look at some of the alternatives, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to admit that they are not without substantial
228
problems. The plain fact is that British Rail feels that it must focus on coming forward with firm plans for its chosen routes, and it is concentrating on that.
Mr. Peter Snape: Will the £3·7 billion forecast spending on British Rail have to be funded entirely from British Rail's own resources, or will the Secretary of State seek additional assistance from the Treasury for that long-awaited and much-needed investment? Has he discussed the plans with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? What will be the impact on passenger carryings of increasing fares, in real terms, in Network SouthEast? Does the Secretary of State consider that it makes sense, environmentally, to transfer passengers from an overcrowded railway system to an already congested road system and does he agree that that will be the impact of his proposals? Does he agree that bulk freight's rate of return on assets is to be raised from 2·7 to 8 per cent.? Will that not reduce even further rail's share of the freight market, and lead to more heavy goods vehicles on Britain's already congested roads?
May I ask the Secretary of State about passenger transport executives, which he has not so far mentioned? [HON. MEMBERS: "No—too long."] Conservative Members should listen as their seats are at risk as a direct result of these plans. Does the Secretary of State intend that ratepayers in Birmingham, Manchester, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear, for example, must meet the full cost of rail services in and around those cities? What is the likely impact on the environment of such proposals?
The Secretary of State has had a fairly unenthusiastic response from his Back Benchers today because, in their hearts, they know that he is on a kamikaze mission, putting up rail fares in the south, and they are the accompanying passengers, whether willing or not.
Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member on taking about one third of the time of his leader and on being about twice as effective. Two thirds of these funds will come from the external financing limit, which is entirely guaranteed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman keeps predicting that, fares increases will drive people off the railways, but the evidence in Network SouthEast is that, as the subsidy has gone down, the number of passengers has gone up. The subsidy has fallen and there has been about a 25 per cent. increase in the number of passengers. To a slightly lesser extent, the same movement is mirrored in the Provincial system.
The Government and British Rail are following a Monopolies and Mergers Commission finding that too little of the true charge was being passed to the passenger transport executives and that the matter should be reconsidered. We, the taxpayers, are still paying an overwhelming proportion of the costs of Provincial. About 65 per cent. of the costs of Provincial are met by the taxpayer, and about one third is met by the customer.
We believe that there are substantial possibilities for attracting freight to the network. We believe that an increased return can come from a growth in traffic. That is why we are investing to ensure that that becomes possible.
Following is the letter:
Dear Bob,
New objectives for British Rail
Your current objectives were set by the Government in

229
October 1986 and cover the period up to the end of March 1990. They built on the success of the British Railways Board in meeting the objectives set in October 1983 on your appointment as Chairman. I am now writing to set out the Board's objectives for a third 3-year period from April 1990 to March 1993. These objectives will supersede the current objectives from next April. They supplement the statutory and financial duties of the Board and cover safety, quality and finance. They are aimed at producing a safe, efficient and high quality railway which is responsive to the needs of its customers.
Your progress over the last six years shows that a growing investment programme can go hand in hand with lower subsidies. Investment has broadly doubled in real terms since 1983 and is planned to increase further by some 75 per cent. over the next 3 years. InterCity has exceeded the targets set for it in 1986 by eliminating its losses and earning a positive rate of return. Excellent progress is being made with the electrification of the East Coast Main Line. Railfreight is being re-shaped into a business better able to respond to the changing needs of its customers, and is investing to improve the quality and reliability of its services. Parcels is undergoing major restructuring to meet the challenges it faces in a very competitive market. Network SouthEast is now beginning to keep pace with the growth in traffic. The Provincial Sector has improved efficiency and covers a higher proportion of its costs from revenue. The grant target for NSE and Provincial was achieved one year early. The grant that is needed is now nearly 60 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1983.
The objectives for the next 3 years need to consolidate and build on these achievements. You and I have agreed that we want to see further progress on safety, on quality (particularly punctuality, reliability and overcrowding) and on productivity.
Safety
Under the Transport Act 1962 it is the Board's duty to have regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Providing a very high standard of safety must remain the Board's top priority. I know you are committed to acting positively and quickly on the report of Sir Anthony Hidden's Inquiry into the tragic accident near Clapham Junction in December 1988. We have agreed that the Board should complete, in conjunction with the Department, a review of its investment appraisal and funding arrangements for safety-related projects as soon as possible. Non-commercial projects intended specifically to improve safety are not expected to earn a direct financial return. I have made clear that in implementing the Hidden Report recommendations, finance will not be an impediment. The financial targets set out below take account of the additional safety expenditure you have already incorporated in your plans in anticipation of the Hidden Report. I want you to let me know within the next 2 months what further measures you judge necessary and what additional expenditure may be involved, so that appropriate provision can be made.
You have also begun work in consultation with the Railway Industry Advisory Committee of the Health and Safety Executive and with the Railway Inspectorate on a Safety Plan. I would like this Plan to be submitted to me by October 1990. The Board should update this annually and report on progress.
The Asset Base
We have agreed that the asset base of all sectors should be revised to include infrastructure (stations, track and signalling). This will require further work by the Board. When that work is complete, all investment will be capitalised. Meanwhile I have taken account of preliminary estimates of the full asset base in settling the equivalent CCA rate of return targets (before interest) for the commercial sectors given below.
The Commercial Businesses
InterCity earned current cost profits of £26 million in 1988–89 equivalent to some 1·3 per cent. on estimated asset values. I want to see further improvement towards the full 8 per cent. return needed on assets. As a further step towards
230
this aim, I am setting an objective for InterCity to earn a profit of £95 million in 1992–93, broadly equivalent to 43/4 per cent. on estimated asset values. I want you to continue to report achievement on punctuality.
Railfreight is facing keen competition. A return of 8 per cent. is the right objective for this commercial business to earn and should be the basis for decisions on new investment. I recognise however that some parts of the business will not be able to achieve a full 8 per cent. return over the next three years. I am therefore setting an overall objective for Railfreight of earning a profit of £50 million in 1992–93, broadly equivalent to 4·5 per cent. on estimated asset values. I welcome your intention to prepare plans for bulk freight to earn at least an overall 8 per cent. return on its assets by 1994–95. I shall want to see those plans by July 1990. I also look forward to seeing by then the Board's plans to improve the financial performance of Railfreight Distribution, to maximise the involvement of the private sector, and to reshape the business to seize the new opportunities presented by the Channel Tunnel.
Parcels should continue to maximise returns from its increasingly successful Red Star business, and I welcome the £9 million profit target which the Board have set for the sector as a whole.
Channel Tunnel Services
The Board should prepare and undertake investment to make maximum use of the commercial opportunities presented by the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993. I welcome your plans for a Joint Venture with Eurorail.
Regional and Local Passenger Services
Investment: The Government's response to the Transport Select Committee Report on the Financing of Rail Services (Third Report, Session 1986–87) clarified the criteria for investment in the regional and local passenger railways. I expect the Board to take full account of this in preparing investment plans and considering priorities. Both Network SouthEast and Provincial currently face growth in demand for their services. I expect the Board to increase services to meet this growth whenever the incremental investment can be shown to earn the required rate of return (currently 8 per cent.). Where exceptionally investment which increases the asset base cannot meet the 8 per cent. test, I shall want a cost benefit evaluation to be carried out in conjunction with the Department to enable me to decide whether capital grants would be justified on wider social and economic grounds (e.g. through the benefits of lower road congestion).
Fares: Over the last few years, progress has been made in relating fares more closely to costs and improvements in service quality. I expect this process to continue, but I want the Board to do further market research on the relationship between price and quality. I shall be looking to the Board to do as much as possible to improve productivity and make the most efficient use of resources so as to minimise the direct pressures of costs on fares. I want the Board to report annually on unit cost trends so that I can see whether satisfactory progress is being made.
Network SouthEast
On the Board's forecasts, continuing revenue growth and falling unit costs will enable Network SouthEast to break even by 1992–93. The large and growing investment programme will make a major contribution to this by enabling the Board to save energy and maintenance costs and by providing increased capacity and higher quality which lead to increases in revenue. The Board has already set an objective of reducing NSE's grant requirement to zero in 1992–93, which I welcome. I want the Board to prepare plans for NSE to achieve significant progress towards earning a commercial rate of return on its assets by 1995–96; I should like to see the Board's proposals by December 1990.
Quality: My predecessor set new quality targets for NSE in June 1987 and, following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) into NSE services, he agreed with you that those targets should apply route by route. I want the Board to regard the targets as applying not only over the day as a whole but also to the morning and evening peaks (taken together) and to report on performance accordingly. You and I have now agreed that the overall punctuality target

231
should be raised from 90 per cent. within 5 minutes to 92 per cent. by 1992. We have also agreed that there should be a separate target of 88 per cent. for the morning and evening peaks. You have agreed to arrange for me to be informed whether there are any routes and any time of day on which any of the quality standards will not be achieved by March 1993 and when the Board expects to achieve them.
The present quality standards are based on market research carried out by the Board into the importance attached by the travelling public to different aspects of rail travel. Incomes and expectations are growing in the South East arid I want the Board to complete its programme of market research to see whether changes in the quality targets would be justified taking account of passengers' willingness to pay for them. I shall want to consider in 1991 whether the quality targets should be changed in the light of this further work.
Provincial
Over the last 6 years the Provincial sector has been able to reduce costs, increase traffic, improve quality and charge more for it. Revenue has therefore increased in real terms. Subsidy including PTE payments has fallen from 75 per cent. of costs in 1983 to 65 per cent. in 1988–89. On the Board's own forecasts it should fall further to 57 per cent. by 1992–93. It will still be much higher on some service groups and it is clear that very large subsidies will be needed for the foreseeable future.
I have described above the Government's general policies on investment and fares for Provincial and NSE. What follows is of specific application to Provincial. You have now carried out a review of the scope for bus substitution on certain rural lines. Where bus substitution can provide customers with an acceptable alternative and is a more cost-effective solution, the Board will want to bring forward proposals. In some areas, measures to improve productivity and reduce costs may produce a better financial result than bus substitution. The Board will want to take this into account in drawing up proposals for these lines.
In preparing its full response to the MMC report on Provincial the Board will want to look closely at marketing and fares. Rail often provides a better service than buses running over parallel routes and it is right that BR should charge for the higher quality. There are also opportunities to exploit the attractions of scenic lines to tourists. I want BR to co-operate with others, including the private sector, to ensure that net revenue is maximised for these lines.
The Board has already set an objective of reducing the Provincial sector's grant requirement to £345 million by

Quality of service objectives

Annex A

InterCity

Network SouthEast

Provincial

Punctuality

90 per cent, right time and up to 10 minutes late.

92 per cent, right time and up to 5 minutes late all day.

Express Longer Rural 90 per cent, right time and up to 10 minutes late.

88 per cent. in morning evening peaks.

Urban Shorter Rural, 90 per cent, right time and up to 5 minutes late.

Reliability (Percentage of services to run)

At least 99·5 per cent.

At least 99 per cent.

Express Longer Rural At least 99·5 per cent.

Urban Shorter Rural At least 99 per cent.

Train Enquiry Bureaux

95 per cent, of calls to be answered within 30 seconds.

Ticket Offices

Maximum queuing time of 3 minutes off peak and 5 minutes peak

Carriage Cleaning

Interior daily clean

100 per cent.

100 percent.

100 per cent.

Exterior wash

95 per cent, (daily)

100 per cent, (daily)

100 per cent, (every 2 days).

Heavy interior clean (per 28 days)

95 per cent.

100 per cent.

—

1992–93, which I welcome. I would like you to examine ways of achieving further improvement of the order of £20 million by that year.
Quality
My predecessor set quality standards for Provincial services supported by the PSO on 28 July this year. Annex A summarises the quality standards for all the passenger businesses.
PTE Services
The MMC report recommended that the Board should discuss with the PTEs and the DTp the charging to the PTEs of the full measure of costs attributable to the operation of PTE services. We have agreed that BR should bring forward proposals for carrying forward this recommendation, in consultation with my officials and the PTEs. When the report has been considered it may be necessary to adjust the grant target.
Private Sector Involvement
I welcome the progress which the Board has made in broadening the participation of the private sector in the provision of services to the railway. The sales of BREL and Travellers Fare have been successfully completed, and the private sector is increasingly involved in providing ancillary services. I would like the Board to increase further the contribution of the private sector where this enables more cost-effective and competitive services to be provided, and to continue to report progress each year.
Public Accountability
I would like the Board to report performance and progress in achieving these objectives in its Report and Accounts each year. This should include:

(a) the quality of service achieved against the agreed standards;

(b) progress towards the grant targets for NSE and Provincial;

(c) the current cost operating profit before interest and CCA rate of return on assets for InterCity, Railfreight (both overall and separately for bulk freight and Railfreight Distribution) and Parcels;

(d) progress on increasing the contribution of the private sector.

Yours ever, Cecil
Cecil Parkinson

InterCity

Network SouthEast

Provincial

Load Factors

—

No more than 135 per cent, for sliding door stock or 110 per cent, for slam door stock. No standing over 20 minutes except by choice.

Express Longer Rural

—

Urban Shorter Rural

No more than 135 per cent, for sliding door or 110 per cent, for slam door stock. No standing over 20 minutes except by choice.

Points of Order
5.34 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order, but I ask the House to bear in mind the fact that we have a heavy day ahead of us. We have a three-hour debate, opposed private business and an order after that.
Mr. Terence L. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that your predecessors have ruled that right hon. and hon. Members, when making speeches, should not read them but may make use of copious notes, I understand that to be the ruling for speeches in debates. This afternoon, we have had two interventions from the Opposition Front Bench, one of which consisted of about seven pages of closely written foolscap being read out. I hope that you will give a considered opinion about whether in such circumstances it might be appropriate for you to intervene.
Mr. Speaker: Front Bench spokesmen have always had an opportunity to rest their notes on the Dispatch Boxes. They should not be read absolutely verbatim, but reference may be made to them.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you heard of any wish for a statement to be made by the Foreign Secretary on the mass killings in Romania? It appears that there have been further killings. I know that there is to be a brief Consolidated Fund Bill debate in the middle of the night on Wednesday, but I understand that that debate is on the whole of central and eastern Europe. May the House be given an opportunity to express its revulsion at the killings being carried out by the Romanian Government? The House has often expressed horror at atrocities and crimes committed by various Governments, and I hope that we may be provided with just such an opportunity before the House rises for Christmas.
Mr. Paul Flynn:: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are practical steps that Britain can take to curb the excesses of Nicolae Ceausescu such as intensifying our activities—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be far more appropriate for the hon. Member to make those practical suggestions in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. There will be an opportunity in the debate on developments in central and eastern Europe.
Mr. Michael Stern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed, in what is becoming virtually a weekly occurrence, that the business as announced at c. 1173 in Hansard last Thursday was once again amended within 24 hours by an order which was pushed through late on a thin Friday. Once again, private business, which many of us are not interested in, is being pushed later and later into the night and, as a result, Back Benchers on both sides of the House who believe that they are here to discuss Government business find that they have to be here longer and longer. Is there no way in which you can protect us from these extensions of the timetable?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that Friday is not a parliamentary day. The motion was on the Order Paper and the hon. Member could have objected to it on Friday if he had wished to do so.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the statement about the ordering of frigates. Is it in order for the Minister to stroll into the Chamber, able to tell us the names of the three frigates that have been ordered but unable to say how many will be ordered in the next round or when he expects—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I was unable to call the hon. Lady to ask a question on the statement. It is perfectly in order for a Minister to name frigates if that is what he wants to do. It is not within my power to dictate that he should or should not announce what will happen in the future.
Mrs. Fyfe: What kind of Minister is it—
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I am sorry that I could not call the hon. Lady earlier.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the golden boy of the Labour party, has again put forward an interesting blueprint about preventing people from owning second homes. The impact on marriage, the flow of funds from the country and the squeals of frustrated foreigners taking the matter to the European Court is not a matter for you, but what is a matter for you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, I have not heard anything that is a matter of order. What is the matter for me? I do not have a second home.
Mr. Marlow: I, my colleagues and Opposition Members are concerned about the Register of Members' interests. There may be some truth in the assertion that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has two homes and that members of the Opposition Front Bench have two homes—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be a good subject to raise tomorrow if the hon. Gentleman catches the Chair's eye.
Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of Prime Minister's questions. A strong suspicion, which I share, of political rigging during Prime Minister's questions, was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches. Question No. 2 was not called until after 3·27 pm, when there were less than three minutes to go because questions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were tabled by Labour Members. Only two—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not pursue that line.
In invite him to look at Hansard tomorrow and to see how many opportunities were given to Members on Opposition Benches to ask the Prime Minister a question as compared with those Members on the Government side.
Mr. Cohen: There were only—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Banks.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that you could order an early investigation into the acoustics of the Chamber? I have been here since June 1983 and, until recently, I have never had any difficulty hearing the shrill tones of the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions, but I and my colleagues at the back of the Chamber are now finding it extremely difficult to hear her. It must be
236
something to do with the acoustics. I cannot believe that it is anything to do with the television cameras and the Prime Minister's new cuddly toy phase.
Mr. Speaker: I have instituted an inquiry into the microphones. My personal view is that they are not quite as good or accurate as they used to be. I am looking into the matter.
Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask about question 189 for written answer about the global budget of the National Health Service in next year's financial budget. The Secretary of State for Wales has not seen fit to make a statement about a matter involving a budget of £1·5 billion, 50,000 employees and every community in the Principality. The Secretary of State is giving us government by press release. Can you, Mr. Speaker, ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales will come to the House, make a statement and submit to questions so that we can tell him the problems that we see regarding waiting lists, the care of the elderly and the impact of inflation on the NHS budget?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not within my power to require the Secretary of State to come here. I am sure that what he has said has been noted on the Government Front Bench. We must move on to the debate.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking it. I asked the hon. Gentleman to sit down.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I am not taking it, and I have told the hon. Gentleman that.
Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Francis Maude.

ESTIMATES DAY
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1989–90
  Class II Vote 2
  [Relevant Documents: second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee ( House of Commons paper No. 281–1 of Session 1988–89) on Hong Kong, the observations by the Government on the report (Cm. 927), and the minutes of evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 13 December 1989 ( House of Commons paper No. 58-ii).]

Vietnamese Boat People
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on other external relations.—[Mr. Maude.]
5.40 pm
Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be grateful for the opportunity for us to debate this afternoon the appallingly difficult question of the future of the Vietnamese boat people—although, in view of the subject's sensitive nature and the deep emotions which it arouses on all sides, I am not sure how grateful the Chairman and Committee will be for the chance to put their heads in this noose.
The debate technically arises from the Estimates, as you, Mr. Speaker, reminded us, although the House will wish to address the principle raised by the Government's policy and decisions on the boat people. I shall briefly allude to the Estimates, which are by no means chickenfeed. We are dealing with expenditures already made by the British Government of £30 million and by the Hong Kong Government of £200 million to cope with the accommodation and expenses arising from their present policy for dealing with the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. We should note that substantial expenditure, but must turn our minds to the principle raised by the Government's policy.
How to handle the Vietnamese boat people—the refugees and migrants—poses one of the most agonising decisions for my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is possibly one of the most difficult decisions which they or the Government have had to face for a long time. That agony and difficulty deserves understanding—perhaps a little more understanding than it has attracted from some quarters recently. The responsibility of these difficult issues bears down heavily on the shoulders of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Select Committee considered this issue when looking at the broader subject of Hong Kong's future last summer. The report issued by the Select Committee at the end of June, after the Tiananmen square horrors, mentioned this matter. The Committee's views were generally, unanimous. However, on the precise question of the Vietnamese boat people and how to deal with them, Committee members had various views. Some of the votes taken on the precise wording of those views reflect the agony and difficulty of any body of people, any hon.
238
Members, any liberal people wanting to reach the best solutions in public affairs—as I hope that the Committee felt it was—when facing such as awkward choice.
The following statement about the boat people was unanimously supported in the Committee. It stated:
"Faced with a declining level of acceptances by resettlement countries and a suddenly and massively increasing population of boat people, we believe that the Hong Kong Government had no alternative but to introduce a screening policy."
That policy began to differentiate between those deemed to be genuine political refugees, fleeing from persecution, and those designated economic migrants.
The Committee's report continued—the words were unanimously agreed:
"We accept that the logical consequence of a screening programme is the repatriation of those who have been screened out."
That was accepted. There was a further sentence, against which some Committee members felt they had to vote.
Therefore, although the sentence was in the report because it reflected a majority view, it was not unanimously supported. That sentence stated:
"We believe that, in the absence of significant levels of voluntary repatriation, however regrettable it may be, there is no alternative to the mandatory repatriation of those who are screened out."
Another set of views was supported by a different majority in the Committee. The pattern of different majorities forming shows how immensely difficult and complex the issue is. The different majority added:
"We note that these people are fleeing not from persecution but from extreme poverty and that over 50 per cent. of them are under the age of 20 years. This calls for special ways in dealing with these young people and if as a last resort, they must return to Vietnam, the authorities dealing with them must act in a humane way and ensure that they are adequately provided for. Assistance should also be given to allow them to settle down in Vietnam."
I have sought to represent as fairly as possible the Select Committee's position. My other Committee colleagues from both sides of the House will wish to give their interpretation of the report, but I have given the words used and the ways in which we reached our conclusions. The difficulties that we faced when debating the matter, even all those months ago, were a precursor of the immense difficulties that we would face when it came to making a decision.
My right hon. and hon. Friends face the choice of two evils. This is not one of those wonderful times when there is good on one side and bad on the other and a simple choice can be made. This issue involves the awful complexity of a Government having to reach decisions and carry responsibility when no course is a good course. The lesser evil is that of taking the decisions which have now been made, versus the greater evil of doing nothing, not making the decisions and seeking to obtain other support to resolve the problem. We would then find that we had inflicted more cruelty, suffering and inhuman conditions on thousands of hapless people.
Having tried all other avenues, it is right to act in these few days in which we are debating the matter—for the simple reason that, if we do not act, thousands and thousands more Vietnamese boat people will float in on the early spring tides. They will come in their tens, perhaps even hundreds, of thousands. They will not only constitute a huge migration but cause chaos in Hong Kong which will lead to suffering on a far larger scale than anything we have yet seen. When balancing the choice between the

239
evils, those who argue that we should once more try to delay taking action must face up to the responsibility that they may, by their good intentions, create many more difficulties and much more suffering than we have seen so far.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is it not also a very heavy factor in this most difficult choice that the Government who showed themselves to be so utterly ruthless in Tiananmen square have made it clear that they will feel no responsibility towards those hapless people if they are left in Hong Kong in 1997?
Mr. Howell: That is certainly the case. We tend to measure these matters against our own, we hope, high standards in this House. We forget the attitude towards the boat people and their activities that prevails in many parts of Asia. We forget at our peril that many of those boats are turned away from other countries and sent to sea again, where all the people in them—men, women and children—drown. We forget that a great deal of the current migration is organised not by people who, through good will, want to provide transport to a freer life and a better world—whether in Hong Kong, America or Canada —but by the most ruthless racketeers. They are ripping off those poor people, persuading them of all sorts of false objectives, removing from them their precious dollars and gold savings, and then cruelly sending them to sea in unseaworthy craft or putting them in buses and sending them up the coast. It is as much an evil trade as drugs or prostitution, and we are seeing its end product in the miserable camps in Hong Kong. The hapless people are bewildered, conned and misled. They have been driven to what they thought would be a better life, only to find that it is not.
That is the background against which the Government have had to make a decision. They have to carry the responsibility, and have little choice but to act now, as they are doing. My hon. Friend the Minister will make the Government's position clear when he speaks. I hope that the Opposition's position will also be made clear.
Mr. Ron Leighton: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Vietnamese people were fleeing from poverty. That poverty largely stems from the blockade of Vietnam by western powers. Did the Committee address that matter with a view to changing policy to help to eradicate poverty in Vietnam?
Mr. Howell: I have given the view of members of the Committee—although not all members—that additional assistance should be mobilised in co-operation with and for Vietnam. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, although aid and assistance from outside can help a society and an economy, the basic conditions and the basic way in which a Government treat their citizens are matters for decision inside that society. We must face the fact that, in recent years, Vietnam has been an extremely nasty place to live for individuals and for liberal values. However, there may be a chink of light. The position may now be changing, and in that may lie our hope—
Mr. Chris Mullin rose—
Mr. Howell: I do not think that anyone, not even the hon. Gentleman who wants to intervene, can claim that it is all beer and skittles in Vietnam.
Mr. Mullin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of those people are fleeing not the Stalinist system of economics, which I probably deprecate as much as he does, but market forces? Many of them come from the coastal areas of North Vietnam such as Honggai and Haiphong. They are fleeing because the Government have adopted the World bank recommendations and cut off subsidy to the coal mines. Of course, the north of England is familiar with that. I shall leave aside the point that those towns were flattened by American B52s.
Mr. Howell: We are now getting into a debate about Vietnam's past. It has had its problems, but it has also brought problems upon itself.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am dwelling not on the past, but on the present Vietnam. The report on the British refugee camps prepared by Alf Dubs and Lord Ennals specifically states:
"returnees are in no danger when they are back in Vietnam; that they can choose where to live and that they receive assistance to resume their lives."
They expressed the view that more people in Hong Kong should be aware of that truth.
Mr. Howell: That is an important point.
I have heard some unkind people suggest that the Opposition's posture was opportunist. I do not think that it is; I certainly would not lay that charge upon them. However, given the complexity of, and the obvious dilemma in dealing with, the problem, it is regrettable that those on the Opposition Front Bench have not appreciated the value of seeking a bipartisan approach on such an immensely difficult issue. It is their right so to choose, but it is a great pity for the aims of the policy and for the reputation of this country.
I suppose that those who are totally disinterested must ask why, if people find this forced repatriation not only appalling—as we all do—but so appalling that the even greater risks of doing nothing should be run, there are no feelings about the forced repatriation of people from Hong Kong to China, which happens every day on as big a scale as anything that we are contemplating. I understand that, last year, about 30,000 people were forcibly repatriated from Hong Kong to China, with the agreement of the Chinese Government.
We can all make comments about the state of affairs in different countries, but I do not think that since the summer anyone has argued that China is a home of happiness and liberalism and that those people have been returned to a wonderful, open and welcoming country. Indeed, I dread to think of what has happened to some of them. While I do not wish to make any party points, it must be recognised that if one takes a certain stance on the question of forced repatriation, the same stance and the same standards must be applied to the other forced repatriations that have been taking place for many years.
I want to be brief, but I must say a word about the United States of America. I have always admired that country and, in many areas of human rights, it has been fine. However, in this matter I think that Washington's policy is pure humbug. The Select Committee report quoted the words of Sir David Wilson—who, as Governor of Hong Kong, is in an immensely difficult position that requires some understanding in the House. He said about the boat people:
"they are…not trying to go to Hong Kong but to go to places of resettlement. Above all, they are trying to go to

241
North America which has said that these people do not qualify for resettlement in the United States as ordinary refugees because they come from north Vietnam…Hong Kong is caught between this upper and nether millstone."
The former Foreign Secretary, in evidence to the Committee, expressed his bewilderment that the United States seemed
"to support the prospect of indefinite accumulation of people in places like Hong Kong and that is clearly not a tenable position."
The Committee unanimously concluded:
"We believe the American position fails totally to understand the seriousness of the problem or its damaging consequences both to the people of Hong Kong and the Vietnamese."
It is also damaging to the many other people involved. The United States policy-makers—those who are currently influential in Washington—just as they appear to be wrong about Europe, are wrong about Hong Kong and are probably wrong about their policy on China.
This is a situation in which there is no choice but to take an ugly and difficult decision to avert an even greater injustice and conflict. Those who cry halt now—those who say that there must be some other way, even though every conceivable way has been sought—would themselves, I fear, carry the responsibility for the even more catastrophic consequences of inaction.
We are asked by leaders and guides in the world and by others among the public to search our consciences. Those who argue that this action should not now be pursued need to search their consciences just as minutely and carefully.
Several Hon. Membersrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Many will be disappointed unless speeches are brief.
6 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: We on the Opposition Benches welcome this debate, which is taking place not before time. We have been calling for a debate on this urgent matter for many months—[Interruption] It has been a matter of Government responsibility. The Government have been dodging this issue on the Floor of the House, while at the same time secretly hatching their plan for forced deportation. I assure the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that that is not the best way to achieve a bipartisan approach on this issue.
The motion is a technical one on the Estimates. The Opposition view is represented by motion No. 46 in the notices of motions, which cannot be tabled because of a procedural technicality. But that motion effectively is what my hon. Friends and I support tonight.
I also assure the right hon. Member for Guildford that Opposition Members appreciate the problems of the Governments of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. The conditions in the camps are intolerable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I saw when we visited them in June. The outbreak of cholera, the rioting, the absence of education for the children and many other matters testify to the abject misery of life there.
242
We also recognise that if all that we do every time the boats arrive from Vietnam is to arrange the resettlement in the West of every person, the flow will continue unabated, and the situation will be increasingly difficult for Hong Kong and damaging for Vietnam. That is why we must tackle the root cause of the problem with a viable, long-term, stable but, above all, humane solution.
We disagree totally with forced deportation. Having said that time and again, our view should come as no surprise to Conservative Members. We have said it at Question Time and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and I have said it in statements. We oppose it because it is heartless and inhumane. I predicted that it would have to be done by a moonlight flit, and so it was —deliberately to escape the attention of the world's media.
Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the return of illegal immigrants from Hong Kong to China, a policy that has gone on for many years. How does the hon. Gentleman square his ridiculous attack on the British Government's Vietnamese policy with the fact that when Labour was in government between 1974 and 1979—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was a member of that Government—they returned from Hong Kong well over 100,000 illegal Chinese immigrants with very little screening? That shows the utter hypocrisy of Labour policy in this matter.
Mr. Foulkes: Chinese refugees are returned one by one at the border. We are here talking of people who have settled in camps and of families with children, some of whom were born in the camps. This is an entirely different issue.
Mr. Terry Dicks: That is typical of you lot—two-faced.
Mr. Foulkes: I will not take anything from that racist hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) must withdraw that remark.
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is well known for his statements to the media, although not for his statements in the House. I let them stand on their merit and I withdraw—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word that he used.
Mr. Foulkes: I have withdrawn it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's statement stands as testimony.
The Government have not explained why that moonlight flit was done at 3 o'clock in the morning, if not to try to dodge the attention of the media, or why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, nearly 200 riot police with riot helmets, shields and batons were needed—[Interruption] The facts appeared in every newspaper, including The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Financial Times. That was done to remove 51 people, 43 of them women and children. Why was violence needed? [Interruption] The Conservative lackeys of the Foreign Office might read what was said—[Interruption] If Conservative Members want to treat this issue seriously, they should stop barracking and listen carefully to what is

243
being said. They should also read The Daily Telegraph today—not a radical Left-wing newspaper—which reports that martial arts were applied in the deportations and that handcuffs were being used. It was described in an editorial in The Times as "a sordid action," and that is indeed what it was.
We have warned the Government repeatedly that there would be justifiable outrage when pictures of boat people being forcibly deported were seen on television sets in sitting rooms throughout the world.
Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Pope in Vatican City is responsible for Catholics in Britain and throughout the world. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said that the Pope should put his hands in his pockets and fork out money from the rich coffers of the Catholic Church to assist the boat people. Indeed, he suggested that the Pope could authorise the sale of two or three Vatican paintings to help the economy of Vietnam and thereby show what a good Catholic he was.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that reveals the hypocrisy of people such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington? After all, if the British Government had to take such steps to deal with the problems of the elderly, disabled and other needy folk in this country, it would be utter nonsense.
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps we expect the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) to insult the Pope. It was even more despicable that an anonymous Downing street source should have done so.
On a number of occasions—for example, at Foreign Office Question Time on 25 October, at Prime Minister's Question Time on 26 October and, as the Minister will confirm, when I met him on 7 September—my right hon. Friends and I urged the Government to abandon their plans for forcible repatriation. The Government have used the phrase "an orderly return programme" and recently a senior Hong Kong Government official told me that they would send home only those who acquiesced. That is euphemistic, semantic hypocrisy.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): I confirm that the hon. Gentleman urged us not to go ahead with this policy. I also confirm that he had no alternative.
Mr. Foulkes: That is not true, and I shall be dealing with that point.
The Opposition have a number of serious concerns, not least about the screening of asylum seekers, who are told too little about the procedures. No legal advice or assistance is given to them and there are only six United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees monitors for 600 daily interviews, so they can attend only a fraction of the interviews. The whole system is biased in favour of rejection. Immigration officers have power only to reject. Acceptance must be referred up. How, in any case, do they differentiate in this instance between political and economic refugees? I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of the criteria used and whether they are the same criteria as were used when welcoming people from East Germany.
On 12 December, the Foreign Secretary said that the British Refugee Council had approved the screening
244
procedures. I have read the report and spoken to the director of the British Refugee Council. He, like people from Amnesty International and other organisations, are critical of the screening procedures.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am anxious to establish whether the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about political refugees being turned back, particularly in boats. It takes us back some 40 years to another Labour Administration who turned away genuine Jewish political refugees who were trying to return to Palestine, sending them back to the Soviet Union and elsewhere in eastern Europe, almost certainly to their deaths. Is the hon. Gentleman part of that, or will he denounce it today?
Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman does not have his facts entirely right, but I am sure that in any event he would agree that two wrongs do not make a right. An action of which he is understandably and properly critical provides no justification for the subsequent action that we are discussing.
We are also concerned about the lack of effort, enthusiasm and commitment devoted to persuading refugees to return. That is because the Government decided on forced repatriation many months ago, and have maintained a blinkered attitude ever since. They tried to persuade other nations at Geneva in June, and failed; their heart has not been in the voluntary scheme, because they wanted it to fail so that they could return to Geneva in November and persuade other countries to accept compulsion, but they did not succeed then either. Contrary to what has been implied by some Conservative Members, no agreement on compulsory repatriation was made at Geneva: the British Government are alone in that regard.
Mr. Maude: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the international community is unanimous in its view that there is nowhere for these people to go other than back to Vietnam? Is he seriously suggesting that the Government deliberately chose their present policy when there was a better alternative?
Mr. Foulkes: Yes, and I am coming to that alternative.
Only a programme of assistance for Vietnam to help to improve the lives of people there will help to encourage them to stay, and encourage those who have already left to return. Those who return will go back to an increasingly more tolerable life, and will send messages to those who remain, thus reinforcing the trend towards voluntary return. [HON. MEMBERS:"It will take years "]
That is a counsel of despair. Our approach is advocated in a letter to The Times last Friday by Chris Bale, Oxfam's Hong Kong director; by Nicholas Hinton, director of the Save the Children Fund, in The Independent; and by Mary Purcell, War on Want's Asia programme officer, also in The Independent. Those three people are committed, long-term officers who, unlike some Conservative Members, know the circumstances of refugees in Hong Kong.
The same course was advocated in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1986, when the refugee problem was much less acute than it is now. If it had been adopted then, it would—as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) rightly said—have given a sense of

245
hope to the people in Vietnam, and prevented the outflows of the past two years. Our view is also supported in an editorial in The Times on 13 December, which stated that
"the economic misery is at the root of the exodus",
and by The Guardian, which said on 14 December that there was an urgent need to do something about the sorry state of Vietnam, which was not so much a tyranny as a devastated economy crying out for help.
If we in the United Kingdom can lead a shift of opinion to restore aid from the European Community and persuade the International Monetary Fund, the Asia Development bank and the World Bank to assist Vietnam again, hope—as the hon. Member for Broxtowe said—will begin to return.
Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very interesting, but as 30,000 to 40,000 people are leaving Vietnam for Hong Kong each year, the programme that he has outlined must be a long-term one, and may take two or three years to be effective. For how many years would he allow this rate of emigration to continue, and what would he do with those who are already in Hong Kong?
Mr. Foulkes: If we had accepted the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report in 1986, we would now be three years further forward. We have to start some time.
One issue on which I can agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford is the appalling hypocrisy of the United States. While rightly opposing forcible repatriation, the United States is unwilling to accept the corollary —the need to bring Vietnam back into the international community. It must cease its vendetta against Vietnam simply because it lost the Vietnam war: it must lift the trade and economic embargo. If the right hon. Member for Guildford thinks that the United States' attitude is humbug—I agree with him—why do not he and his Government lift their embargo? If they do not, they, too, can be accused of humbug.
Ms. Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend will have heard Conservative Members jeering about "taxpayers' money" when he suggested a programme of aid for Vietnam. Does he agree that a House of Commons that can vote £150 million to help victims of the Barlow Clowes affair should consider providing some sort of aid for the people of Vietnam?
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
The United States Government and the French Government have a special responsibility to help in the reconstruction of Vietnam. The West as a whole, led by the United States, has constantly given a clear signal to the people of Vietnam: "Escape from Vietnam, and you will be resettled quickly in the West." That signal has been given for many years now, since the end of the Vietnam war, and to change the light from green to red so suddenly is unfair and inhumane.
It is entirely incorrect to say, as Conservative Members have on previous occasions, that other countries have refused to take Vietnamese refugees. Between 1975 and 1988 the United States took more than 700,000, Canada 121,000, Australia 117,000 and the United Kingdom fewer than 18,000. It is wrong for us to criticise other countries for not taking their fair share.
Mr. George Walden: I am genuinely unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's answer to the point about returning refugees from Hong Kong to China. If he is to carry conviction inside and outside the House, it is essential for the hon. Gentleman to have a clear and consistent policy in relation to the two very similar cases. I still do not see how he can justify turning back refugees: I watched it happen in China when I worked there, and it is not a pretty sight. They do not want to go; they struggle, and women and children are pushed back over the bridge. What is the hon. Gentleman's solution? Will he suggest a programme of economic assistance for the 1 billion Chinese to salve our consciences?
Mr. Foulkes: Before Tiananmen square we were rightly trading and investing in China, but we are not trading and investing in Vietnam; that is one difference. The hon. Gentleman might also make a comparison with East Germany, and ask himself whether he is being consistent. There is, of course, a distinction between individual crossings and the position of families who have been living in the camps for some time, including children who were born there. Assistance for Vietnam is needed to develop schemes for irrigation, reafforestation, transport and agricultural production. Trade liberalisation will help to make life there more tolerable.
Our third anxiety concerns guarantees and the monitoring of returned refugees. I know that the right hon. Member for Guildford and his Committee are rightly concerned about that. We are informed that those who have returned voluntarily have not been ill-treated or persecuted and are beginning to re-integrate. They are sending positive messages back to Hong Kong and that is encouraging more people to volunteer. However, Mr. Thach, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, reiterated his Government's opposition to forced repatriation in an interview in The Sunday Correspondent last week.
There are no guarantees and as all the agencies that might monitor the return of refugees have refused to monitor the return of those who are forced back, there will be no independent monitoring. The Foreign Secretary said in a letter to hon. Members:
"Independent observers will monitor the treatment of those repatriated."
When the Minister replies to the debate, he must tell us who will be responsible for monitoring. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has refused, as has the Save the Children Fund. None of the other voluntary organisations will monitor forced repatriation. Surely the Minister will not suggest the embassy, which consists of only three men who are very good but are certainly not equipped for the job and are certainly not independent. They could not monitor the return of thousands of refugees. The Minister must tell us today who will carry out the monitoring.
The Government's programme is flawed. It is misdirected, heartless, likely to be ineffective and widely opposed. It is opposed by President Bush and the American Congress, Amnesty International and all the other voluntary organisations, the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. But we know that Conservative Members can dismiss the views of those eminent people.
Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has done his best to present to the House an alternative policy to that of the Government, and we

247
have listened very carefully. His entire policy appears to be centred round an aid package for Vietnam. If we are to take him seriously, he must tell us how much money the Opposition would spend on that policy if they were in government.
Mr. Foulkes: I do not have to tell the House immediately—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Of course I do not. I made the suggestion on 7 September and the Minister said that he was considering my suggestion. I did not suggest only an aid package. I suggested liberalising trade with Vietnam and aid packages from the IMF, the World bank and the Asian Development bank to Vietnam, to bring it back into the international community. Vietnam and Argentina were the only countries against which we operated trade embargoes; now we are liberalising and opening trade with Argentina and excluding Vietham.
Why are the Government pressing ahead despite all the opposition in Britain and throughout the world? It is for a very squalid reason. The Government and people of Hong Kong are pressing three issues. The Government know that they cannot give them what they want on the right of abode. They will not give them what they want and should have in terms of democracy, so they are sacrificing the boat people merely to satisfy one of those three demands. There is no other rational explanation.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) explain clearly in opening the debate that unless clear signals are given to people in Vietnam, another tide of boat people will arrive in Hong Kong in the very near future? In the light of those comments, will he withdraw the disgraceful allegations that he has just made?
Mr. Foulkes: They are certainly not disgraceful and I shall certainly not withdraw them. There is no evidence whatsoever that the despicable action already taken by the Government is having the desired effect. So it is proving to be ineffective as well as detestable.
I have given way many times and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall conclude my speech. I have outlined in detail our proposals for assistance to Vietnam, but I wish to outline a further dimension. On 13 September, the Financial Times stated:
"More forcible repatriation can be avoided, but only with international help. The consequences of not resolving this issue next month will be a shameful indictment which will not fall on Britain alone."
Best of all, the Daily Express, which I do not usually quote, stated:
"Mr. Hurd should announce an indefinite stay on the repatriation policy while Britain fights in every appropriate body to see that the international community comes up with a solution to what is an international problem."
How can the Government continue when the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and Lord Ennals are being sent by the Government on a mission to Vietnam in the new year to examine the situation? Is it not a slap in the face for them if forced repatriation continues? How can the Government continue when there are no guarantees on monitoring arrangements and in the face of widespread and mounting opposition?
There is an alternative, and that is to bring some hope to Vietnam and its people—to bring them back fully into the international community and to try repeatedly to
248
persuade and encourage more boat people to return to some long-term hope. They will return if they have better prospects for a more tolerable life.
Once again, I urge the Government to abandon their plan for further forced deportation. To continue that as the last vote in the House before we adjourn for Christmas would be an inhumane act of boundless folly and I urge the Government to think again.
6.26 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: We are dealing with what should be termed an immense human tragedy. It is not a question of right against wrong; it is what all tragedies usually are—a conflict of right against right. I do not altogether dissent from the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) when he quoted from the Financial Times and the Daily Express, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that the polemical partisan terms that he used were below the level of events.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: What about Albania?
Mr. Amery: What an absurd intervention. I read in the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman was suffering from 'flu. I am sorry that it has had such an effect on his cerebral capacity.
Mr. Kaufman: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was delineating various suggestions as absurd —[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman is a very long-serving Member of the House and early in his political career he will remember recommending the bombing of Albania. That struck me as rather an absurd suggestion.
Mr. Amery: Obviously the 'flu has done its work. I never recommended the bombing of Albania. I have recommended the bombing of other places, including Nazi Germany, but not Albania. Of course the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong.
All I was saying was that the polemical speech by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is below the level of the serious debate which we should be conducting on such an immense human problem.
First, we should be quite clear that Britain is involved with Vietnam only marginally by historical association. Hong Kong has come into the picture only because we have agreed that it should be a staging post for refugees. So far, it has carried out that role, but there is no question of Hong Kong being asked to bear any burden. If there is a burden, it should be borne by ourselves as the governing power, and by the international community. Obviously, we do not want to put any burden on Hong Kong as a result of this, and if extra personnel were needed, it would be up to us to recruit them.
I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will forgive me if I say that to bring Vietnam into the international community is no certain solution. It is all very fine to talk about reforestation, but we are talking about the problems of today and tomorrow. Hope might be given over a decade. Marshall aid took a long time to take effect so the idea that we can cope with the problem of the boat people now through the International Monetary Fund, the World bank or any other organisation is moonshine.
Mr. Foulkes: I also mentioned, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall, irrigation and other more short-term proposals. However, even the long-term proposals are meant not merely to provide immediate solutions, but to give some hope that there is a bright future for people in Vietnam. Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is one essential element.
Mr. Amery: I was involved in the old Commonwealth development irrigation schemes, and they took years. Dams have to be built and many types of equipment have to be provided. Such schemes will not solve the problem of people who are escaping, some from persecution and some from hunger.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was a little nearer the truth when he talked about economic migrants, although the line between political and economic migrants, is difficult to judge. Were the 5 million Afghan refugees all political migrants? Nobody suggests that they should be sent back. Did the Palestinian refugees escape purely for political reasons? The Ethiopian refugees are escaping from hunger. Is that economic or political? This is a complicated and difficult subject, which should not be dealt with as the hon. Gentleman did by talking about long-term developments.
Dr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Amery: I shall develop the argument a little. The suggestions of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley might ignite hope, but are the people in north and south Vietnam really scanning newspapers and listening to the radio to see whether there will be a loan? I do not think so.
The coming of the next boat season, to which the Government have drawn attention, is also a problem. The Government have made out a cast-iron, logical case, which I find it difficult, in logical terms, to combat. And yet I cannot bring myself to accept the idea of the forcible repatriation of thousands of people from a British colony. I am not much influenced by international opinion or much afraid of facing up to harsh decisions, yet I find it unacceptable and even obscene to repeat what happened with the repatriation of the Cossacks, or with the Jewish refugees after the war when we blew up ships that tried to take them back to the mandate territory of Palestine. My hon. Friend the Minister would not put it in those terms, but he would think, "OK chum, what do you want to do?"
I have to answer the question of what we should do. I would not like to take the responsibility—nor would I like my hon. friend the Minister to take the responsibility—for denying sanctuary to people who have spent money and run considerable risks to escape from the prison house so that they would then be sent back to it. Vietnam is still a prison house and we make no bones about what we think of it, as we have gone so far as to support an alliance that included the Khmer Rouge because we dislike the Vietnamese Goverment so much.
What can we do? It is not given even to the wisest of us to read the future with any real clarity. The movement of history is sometimes slow and sometimes rapid. We have seen the whole of eastern Europe change overnight, like an avalanche or landslide. It might be wise to postpone the repatriation and to go to the refugee conference, where we could say, "All right, you won't take them, although it is
250
your duty, but at least cough up some money to make the camps tolerable for the present refugees and, if there is another boating season, for the next lot. Pay up."
The space in Hong Kong is limited, but the New Territories are quite extensive, as my hon. Friend the Minister and I, who have been there, both know. We need not take a decision yet. Many problems in life cannot be solved at a given time. Time may work for us and the position in Vietnam may improve, although some of the developments about which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley spoke will not happen quickly. We do not know whether the fear of what will happen in 1997 will inculcate a greater readiness for repatriation. I do not know, but we should avoid taking decisions now and putting ourselves in the position of denying sanctuary. The answer is to call the conference quickly and to say to the international community, "It is your job to pay. We shall maintain the camps for a year or two longer. If you do not accept that responsibility, on your own head be it."
6.36 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with a great deal of interest and care to the impressive speech by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), which will bear careful study. I hope that the Government listened to his remarks as he made an important contribution.
There are some things that it is in a Government's power to do, but which they should decide not to do, not on the grounds of practicality or because there are no alternatives, but simply because such actions are wrong. Although I recognise some of the difficulties of the matter, the Goverment's actions a week ago last Monday were wrong. They were wrong by almost any standard by which one cares to judge them. Even if the policy of mandatory repatriation was right, it was wrong to go about it in that manner. The Government were wrong whatever the sinuous convolutions of facts and truth in which the Minister will, no doubt, get involved later. Even if the policy of mandatory repatriation is ultimately judged to be correct, it is still wrong deliberately to choose women and children to put at the front line of such a contentious policy simply because they will put up less of a struggle.
Whatever the situation and whatever conclusions we reach on this difficult subject, it is still wrong to put in place a screening mechanism that takes administrative decisions that condemn people to return to the tryanny from which they fled in fear of their lives. It is also wrong to put in place appeal tribunals that judge whether or not such administrative decisions are correct and at which the people who are so condemned are forbidden to be present, to have legal representation, to know the reasons why the decisions have been taken against them or to have access to judicial review. As I understand it, this is the first occasion in the history of British justice on which such a judicial review has been denied.
Whatever conclusions are reached about the rightness or otherwise of a policy of mandatory repatriation in difficult circumstances, it is still wrong for a Government to use the techniques of the 3 o'clock knock, to send in riot troops who outnumber those women and children by four to one and to cart those people off to detention against their will.
Last Monday morning I felt the same sense of revulsion at the Government's action and at the way in which they

251
have carried out their policy that was felt across the nation. That action has rightly caused international condemnation, opprobrium and obloquy to be heaped upon the Government. That action was wrong, and it shamed the Government, the Prime Minister and, ultimately, the nation.
Even if hon. Members do not accept my case that that action was, by any judgment, wrong, I ask them to reflect on what an appalling example we have set for the Chinese Government, who are to take over the care and safe keeping of our subjects after 1997. What if, after 1997, the Chinese state troopers turn up at 3 o'clock in the morning to carry off a British subject against his will and hand him over to a Communist state? How can we complain, since we shall have done it first?
Mr. Walden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my point.
What if the case of that British subject is put before an appeal tribunal and he is condemned to detention in a Communist state, and what if that British subject is not entitled to be present, to have legal representation or to know why the decision has gone against him? What if he is not entitled to judicial review? How then will we complain, since we shall have taken such action first?
Mr. Tony Marlow: What difference would our complaint make?
Mr. Ashdown: It seems that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. I shall give way to him in a moment, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
I ask the House to understand that we shall leave behind little enough as it is to protect freedom in Hong Kong. After 1997, probably the only thing that will stand between our subjects and the tyranny that slaughtered its own citizens in Tiananmen square is our system of legal justice, and how terribly we damaged that system last Monday night. What a dreadful legacy we have left to be picked up after 1997. Those who come to abuse their powers—we know that they have the ability and the stomach to do so—will say, "But this was the example that British justice set us." What an appalling example to have set.
Mr. Walden: The right hon. Gentleman has a tendency to talk in moral absolutes, and he must expect to be asked to live up to those absolutes. He has just stressed the iniquities of the mainland Chinese regime. I repeat the question that I put to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We are returning refugees to a Chinese mainland, run by an iniquitous regime. How does the right hon. Gentleman square his repeated concern for the stability of Hong Kong with a moral argument that could lead only to the non-return of Chinese refugees to Hong Kong and the collapse of Hong Kong in very short order as a result?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the central issue to which we who object must address ourselves. I ask him to remember that I have so far concentrated not on the policy—with which I shall now deal—but on the way in which it was implemented. The
252
hon. Gentleman has asked an important question and I shall seek to answer it. If I do not, I shall be happy to accept another intervention from him.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I realise that this is an extremely difficult problem to tackle. I accept that it is no good Opposition Members simply standing on the high peak of their self-righteousness, and mouthing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I assure hon. Members that I shall be dealing with the policy itself. It is no good our merely mouthing our outrage. The central question must be whether the Government had an alternative, and I believe that there was, indeed, an alternative, and that it was an effective alternative. It was the international programme for the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees.
The difference between the Chinese refugee who comes over the border and the Vietnamese refugee who arrives in Hong Kong is that, in 1979, we explicitly encouraged refugees to leave Vietnam and we put in place an international resettlement programme aimed at resettling every single one of them—something that we have never done with the illegal immigrants from China. Those Vietnamese who are now flooding into Hong Kong have not understood—rightly or wrongly—that the policy has changed.
The Government must realise that there is no point in their saying that there is no alternative when it was the Government who were, in chief measure, instrumental in destroying that alternative.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, as I wish to develop my argument.
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Lady will forgive me—
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the south Vietnamese.
Mr. Ashdown: Oh, I see. The hon. Lady thinks that there is a difference between the south Vietnamese and the north Vietnamese. I am sorry, but I do not recognise that there is a difference. The country is a singular and unitary country. They are all refugees who seek our protection.
As I have said before, in 1985 I may well have been one of the first hon. Members to visit a Vietnamese refugee camp. I told the Government in an Adjournment debate then that unless they fulfilled their obligation under the international resettlement programme, the programme would collapse. The right hon. Member for Guildford criticised the Americans tonight. I ask him to remember that when the programme was in operation to Americans took 25 times as many Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong as this Government did. They took 49 per cent. of those people, who were our responsibility, whereas the United Kingdom Government took 2.4 per cent. We took fewer than any other participating nation. Even Sweden took twice as many as we did.
It is all very well the Government saying that we had no alternative, but they were the instrument to destroy that alternative. I warned in 1985 that if the Government persisted in failing to carry out their obligations to the

253
international programme, that programme would collapse, and so it has. In 1980, no fewer than 37,000 people were taken under that programme whereas this year only 6,000 have gone. Since 1980, Britain's contribution has dropped from 6,077 to 101. If the Government had played their part in that international resettlement programme, we would now have in place a system that might begin to tackle the problem—
Mr. Devlin rose—
Mr. Ian Taylor rose—
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Ashdown: Let me make this point before I give way to allow an intervention or two. It is quite simple. I can understand the reluctance of the international community towards bailing us out at this point when we have so signally failed fully to carry out our responsibilities under the programme previously.
Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. He seems to be living in a different world from the real one. The whole world community has changed the rules on the treatment of refugees since 1979. All refugees who arrived in Hong Kong prior to last June when the screening process, started have been confirmed by the Government as being treated as political refugees, so they will be resettled internationally. Therefore, they will be treated as was previously intended. There was then a public announcement that there would be a screening process, and that screening process is acceptable internationally as the only way to deal with the problem.
Mr. Ashdown: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman has brought me to my next point. The international agreement is now that the screening process should be in place—I accept that—but it also states that we should be giving the maximum input. Last year's agreement, reached at the June 1989 international conference, stated that the first option for a Government is to apply voluntary repatriation and that only after that had been in place and only after the "passage of reasonable time" should alternative measures be put in place, and then only after a proper programme had been established to encourage that process.
I do not believe that either of those two conditions has been fulfilled, and UNHCR takes the same view. A programme of voluntary repatriation that has been running for only six months cannot conceivably be said to have allowed a reasonable intervening passage of time, and nor has there been the education programme for voluntary repatriation to which the June 1989 conference agreed.
However, despite that, it can be argued that voluntary repatriation is achieving much more than most people had predicted, and I admit to the House bluntly that it is achieving more than I had thought it would achieve. Applications are now running at 150 per week. As I understand it, 637 people—let us recognise that that is 10 times as many as the Government have repatriated—have returned to Vietnam voluntarily and another 1,500—
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that I have given way a fair amount. I am trying not to take up too much of the time of the House so that other hon. Members, perhaps even the hon. Lady, can make their own speeches.
About 1,500 people have now registered in that process but—and this is the point to remember—there has already been a significant fall-off in applications for the voluntary repatriation programme since the forced repatriations began. The Government do not have the right to follow through enforced repatriations until, in accordance with the agreement that they made in June this year, they give the voluntary repatriation process some time to develop. That is why UNHCR, Amnesty International and other respected organisations working in this area have refused to agree with the Government's action. They believe that the voluntary repatriation programme can be given a boost and be allowed to expand.
I want to make several points about the need to reform the screening process because, as other hon. Members have said, it is a disgrace. I have with me a letter from a firm of solicitors, Boase and Cohen, which is representing some of the boat people. Perhaps it would be instructive for the House if I read a small passage of it for the record, because the Government must address the points that are made in it. That firm of solicitors writes about its clients:
"What we have found is that we are obtaining great difficulties to get access to the camps even to advise our clients as to how they should deal with the questions at the initial review. Indeed, the Immigration Department do not even advise us as to whether our clients have been interviewed or when they are likely to be next interviewed. They also prevent us from attending at the interviews and making representations. Although the UNHCR may be able to monitor the interviews, my firm or any of my representatives are not allowed to be present. It is my experience from seeing the results of the initial interviews that the Immigration Officers dismiss out of hand pleas by my clients that they have been subjected to persecution. Indeed, at one interview, my clients had documentation to show that they had been placed in a Re-education camp but this was dismissed as being untrue."
I do not believe, UNHCR does not believe, and Amnesty International does not believe that the mechanisms by which we have been screening these people for a decision that will return them to the tyranny from which many of them have fled in fear of their lives is adequate. We believe that the wrong decisions are being taken and that many people are being returned who should not be returned and who will be subject to persecution on return.
Mr. Graham rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this must be the last time.
Mr. Graham: Did the right hon. Gentleman see on British television the other night a British television crew wanting to interview some boat people in a camp, but being prevented from speaking to those folk by the guards? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that a country that says that it has a democratically elected Government does not allow ordinary men and women who are suffering the right to speak to British television companies?
Mr. Ashdown: We need no clearer example of the Government's shameful policy than that it had to be carried out in the dead of night and under the blanket of secrecy, so ashamed were they of what they did. The House

255
continues—[Interruption] Well, it cannot be in the Government's interests to lay down a system in Hong Kong that allows the Government of the day and the state troopers of the day to operate in such a manner. We can defend the rights of people in Hong Kong only if we are prepared to give the example of an open and free democracy, not the example of actions that are more in keeping with those of an east European state a year ago.
I have five brief points about what I believe should be done. I hope that the Government will consider them. First, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was right when he said that one of the long-term issues that must now be addressed is aid to Vietnam. It is illogical to allow the embargo on aid to Vietnam to continue and it is idiotic that the United States should seek to preserve it. If the Government must act unilaterally to lift that embargo and provide aid, they should do so.
Secondly, it is important that we fulfil the agreement that we made in June 1989 to give time to allow the voluntary repatriation programme to work and that we resource it effectively.
Thirdly, it is important that we return to the forthcoming January conference because perhaps one of the few positive results of this painful and tragic episode is that the international community is now alerted to the problem. The right hon. Member for Guildford is correct that the Americans' condemnation of our action gives us a unique leverage so that we can turn round and say to them arid others, "Right, you must put your actions where your words have been and put into place an international resettlement programme." However, the Government must play a part in such a programme, and not leave others to carry the major burden.
Fourthly, as is now suggested by some at UNHCR in Hong Kong, it is important that we now consider the possibilities of converting Tai Au Chau, which is an uninhabited island in Hong Kong, into either a permanent or temporary resting place for the Vietnamese boat people for the period until the problem can be solved. The Minister is shaking his head. If he wishes to intervene, I shall of course give way to him, but I should like to make one point before he does. We know from Hong Kong—I am sure that the Minister knows also—that there is a shortage of labour there at present. There is also a massive shortage of labour in Singapore, which is seeking to buy in labourers from Hong Kong. I do not believe that this proposal is impossible and to those Conservative Members who believe that it is impossible, let me just say that the opinion of many at UNHCR is that something can be done along those lines.
Fifthly and lastly—
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a three-hour debate and this rubbish has been going on for 22 minutes. Could you bring it to an end?
Mr. Ashdown: I shall ignore that comment since much of my time has been taken up answering interventions from Conservative Members. If I had not done that, my speech would have been significantly shorter.
I hope that my fifth point will answer the right hon. Member for Guildford. There is a case for saying that we must do something that will stop the post-monsoon influx of arrivals in Hong Kong. Sending back 50, 150 or 250 people will not do that. We should use the intervening three or four months to put in place an effective, efficient
256
and fast screening mechanism which would prevent people from being put in camps for several months and would effectively allow a decision to be taken on their future on the spot. In other words, we should treat them on exactly the same basis as we treat the Chinese illegal immigrants.
If in the next three months that screening process were properly resourced with an appeals mechanism that respected civil liberties, and if the Vietnamese Government were asked properly to propagandise that fact, we would be able to tackle the problem in a way that did not bring shame and condemnation on the Government or set such an appalling example for the Chinese Government who are to follow us in 1997. The alternative, as I have outlined it, would tackle the problem at its roots in the long term and in the short term without shaming Britain's reputation and infringing the civil liberties of a few helpless people whose only sin has been to seek freedom under our protection.
7.1 pm
Mrs. Maureen Hicks: In the past week, Hong Kong has moved centre stage and the eyes of the critical world are focused on the policies to be adopted by the British Government on two major immigration issues: will we repatriate further Vietnamese boat people, and how many insurance policies are we prepared to give to Hong Kong residents in the run-up to 1997 to stem the brain drain?
Given the little time that we have, to deal with the second issue would be wrong. Suffice it to say that major concessions to Hong Kong residents could seriously misfire and it would be the likes of my constituents who would yet again bear the brunt of our well-intentioned decision.
The extent of the humbug and hypocrisy that I have heard in recent weeks has made my blood boil and has prompted me to speak out tonight. It started particularly for me when I watched the events of Camp David, when Mr. Bush lectured my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That was followed by one international attack after another, culminating in the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury joining in. What they all have in common is that they have no solution, no offer of help, and, like those Opposition Members we have heard tonight, no policy.
I had hoped to hear constructive solutions tonight, but I have heard only a lot of idealistic fantasy. I have heard no way of solving the prolonged crisis that mounts by the day in Hong Kong while Opposition Members procrastinate. There are 56,000 Vietnamese boat people living in artificial homes. Some have been there for years on end, jammed into crowded and often insanitary detention centres. In two months, they face the prospect of being joined by a further 1,000 a week. The problem has grown out of all proportion and has been too long ignored. Hong Kong just cannot cope.
Those of us who have been to Hong Kong will have seen the living conditions there. There are 13,000 people to every square mile. For how long do we let people go on living in misery in the hope of getting out of the camps? For how long do we tempt further Vietnamese to come in search of the brave new western world? Is that what our critics call compassion?
I shall stick my neck out and congratulate the Government on taking control of an intolerable situation. That is a reflection of the strong leadership for which the

257
Government are respected and renowned. The British people will stand behind us. To run away from the mounting crisis, as the Opposition parties would have us do, and be ruled by sentiment and emotions that we have heard tonight, would be irresponsible. Tempting as that might be, our hearts cannot rule our heads.
Mr. Jim Lester: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Hicks: I will keep going, because of the shortage of time.
Constituents in inner cities such as Wolverhampton, which I represent, have long lived with the repercussions of an open-door immigration policy, advocated by many Opposition Members. The residents in the leafy glades of Yeovil have not. Too often I have listened to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who would not listen to me tonight, pontificating on the need for the Government to be generous, and I listened to him tonight savagely attacking the Government's actions. But for how much of his time has he had to live with the tensions of inner-city life? Has he ever had to watch immigrants arrive in a community, often small and overcrowded, and endeavour to integrate, competing for jobs, housing and schools with locals who were born and bred in the area? It is all too easy to preach as long as the problem is not in one's own backyard.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Hicks: The Labour party has no policy, but it will be quick to label me racist. But I am dealing with the realities of 57,000 people. I am not a racist; I am a realist. I have to consider the effect of any more immigrants on people of all colours and creeds whom I represent. Opposition Members say, "Let's be nice to everyone. Let them all in and to hell with the consequences." But they will blame the Government for the consequences. Opposition Members parade the plight of the homeless in one breath, then say hello to everybody in the next.
Little England is creaking at the seams, and we have our own problem of overpopulation.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Hicks: Time prevents me from giving way.
We have 232 people per square mile. But in the past week we have heard vociferous criticism from Canada and Australia. Canada has about 2.5 people per square mile and Australia has only 20 people per square mile. America, the most vociferous critic, and a country that I usually love and respect, has 25 people per square mile. Yet those countries lecture us. They preach one thing and practise another.
We have been condemned for returning 51 people, while Mr. Bush contemplates returning 42,000 Chinese students. What future can they expect after Tiananmen square? What about the forcible repatriation of immigrants from Haiti and Mexico? They are regularly returned. America, with its experience, should be able to give us help. As we have heard tonight, 50 people are daily turned back from Hong Kong at the Chinese border, and they have no right of appeal. Others seem to be able to do
258
what they like with their illegal immigrants, but if we follow suit we are labelled heartless and there is an enormous outcry.
The Government, having taken a sad but honest decision, must guarantee that the Vietnamese boat people will be treated with dignity, and that physical force is never used against them. Boat people facing the prospect of repatriation must have their fears addressed and be reassured that their return to Vietnam will be peaceful and scrupulously monitored. Two embassy staff and three parliamentarians may be sufficient for the task of monitoring 51 refugees, but in the case of greater numbers, other agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees must take responsibility in a concerted international effort to help the refugees re-adapt to Vietnamese life—living, as they will, in the knowledge that their dreams of life in the West have been dashed. Others in Vietnam must learn from their harsh experience and realise that it is not worth leaving home, because they will be returned.
The one plea that I make to my hon. Friend the Minister concerns orphan children held in the camps. There are conflicting figures, but I understand that as many as one third of them can be positively identified as orphans. To subject them to further insecurity by returning them to Vietnam now, while they are still young, would be tragic. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make every effort, in conjunction with every possible agency, to arrange for the adoption of those orphans by Vietnamese families already settled in the West.
We have enough experience to know that to continue talking around the problem, to live in hope of other countries offering help, or to hold the unrealistic belief that voluntary repatriation will ever solve the problem is misguided. I ask the right hon. Member for Yeovil how long it will take voluntarily to repatriate 57,000 people. That is the size of the problem. While 600 refugees were voluntarily repatriated over the past three months, over the same period, another 3,000 boat people arrived in Hong Kong. The vicious circle continues.
To avoid taking an unpopular decision now is just to avoid the inevitable. It would nurture false hopes in the Hong Kong camps and in Vietnam, and would simply put off the problem until another fearful day. The Government will be respected for taking the decision that they have. They had no alternative but to take action now, and I support their resilience in ignoring the wrath of hypocrites.
7.12 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee, were couched in proper terms. He presented fairly not only the report but the different shades and nuances of opinion expressed by its members. He was right to say that, however the Government's decision may be judged, it was an agonising decision—and one that no Government, of whatever party, could take except after the deepest reflection and considerable anguish of thought.
I share the repugnance of all those, including the majority of right hon. and hon. Members, who blench at the very thought, let alone the sight, of men, women and children being bundled on to ships or into planes en route for compulsory repatriation in Vietnam. Not one person of any decency of feeling does not share that repugnance.

259
Therefore, if voluntary repatriation could work, it is infinitely to be preferred, because it avoids a horrible dilemma and the decision that would otherwise have to be taken.
Hon. Members have mentioned international action to relieve Hong Kong of the burden of the 57,000 Vietnamese refugees. That is a wonderful prospect, but the plain fact is that no international solution exists. There is a distinction between present circumstances and those of a decade ago which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) keeps describing. Under the 1979 convention, there was an international commitment to accept from South Vietnam people who were overwhelmingly political refugees, who had backed the Americans, and who were deeply implicated in years of horrible war. That is how the 1979 commitment arose and why it was honoured by the international community.
The current position is very different, as anyone who reads the Committee's report will learn. Today's refugees are not fleeing from the taint of American collaboration in South Vietnam. Rather, they are peasants, farmers and fishermen fleeing from North Vietnam, where there is no serious evidence of their political disagreement with the rulers of that country. It is a different sort of exodus.
The root of today's problem is entirely different. Whereas those who fled from South Vietnam risked all the savagery of attacks by pirates and others off the Malaysian and Thai coasts, the refugees leaving North Vietnam put into the Chinese coast two or three times in order to revictual, so that they could be assured of reaching sanctuary in Hong Kong. If we do not begin to recognise that central difference, we shall not begin to get the argument right.
Of course we want to reach a solution other than compulsory repatriation, but time is running out very fast. We have between six and eight weeks to mobilise international opinion—if it can be mobilised after the tremendous upheaval in world opinion and disturbance that greeted Britain's initial actions. If the Americans really felt the same outrage about North Vietnamese peasants that they felt about South Vietnamese collaborators, they would be as generous now as they were when they absorbed 700,000 South Vietnamese into their country a few years ago. The same applies to the rest of the international community. It has the chance to act now.
The Government have imposed a moratorium on movement, and it should be allowed to remain in force for up to six weeks. I say that because, in six to eight weeks, the next movement of boat people will begin. That movement is seasonal and depends on the winds and the weather. The North Vietnamese will start flowing out of their country again at the rate, some suggest, of 1,000 per week. The figure could be much higher. Their hope will be that, however temporarily inconvenienced they might be on their arrival in Hong Kong, the glittering promise of life in rich America, Canada or elsewhere, will stretch before them. There will be no cessation of the outflow, and that is why there must be no more than a few weeks' respite from making what will be a most painful and difficult decision.
There are 57,000 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, whose own population is around 5.5 million to 6 million. If one expresses those refugees as a percentage of the British population, they are equivalent to 570,000 people arriving at the south coast of Britain in a single year, mainly because they were looking for a better form of life.
260
How would we react to such a development? How would we face the prospect of those 570,000 people being followed by another 400,000 to 500,000 the year after? We must face the realities of sentiment in Hong Kong.
No one, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, has suggested that it will be possible for Hong Kong to absorb another huge exodus of people from Vietnam.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? He has misrepresented my comments.
Mr. Shore: I did not mean to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Ashdown: Unlike the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I made it clear that I should like refugees to be effectively screened and dealt with on the same basis as the unofficial illegal refugees from China, beginning with the next post-monsoon influx.
Mr. Shore: I am talking about how we could cope with another massive exodus. The right hon. Member for Yeovil suggested that an island might be used, but I doubt very much whether the physical space and facilities would be available for another such mass exodus. Even Mr. Hugo Young, whose conscience is as tender as that of any hon. Member, when writing in The Guardian about a week ago, had to try to draw a line between those who are already there and those who are yet to come. However much he accepted the case of those who were already there, he could not say, in all honesty, that one could do other than close the door to those who have yet to come.
Mr. Ashdown: That is precisely the line that I have just drawn.
Mr. Shore: But it is not a satisfactory line to draw, because the essence of the matter is that we have a deep moral obligation to give refuge to political refugees. Our duty lies with those who have a real apprehension of persecution and worse if they are sent back. The right hon. Member for Yeovil suggests that we should not even allow the next wave of people to be screened to discover who are genuine refugees, who are afraid of political persecution, and the rest who are looking for—
Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It cannot be in order for a right hon. Gentleman so wholly and disgracefully to misrepresent the speech that I gave—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is a matter for debate.
Mr. Shore: I should not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has done so twice.
Mr. Shore: If I have, I apologise, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity to set the record straight.
If there is not the space and facilities to accommodate the next 40,000 people from Vietnam, how can they be screened so that we can find out wo are genuine refugees and who are economic migrants? That is the essential physical problem. The right hon. Member for Yeovil should have to create space now to carry on the proper

261
screening process which he said he wants in the years to come. If I am still misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise, but I hope that I have made my point clear to him.
It is essential that we carry the distinction in our minds between political refugees and economic migrants. It is one thing to be sent back to a totalitarian regime to face prison, torture—as is often the case—appalling ill treatment, cruelty and persecution, but it is very different, although not necessarily very pleasant, to be sent back to conditions of economic hardship and squalor. If we cannot make that distinction, we shall not begin to get the issue right.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is he aware that three years ago the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I was a member with the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), recommended that when Vietnam withdraws from Cambodia the Government should contemplate some form of economic assistance? As that withdrawal is almost complete, and in view of the moral obligation of the United States to the economy of a country whose Government are evolving in a direction that we all understand, is there not an obligation on the United States and Britain to meet the Government of Vietnam to see whether those economic conditions can be ameliorated to get to the root of the problem?
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. I see no reason why there should be any serious contention between hon. Members, particularly now that the great political problem of Vietnam invading and holding Kampuchea has been resolved, on resuming substantial aid to the war-shattered Vietnamese economy. It needs help, and we should now be prepared to give it. We and the Americans should have started that process some years ago.
Of course I understand the need for the most rigorous examination of the credentials of those who apply for refugee status. If we are not examining them properly and adequately under the supervision of the United Nations, we must put that right until we get general agreement that our method of sorting the two categories is as fair as possible.
We should be as generous as we can, and immediately, in giving cash aid not only directly to the economic migrants who are returning, but to the Vietnamese authorities who will cater for them and offer them accommodation and employment.
We should ensure that the mission of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ennals and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is carried out seriously and not just cosmetically, and that they have sufficient support staff in Vietnam to do a thorough job.
7.25 pm
Sir Philip Goodhart: As usual, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a courageous, sensible and eloquent speech.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was also courageous and clear and has been consistent over the past few months on the issue, but the sad fact that we must face is that, if there were free movement for the people of
262
Vietnam, the number who would like to come to Britain over the next 12 months would perhaps be 10 times the size of the population of Yeovil.
The root of the Government's problem is that every sensible inhabitant of Vietnam would like to leave and move to the West. That is not necessarily an absurd idea, because over the past 15 years more than I million Vietnamese have moved to the West, mostly to the United States. Last year, incredible though it may seem, the money sent back by Vietnamese in the United States to Vietnam exceeded the hard currency earnings of its entire manufacturing industry.
Some boat people have taken to the boats because of a fear of political persecution, and some have done so because of the actuality of grinding poverty. There are some signs that that poverty may be easing.
This summer, thanks to the Foreign Office, I met the Foreign Minister of Vietnam in London. He is a veteran Communist who, I am told, organised the great Tet offensive in 1968. When I met him it sounded as though he was seeking to be chairman of our Back-Bench finance committee. He told me that the economic problems of Vietnam had largely been caused by centralised planning, and that it would be able to cure its raging inflation with market forces. There are some signs that what he said is coming to pass, because visitors to Saigon and Hanoi speak of a renewed commercial vigour in Vietnam. There is also some hope that poverty will be relieved because of the run down of the vast Vietnamese military machine.
It is absurd that, 15 years after the departure of the Americans and 10 years after the Vietnamese army defeated the Chinese in a sharp, brisk, border war, Vietnam should still have the fifth largest army in the world, which absorbs about 20 per cent. of the GNP of that desperately poor country. Over the past 40 years, the Vietnamese army has defeated the French, partially defeated the Americans, conquered the south and seen off the massive Chinese army but, sadly, its greatest victory has been over the economy of its own country. The size of the military establishment has shattered the Vietnamese economy. It is absurd to talk of aid as the solution to the problem when 20 per cent. of the Vietnamese GNP goes on entirely unnecessary military expenditure.
What can we do in the short term? Clearly, it will take a long time to relieve the poverty. First, we should look at the interrogation system in force in the camps. When I was in Hong Kong in April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative was unhappy about the screening process. Amnesty International and less liberal lawyers are unhappy about it. It is up to us and the British Government to ensure that the screening process is seen to be fair and thorough.
Secondly, we should accept greater responsibility for the camps in Hong Kong. The living conditions in some of them are disgraceful. We cannot ask the people of Hong Kong to contribute more. Admittedly, we have made millions of pounds available, but we should accept responsibility for the administration of the camps together with the Hong Kong Administration and assistance for the boat people in Hong Kong should have higher priority in the ODA budget.
Thirdly, we should take up the offer made by the Philippine Government at the boat people's conference at Geneva in June, when they offered to take political refugees into a transit camp in a town near Manila until they could be found homes. We should have grasped that

263
opportunity, which would have relieved the pressure on Hong Kong. Sadly, little seems to have happened. When I checked with the Philippine embassy a few days ago, we seemed to be no further forward.
Fourthly, together with the United States of America we should seek havens for the boat people outside the western welfare system. We should consider Mexico. Much has been said about the Americans returning immigrants froom Mexico, and they have returned a few, but one must he drunk, drugged to the eyeballs or crippled to be caught by the American immigration forces. Millions of legal and illegal immigrants have flooded across from Mexico into the United States. At the same time, the Mexicans owe a vast debt to the United States and recycling it is a constant problem. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to arrange with the Mexican Government for a few thousands or even tens of thousands of the boat people to be resettled in the southern part of Mexico. That is in the long term.
What about tonight? I am in some difficulties. I appreciate the Government's problems, but in the 1960s I went frequently to Vietnam. I had many Vietnamese friends in the army and the Administration who are now either scattered or dead. I cannot with a good conscience support a policy of repatriation of their friends and families, so I fear that I cannot support the Government. I hope that we can find an alternative, on which we can look back with a little less shame than our present policy.
7.35 pm
Mr. David Young: Part of the difficulty over the boat people has arisen because we in the West have dealt with Vietnam as an economic leper over the years, denying it both aid and trade. The problem has been compounded because until comparatively recently all those who came were accepted as refugees. In Hong Kong we have built up a large camp society. Tonight I shall consider how that problem has been dealt with and, most of all, condemn the means of forcible repatriation which, to say the least, is unBritish. I doubt if anybody would have accepted that solution if the people being deported were white, not coloured. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is disgraceful."] Deportation in this means is disgraceful.
We saw on our television screens how 51 people were deported. They were taken from their former camps and isolated in a group. The group was made up of 17 women, 26 children and eight men. They were awoken at dead of night by a thump on the door. Gazing out of the windows they saw the lights reflected off the riot squad helmets and equipment. Would hon. Members not have been intimidated? If that was not repatriation by force, it was repatriation by intimidation. Some 200 police stood outside waiting for them.
I know that the Secretary of State is an honourable man. The Government are all honourable men and women. What instructions were given to the police? I assume that they were not there to convey the seasonal greetings of the Foreign Office. What instructions were given if there was resistance? Is there any truth in the allegation that karate was used to persuade people to get on the aircraft? If it was an honourable exercise, why was it done in such a clandestine way, at dead of night, with little attempt to bring in official observers or the media? Something here does not bear the scrutiny of day, like
264
most clandestine operations, and, in a free and democratic society, we require an explanation of that from the Minister.
The Government's argument is that those people are economic refugees, and therefore we must vet them. What form does the vetting take? It has been condemned by Amnesty International, and although the United Nations Organisation may have been asked for advice, it was not consulted, and has not given its stamp of approval to the methods that are being used.
During the first screening, there is no access to advice or legal representation of any kind. Is it not also true that the immigration officers who carry out the screening find it an unpopular duty? Is it not true that they do not write up their notes after the completion of one interview, but record them from memory, days or weeks later, after many more interviews? Is that a legally just procedure for a country with a reputation like ours to adopt?
When people appeal, is it not true that the appeal can be made only by written application? No legal or other representation is allowed, and the defendant—if I may use the term—is not allowed to appear at a tribunal that has the power to deport him or to keep him.
Will the Minister account for the fact that twice the number of people are granted refugee status after going to appeal when they first come before the first interview? Does that not show that it is not the appeals procedure that is fair, but the initial interviews that are biased, incompetent and inadequate for the type of cases that come before them?
Is it not also true that people's minds are conditioned, to compliance because they know that the people who run the camps—often the police—are responsible for their deportation? Is it not true that there have been complaints about police activity in raids in camps, which have resulted in the Hong Kong magistrates carrying out investigations? As a result of the investigations, and in spite of a condemning report, no action has been taken against those who acted against the people in the camps.
All those issues bear close investigation, as does the monitoring of what happens to people who return to Vietnam. If the Government are not moved by international concern from the Church at home and abroad, and from people with whom we are claimed to have a special relationship, at least Hanoi seems to be moved. If people who have been deported by the Government arrive in Hanoi and claim to have been deported involuntarily, the Hanoi Government have said that they will be returned. What will the Government's stance be on that?
Is the Secretary of State going to make a statement tomorrow that will allow some 200,000 Hong Kong economic refugees into Britain? How does he reconcile a policy of pulling in one group of Hong Kong citizens, into Britain and presumably leaving the rest of them to the tender mercies of the Chinese People's Army, with his policy of refusing asylum to people from Vietnam?
I know that it is a difficult and complex problem. If the Government argue that their actions are in accordance with the traditions of British empire I am not surprised that the sun never set on that empire, because not even God would trust it in the dark.
7.45 pm
Mr. Michael Jopling: I share with many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate concern, anxiety and horror about the misery and privation that so many Vietnamese boat people suffered during their journey to Hong Kong, and the conditions in which they live there.
In 1983, I was on a police launch in Hong Kong when we rescued one of those boats. I saw the utmost squalor. There were open fires burning on the deck and it was one of the most primitive sights that I have ever seen.
I also saw the boat people in April this year, when I visited one of the camps in Kowloon with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. But despite that background, I cannot see any alternative for the Government but to take the steps that they are taking to return boat people compulsorily whence they came.
I have listened to every moment of the debate but, with the best will in the world, I cannot for the life of me understand why illegal immigrants into Hong Kong from Vietnam are different from other illegal immigrants in other countries. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) sought to give some sort of explanation. He said something about the boat people being settled in camps, but they are not. They are not settled anywhere. They are held in camps preparatory to something being done with them. They have been there for some time, but it seems to me that that does not make them any different from the illegal immigrants in other countries whom we have discussed.
Mr. Foulkes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that for the past 15 years the West has had a programme of encouraging Vietnamese people to leave the country and settle in the West? That programme and expectation did not exist for the Chinese people, and that must be one factor that makes the boat people different.
Mr. Jopling: That issue was covered a little while ago. For many years it has been the policy to help people who had been of assistance to the Americans during the Vietnam war. That is a totally different issue.
No one in the House tonight has adequately explained why the boat people are different from the Mexicans or the Haitians who enter the United States, or the Chinese who enter Hong Kong illegally.
Mr. Lester: The reason is that for the past 10 years Vietnam is the only country which, for whatever reasons, has had economic sanctions taken against it when it already had a poor economy. That has made its people among the poorest in the world.
Mr. Jopling: That is not enough to justify these people being regarded as different from the others. If it is right to return illegal immigrants from Haiti, Mexico or China, I cannot see why those from Vietnam should not be treated in much the same way. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that they should have some sort of judicial review. I have not heard him or any other Opposition Member say during the past few years that judicial reviews should be used by illegal Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong or even by people who come to Heathrow airport who are turned back if they have come illegally.
I hope that the Government will press on as soon as possible with the policy that they began last week, and
266
send as many as possible of these illegal immigrants back home. I was hugely impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and I agreed with much of what he said. The message that he gave the House was about the urgency of the problem. The House ignores that urgency at its peril.
When my hon. Friend the Minister appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee last week, he told us—I was not there, but he told the Committee—that, at the present rate, it would take two years to screen all the illegal Vietnamese immigrants to Hong Kong. Two years just will not do. The Government must ensure that more people are engaged, so that screening can be conducted a good deal more quickly. It must be completed in far less than two years.
I believe that the screening process is fair and reasonable. As my hon. Friend told the Select Committee last week, the scheme
"was devised in conjunction with the UNHCR who have unmatched experience."
It is essential that the Government continually make it clear to the world and to the British people that the rules agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are being closely followed.
The more successful we are at finding somewhere for these immigrants to go, the more others will be tempted to make the journey to Hong Kong. The House must ask itself a simple question. When we are faced with the proposition of giving the right of abode in Britain to an indeterminate number, so far, of citizens of Hong Kong, would we prefer to provide the right of abode for Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens who are fearful of the Chinese takeover in 1997 or to give such opportunities to illegal entrants, who are not refugees, from Vietnam? If we have space here, I would rather give it to the British dependent territory citizens of Hong Kong than to illegal entrants from Vietnam.
Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The purpose of giving the right of abode here to the people of Hong Kong is to encourage them to stay in Hong Kong to keep the colony prosperous. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that they will all come to the United Kingdom. He had better get his argument straight.
Mr. Jopling: I understand that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but however many passports or rights of abode we give to Hong Kong people, they may not come at once. It may be intended that they will not come at once, but the House should not forget that they could come at some time, and in huge numbers. The right hon. Member for Yeovil is one of those who say that we should give the right of abode to everybody in Hong Kong. I hope that, when he argues that in future, he will stop talking about 3.25 million people coming, as paragraph 410 of the Select Committee report makes it clear that we are talking about 5.25 million people. It should be understood in the country that the policy being pushed by the right hon. Member for Yeovil means that there would be an opportunity for rather more than 8,000 people to come to every constituency in Britain. That is what the figures break down to. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not thought about that before, but it is the truth.
Mr. Ashdown: I wonder whether the right hon. Member heard the speech of the Minister of State at the weekend when he said that the more passports are issued, the less chance there is of their being used. That is the point.
Mr. Jopling: I did not have the advantage of hearing what my hon. Friend said. I should be surprised if the number of passports that are issued had any effect on what the Select Committee described as the Armageddon scenario—that which would cause a huge number of those people to come here.
Mr. Michael Shersby: Heathrow airport is adjacent to my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prospect that he has just outlined causes deep anxiety to my constituents and many other people in west London?
Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is right to make that point, and I hope that he will make it often when we debate that issue.
Mr. Ashdown: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement made by the Leader of the House when he was Foreign Secretary. He said that if the Armageddon scenario arose, Britain would have to accept responsibility for all of them. The difference between the Government's stance and mine is quite simply that we would accept these people as full citizens capable of investing in Britain beforehand whereas the Government would accept them under the Armageddon scenario as penniless refugees—as the Vietnamese boat people writ large.
Mr. Jopling: I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that on the radio this morning. My wife wondered why I exploded when I heard it. I was present last July when my right hon. and learned Friend the former Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee that, if the Armageddon scenario came about, the international community would have to take a responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has twisted that to say that Britain should bear the responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend was very clear about that.
What should the Government do? Above all, they should concentrate on doing everything possible to stem the flow of illegal entrants from the south. How should they do it? First, they should use every opportunity to obtain better co-operation from the Chinese. I understand only too well how difficult relations have become with the People's Republic of China since the massacre in Tiananamen square earlier this year, just after the Select Committee was in Hong Kong.
It is intolerable that the Chinese should support boats that port-hop up the coast. It is even more intolerable that a number of these illegal immigrants come overland by bus to the Pearl river estuary and take the short hop by water to Hong Kong. Despite the difficulties, we must do everything that we can to persuade the Chinese not to support and encourage those people.
Secondly, the Government must try to do more to help and encourage voluntary repatriation to Vietnam. Evidence was given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that those who are voluntarily repatriated to Vietnam are given a greater cash incentive than those who are compulsorily returned. We should increase the cash incentive given to those who go voluntarily. I hope that the compulsory repatriation scheme will be restarted properly
268
and that it gets going as soon as possible. As more and more people are compulsorily returned to Vietnam and it is seen in the camps that the rest of them will inevitably be returned in the immediate future, I hope—
Mr. Rupert Allason rose—
Mr. Jopling: I shall just finish my sentence. If there is then seen to be a greater cash incentive to go voluntarily, there may be a considerable increase in illegal immigrants prepared to return to Vietnam voluntarily.
Mr. Allason: If my right hon. Friend is advocating an increase in the existing money given to each returnee—which is about $620—rather than to the North Vietnamese authorities, that will have the reverse effect and be entirely counter-productive. It will encourage more people to make the journey, because $620 is an enormous amount of money to such people. If we increase the money and give it directly to the people, we shall increase the numbers.
Mr. Jopling: It costs a vast amount of money for them to go there in the first place. There is a huge extortion racket among those who provide the travel to Hong Kong. We should have to keep the matter in perspective to ensure that the policy does not have a counter-effect. We have some leeway to encourage voluntary repatriation.
Mr. Maude: In case there is any misunderstanding, I shall clear up the point. The vast bulk of the money given as part of the reintegration package goes not to the individuals or families, but the communities to assist the reintegration. Only a small part of it goes into the pockets of the families involved.
Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining that. I hope that he will consider my point.
I hope that the Government will be firm and will press on with the compulsory repatriation scheme as soon as possible, increase the pace of screening and tell the United States that this House regards the attitude of the United States Government as hypocritical and unreasonable. The Government should realise that a by-product of that firmness is that it will be a good way of demonstrating to Hong Kong that Britain still cares deeply about the problems in Hong Kong and recognises that the Vietnamese boat people are only one of those problems.
Action must be taken at once. Tonight's debate has dismayed me because the opposition to the Government's policy has been confined to hon. Members wringing their hands and expressing horror at making people who are in an illegal position do what they do not want to do. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has, frankly, given a woolly series of uncosted, long-term hopes that do not take account of the urgency to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney drew our attention.
One factor that unites the critics—whether the official Opposition, the Archbishop of Canterbury or all those in between—is the demand to continue dithering. Those policies are recipes for uncertainty. The critics would command much more respect if they could provide a sensible, workable alternative that addressed itself to the serious urgency of the problem—something that the House should never forget.
8.6 pm
Mr. Thomas Graham: It does not seem that long ago that I remember the press in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales proclaiming to the nation that we were a haven for the boat people, and the Prime Minister welcomed with open arms the Vietnamese people who were racing from the embrace of Communism and a dictatorial society.
Britain was like an oasis, a shining star in the West. What could be more appropriate in the month of December, than the Prime Minister saying that we were a shining star in the West? We did not need three wise men; we had the Prime Minister, Reagan and a number of others saying, "Get out of Vietnam. Come to our land and we will put you in a home."
I remember the local authorities in Great Britain responding and I am delighted that they did so. In my constituency, they responded by giving homes to people from Vietnam.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the position was entirely different? The South Vietnamese had fought a bitter struggle with the Americans and, in return, the Americans gave them refuge in their country for the services rendered in that war.
Mr. Graham: I admit that things have changed, not for the better but for the worse. Like a spider's web, we have enticed many people from Vietnam. The Prime Minister has encouraged people to desert Vietnam in droves. They came to Hong Kong expecting to get shelter, aid and support to come to the West.
Some things have changed because there has been an election for a successor to Ronald Reagan, but there has been no general election for our Prime Minister. A spider's web has been set and the people of Vietnam have left their country because they thought that they could get aid, support and security in the West. Our Prime Minister has disgracefully led those people up the path and is now sending them back to a terrible and incredibly uncertain future.
I have recently read many articles about people whom this country sent back to face Stalin. No hon. Member would suggest that it was right to send back to Russia people who, it has now been conclusively proved, were executed in their millions by Joseph Stalin.
Surely conservative Members are not so naive that they see nothing wrong in sending back Vietnamese refugees to face that uncertainty. Surely they are aware of the anxiety that they feel. For years the Tory party has claimed that it is the scourge of the Communist party. Hanoi Radio recently told the western world that Vietnam is now incarcerating people because it wants to re-educate them and bring them into the fold. We do not know how long that will continue. I do not know whether it is even true or false, but Hanoi Radio has said that certain people are being taken in—
Mr. David Alton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Refugee Action estimates that 500,000 people are detained in the 150 re-education centres in Vietnam including 200 Catholic priests, 30 Protestant ministers and 3,000 Buddhists? That bears out what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Graham: I am delighted with that clarification and sad that many people find themselves incarcerated in Vietnam.
The Government are wrong to repatriate by force. I use the word "force" deliberately. Even the Evening Standard clearly states that Vietnamese people are being repatriated by force. The police come to them, armed to the teeth, in the middle of the night. What do I mean by armed to the teeth? They do not need to have guns or other weapons, they just need to be strong and fit and able to throw a bloke. If somebody in Glasgow were stronger than me and he twists my arm up my back, that would be by strength and arms. Many refugees are being forcibly repatriated by the power and strength of the police. They are being forced on to planes. If any hon. Member wishes to contradict me, I shall be happy to show him that it is true.
The Evening Standard has never been famous for supporting the Opposition; it usually supports the Government. One woman—a wife—told her story. She said:
"I suddenly felt something bad was going on and something was going to happen. I saw riot police carrying truncheons and shields. They beamed their flashlights at everybody and surrounded the bed. We were told that 21 people from the hut were to be moved immediately to another camp and we had one minute to collect our things."
Is that what this country is now about—threatening men and women in the middle of the night? Do we use truncheons and searchlights to bully people? This newspaper is not Labour Weekly, Tribune or The Times. I am quoting from the front page of the Evening Standard, a well-known supporter of the Government.
Britain faces international revulsion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is laughing. Would he want to be a refugee in one of those camps tonight, not knowing whether the police would arrive in large numbers with batons and searchlights to drag him away? Would he smile if his family had to face that tonight?
The position is appalling, and Britain faces international revulsion. My late father served for nine years as a Royal Navy service man. He was fully involved in the war. He said to me, "Thomas, son, there is one thing that we pride ourselves on in Britain, and that is being a democratic nation. The other thing that we pride ourselves on is sheltering people who suffer prejudice from other nations." We must, as a nation, support international brotherhood and womanhood.
The Government are betraying in principle the whole morality of refugee status. They are betraying the principle of the United Nations. We must do something to restore Britain, in the eyes of the world, as a free nation committed to democracy and to the right to life. One hon. Member earlier made a nonsensical statement about the United Nations. I thought that this Government had the most absolutely special relationship with America. I thought that the American Government would understand the difficulties faced by the British Government.
We must remember the Vietnamese conflict, the involvement of America in that conflict and the billions of pounds that it spent to keep that tragic war going while millions of people died. I thought that Britain had a special relationship with America that allowed us to discuss the problems of the Vietnamese refugees and the boat people, yet we are told by Conservative Members that it is all to no avail. Despite all its sins during the Vietnamese war, America has told the Prime Minister to get stuffed. It will

271
do nothing. It says, "Leave the refugees to languish in the mud. You deal with the problem." That is abominable, and it is equally abominable that the Government still claim to have a special relationship with America.
I shall end with a number of points—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] I am appalled that Conservative Members should find something funny in what I have said. Let them reflect that 50,000 people do not know what life holds for them in the new year.
I am pleased to note that the Pope has expressed worry about the situation and has urged Britain to take steps in the matter. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Runcie, has spoken out on the issue. Although I see some Conservative Members smiling at what I am saying, I feel that others among them are sincere in hoping that this problem can be resolved amicably. I trust that Members in all parts of the House appreciate that I am sincere in speaking passionately about this issue.
I do not have the solutions to the problems of the world—of dictatorship and of all the other ills that beset mankind—but I offer the suggestion that we, as members of mankind, should do all we can to protect mankind. We should make sure that people have the right to life and we should fight for that right, however much it costs. We in the West, above all, should fight against the oppression of Communism and against other forms of oppression.
As we approach the new year, let us remember what Robbie Burns said about man's inhumanity to man. I hope that, whatever steps result from this debate, they will not result in the Vietnamese being returned to insecurity, prison, a deteriorating standard of life or even death.
The British Government have it in their power to bow to the wishes of international religious and other leaders who have said, in effect, "Please give hope for life to the ordinary men and women who have escaped trials and tribulations and who have sailed the seas in all sorts of weather to reach the security of Hong Kong. Please allow them to live in the West in freedom and security.
I urge the Minister not to be cynical. People in Hong Kong tonight rely on his judgment and sincerity. Let him forget the platitudes that have been used by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. We are looking for a miracle tonight so that folk may have the right to life.
8.22 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Seven days ago the Foreign Secretary told the House that we had begun to put into effect a policy, long adopted by the British Government, to return to Vietnam those Vietnamese in Hong Kong who were not refugees. That decision gave pleasure to none and I acknowledge that it has caused anxiety to many, and many of those anxieties have been expressed in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) opened the debate in a responsible and measured tone. That tone has not always been reflected in the subsequent contributions, but his speech and a few others captured the underlying feeling of the House. I refer in particular to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
All those distinguished Members of the House come to the issue with long and distinguished experience of
272
government. All of them are used to the assumption of responsibility and I appreciate their expressions of personal sympathy and support for my right hon. Friend and myself.
Those contributions were in stark contrast to that of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He ended what I regarded as a grossly irresponsible speech with an allegation about the Government's motivation in this matter that I bitterly resented. It was an allegation that will have earned him the contempt of the whole House.
It is clearly essential for the House to understand fully the background to last Tuesday's return and the basis on which the decision was made. The House will be familiar with much of the background.
In the aftermath of the Vietnam war, many thousands from South Vietnam fled the persecution of a victorious and vindictive regime. The West responded with generosity and compassion. The first Geneva conference, called at our instigation in 1979, agreed that those who fled Vietnam in boats could be assured of first asylum wherever they landed, and that from there they would be resettled in the West.
But it soon became clear that the nature of the exodus from Vietnam was changing. As early as 1981, it was apparent that the majority of those arriving in places such as Hong Kong were not political refugees but people seeking a more prosperous life elsewhere. None the less, despite the evidence of this new pattern, the West maintained its commitment to take in all new arrivals. The United Kingdom, of course, played a full part in that. But by 1987, the numbers were so huge that the ability of the West to take in allcomers was strained.
Of course, there were still refugees, genuinely fleeing persecution, but the ability of the West to give asylum to the genuine refugees was being eroded by the sheer weight of the numbers. Accordingly, Hong Kong decided in June last year to introduce a system of screening, and I believe that it was absolutely right to do so. It was a thorough system, developed in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whose representatives can attend any interviews that are carried out under that procedure. Each applicant for asylum has a right of appeal from the initial decision and has the right to help from the UNHCR in preparing his case.
I know that Amnesty International has criticised some aspects of the process, and I am looking to see whether any of the criticisms are justified, but I believe that the procedure is fair and thorough. I know that, where doubt arises, that doubt is resolved in favour of the applicant.
The purpose of the screening is to distinguish between those who are genuine refugees and those who are not. This is an essential process, which must be carried out by every country that seeks to keep its doors open to asylum seekers. The only alternative to a screening procedure is to abandon the policy of first asylum. Hong Kong does not want that; we do not want it; and this House would not welcome it.
Mr. David Young rose—
Mr. Maude: I will not give way, because I want t o deal with the points that were made during the debate.
It was thus that, in June this year, a second Geneva conference decided that screening should be introduced universally. That conference, attended by all interested

273
countries, and by the UNHCR, unanimously reached two distinct decisions. It decided that all those who had arrived before the introduction of screening, and all those whom the screening process found to be refugees, should be resettled in the West within three years. Undertakings have been given by participating countries to ensure that enough places are available for all those refugees. So the West's voluntary practice of taking in all refugees has been fully and honourably maintained, and once again, we have participated in this fully.
The conference's second decision, also unanimous, was that, for those who were found after the screening process not to be refugees, there was nowhere for them to go but back to Vietnam. I stress to the House that it was a unanimous decision, agreed to by every participant at that conference, including the United States and the UNHCR.
The conference agreed that repatriation should, in the first instance, be voluntary. The UNHCR has started this process in Hong Kong, and it has made a little headway, but the numbers returning to Vietnam are tiny as a proportion of the whole. The numbers returning hold no promise that those remaining in Hong Kong will be significantly reduced, or that next year's influx will be any smaller than this year's.
It is worth reminding ourselves—indeed, hon. Members may not be aware—that, since the whole process began in the 1970s, no fewer than 170,000 asylum-seekers from Indo-China have arrived in Hong Kong. To Hong Kong's eternal honour, that tiny territory—the most crowded part of the globe—has not turned away a single one. All have been given shelter, but the burden has become intolerable. Some 57,000 Vietnamese remain in Hong Kong camps, of whom some 34,000 arrived this year alone. It is because of the heavy financial burden that this throws on to the territory that we hold this debate tonight.
In the 10-year period before 1989, the Hong Kong Government spent about £110 million on building and running camps for the boat people. In the last financial year, that increased significantly, and spending reached some £39 million as the numbers arriving rose dramatically. This year, the Hong Kong Government expect to spend £90 million, and it is partly because of that huge increase in costs that we have felt bound to assist Hong Kong.
In the current financial year, we have provided £4.5 million for emergency accommodation. I announced last week a further pledge of £10.6 million for further emergency accommodation, and a 50 per cent. contribution to a new long-term camp. We shall continue to provide Hong Kong with help for as long as it is needed. In addition to those sums, over the past two years we have pledged or spent a further £15 million to help to resolve the problem more widely. We have given the UNHCR more than £8 million, primarily in response to special appeals for boat people, and also for the construction of a camp in Hong Kong. We are making available some £850,000 this year for our bilateral repatriation programme with the Vietnamese, and for monitoring those who are returned.
We have accepted for some time that a move to involuntary repatriation was likely to become necessary. I should add that involuntary repatriation is not a concept invented by Hong Kong in December 1989, but a process that goes on day in, day out across the world—a process
274
that, by its very nature, involves the return of people against their will to a country that they have sought to leave.
A number of allegations have been made in tonight's debate about what was done on Tuesday morning last week. There was talk of handcuffs; I can tell the House that handcuffs were not used. There was also talk of force, but none was employed, and there was no resistance on the part of those who were returned to Vietnam. It was suggested that the number of escorts was excessive, but I can tell the House tha the number involved is customary worldwide for these procedures.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I will not.
I remind the House that this was compulsory deportation: there is no escaping that. These people were being sent back—against their will—to a country that they had sought to leave, and it is inevitable that people in such circumstances should not be joyful. I assure the House, however, that there was no resistance.
Mr. Vaz rose—
Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way.
The suggestion that a blanket of secrecy has been imposed rings rather absurd, given that live television pictures were screened worldwide. It has also been suggested that there has been widespread international criticism of our action—
Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman had his say at considerable length, trying the patience of the House somewhat, and I have many points to answer.
The reality is this. The entire international community agreed at the Geneva conference in June that there was nowhere for these people to go other than back to Vietnam, and the international response to last Tuesday's events has accordingly been broad acceptance. Of course the United States has been critical—there are obvious historical reasons for that—but it has conspicuously not propounded any realistic alternative.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House last Tuesday that we were considering the resumption of aid for Vietnam. We may be able to say something about that later, but I must say to the House —as did my right hon. Friend—that it is not an alternative to repatriation. Even if it were to start tomorrow, it would not discourage people immediately from leaving to seek greater prosperity elsewhere and, in any event, the large numbers already in Hong Kong would remain.
Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maude: No. I am sorry, but I have a number of points to cover.
The aid proposal—serious though it is, and earnestly though we are pursuing it—is not an alternative to repatriation. I am bound to say that I have found some of the arguments that have been advanced a little puzzling: the same people are arguing simultaneously that Vietnam is a tyranny too monstrous to return people to, and that we should be pouring money into it to prop it up. We have, of course, looked carefully at all the many suggested

275
alternatives to our course of compulsory repatriation, but nothing has emerged that has not either been done already or been universally rejected.
I should like to look briefly at some of the suggested alternatives. It is said, for instance, that we should renew efforts to increase voluntary repatriation. We are doing that, but it is inconceivable that it could suffice on its own. It is also said that we should increase the United Kingdom's quota of refugees but, as I have pointed out, places are already pledged for every refugee. In any case, that suggestion in itself provides no answer to the problem that we are addressing—the problem of those who are screened out as non-refugees.
The richest absurdity, however, has been the Labour party's so-called three-point plan. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he would introduce a screening procedure with independent appeal: that is the first of the three points. Can he really be unaware that it already exists? He also suggests an international agreement to resettle all political refugees. Can he really be ignorant that such an agreement has already been reached, and that places have been offered for all refugees? As for his third proposal, it was thrown together in contemptuous disregard of the realities. In an interview in The Independent, yesterday, he said:
"You get on with the screening [of refugees] … you launch international discussions to see whether it is possible to find in the southern Pacific area a territory where a holding centre can be provided for screened economic migrants from Vietnam. The Philippines has been named as one; possibly Indonesia another."
When asked whether the Philippines or Indonesia would be prepared to provide such a centre, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
"Yes, well, I had a considerable discussion a short while ago with Mr. Dukakis …who is very heavily involved in the possibility of the Philippines. I was encouraged to believe it might work."
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Maude: No, I will not. I have four minutes to go.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, as well as talking to Mrs. Dukakis, did not bother to talk to the Philippines or to Indonesia. That possibility has been canvassed on several occasions, and I have news for the right hon. Gentleman. It should not be news, because he should have studied the position. I can tell him that, on every single occasion, every possible participant has rejected the idea unequivocally.
Even if it worked, what would be the substance of this great liberal alternative? It is that people should be removed from one closed camp in Hong Kong to another elsewhere.
Mr. Foulkes rose—
Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Gorton accepts that that alternative could provide only a temporary pause on the way back to Vietnam. I noticed that, in the same interview, he was asked whether he would like the refugees to settle in this country. What was the answer from this great liberal?
"No, we've got lots of people who can open restaurants without having Vietnamese economic migrants who are basically peasants—fishermen and farm-workers and so on."
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These matters were not dealt with in the debate [Interruption.]The Minister is not answering the questions that he was asked.
Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be a point of argument, but it is not a point of order.
Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman ended his interview with the following ringing declaration:
"I wouldn't be a member of a Labour government"—
prophetically, perhaps—
"that forcibly sent people to somewhere they didn't want to go."
Again, I have news for the right hon. Gentleman. He was a member of just such a Government. During the previous Labour Government, in every single year when he was a Minister, between 10,000 and 19,000 people were repatriated from Britain. During the same years, Hong Kong, acting with the full authority of the United Kingdom Government, involuntarily repatriated tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to China. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that every single one of those people returned voluntarily? Of course not.
Those of us who have responsibilities in these matters are unable to avoid them. It is all very well for Opposition Members to wring their hands, stand on the sidelines and decry what is done, but they do not have to face the realities and accept the responsibilities. For those of us who have the responsibilities, they cannot be dodged or shirked, and we will not shirk them.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 219.

Division No. 25]

[8.40 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

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

Alexander, Richard

Browne, John (Winchester)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Allason, Rupert

Burns, Simon

Amess, David

Burt, Alistair

Amos, Alan

Butcher, John

Arbuthnot, James

Butler, Chris

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Ashby, David

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Aspinwall, Jack

Carrington, Matthew

Atkins, Robert

Carttiss, Michael

Atkinson, David

Cash, William

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Baldry, Tony

Chapman, Sydney

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Chope, Christopher

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Beggs, Roy

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Bellingham, Henry

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Bendall, Vivian

Colvin, Michael

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Conway, Derek

Benyon, W.

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Cormack, Patrick

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Couchman, James

Body, Sir Richard

Gran, James

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Boswell, Tim

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

Bottomley, Peter

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Day, Stephen

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Devlin, Tim

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Dicks, Terry

Bowis, John

Dorrell, Stephen

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Dover, Den

Brazier, Julian

Dunn, Bob

Bright, Graham

Dykes, Hugh

277

Emery, Sir Peter

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Evennett, David

Knowles, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Knox, David

Favell, Tony

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Lang, Ian

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Lawrence, Ivan

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lee, John (Pendle)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Forman, Nigel

Lightbown, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lilley, Peter

Forth, Eric

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Lord, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Freeman, Roger

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

French, Douglas

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Gale, Roger

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Gardiner, George

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Maclean, David

Gill, Christopher

McLoughlin, Patrick

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Glyn, Dr Alan

Madel, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Major, Rt Hon John

Gorst, John

Malins, Humfrey

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Mans, Keith

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Maples, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Marlow, Tony

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Grist, Ian

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Grylls, Michael

Mates, Michael

Hague, William

Maude, Hon Francis

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mellor, David

Hanley, Jeremy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Hannam, John

Mills, Iain

Hargreaves, A (B'ham H'll Gr')

Miscampbell, Norman

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Harris, David

Mitchell, Sir David

Haselhurst, Alan

Moate, Roger

Hawkins, Christopher

Monro, Sir Hector

Hayes, Jerry

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Hayward, Robert

Morrison, Sir Charles

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Moss, Malcolm

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Mudd, David

Hill, James

Neale, Gerrard

Hind, Kenneth

Nelson, Anthony

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Neubert, Michael

Hordern, Sir Peter

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Howard, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

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

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Page, Richard

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Paice, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Patnick, Irvine

Hunter, Andrew

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Irvine, Michael

Pawsey, James

Irving, Charles

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Jack, Michael

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Jackson, Robert

Porter, David (Waveney)

Janman, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Redwood, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rhodes James, Robert

Key, Robert

Riddick, Graham

Kilfedder, James

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion

Knapman, Roger

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

278

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Rost, Peter

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Rowe, Andrew

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Thorne, Neil

Ryder, Richard

Thurnham, Peter

Sackville, Hon Tom;

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Tracey, Richard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Tredinnick, David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Trotter, Neville

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Twinn, Dr Ian

Shelton, Sir William

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Viggers, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Shersby, Michael

Walden, George

Sims, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Waller, Gary

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Walters, Sir Dennis

Speed, Keith

Ward, John

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Watts, John

Squire, Robin

Wells, Bowen

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wheeler, John

Steen, Anthony

Whitney, Ray

Stern, Michael

Wiggin, Jerry

Stevens, Lewis

Wilshire, David

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Winterton, Nicholas

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Wolfson, Mark

Stokes, Sir John

Wood, Timothy

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Summerson, Hugo

Yeo, Tim

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mr. Tony Durrant and

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Temple-Morris, Peter

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Allen, Graham

Clay, Bob

Alton, David

Clelland, David

Anderson, Donald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cohen, Harry

Armstrong, Hilary

Coleman, Donald

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Corbett, Robin

Ashton, Joe

Corbyn, Jeremy

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cousins, Jim

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Cox, Tom

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Crowther, Stan

Barron, Kevin

Cryer, Bob

Battle, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Beckett, Margaret

Cunningham, Dr John

Beith, A. J.

Dalyell, Tam

Bell, Stuart

Darling, Alistair

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

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

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bermingham, Gerald

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

Bidwell, Sydney

Dewar, Donald

Blair, Tony

Dixon, Don

Blunkett, David

Doran, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Douglas, Dick

Boyes, Roland

Duffy, A. E. P.

Bradley, Keith

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Eadie, Alexander

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Buchan, Norman

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Buckley, George J.

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Caborn, Richard

Fatchett, Derek

Callaghan, Jim

Fearn, Ronald

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

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

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Fisher, Mark

Canavan, Dennis

Flannery, Martin

279

Flynn, Paul

Michael, Alun

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Foster, Derek

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Foulkes, George

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Fraser, John

Morgan, Rhodri

Fyfe, Maria

Morley, Elliot

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

George, Bruce

Mowlam, Marjorie

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Mullin, Chris

Golding, Mrs Llin

Murphy, Paul

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Nellist, Dave

Gordon, Mildred

O'Brien, William

Gould, Bryan

O'Neill, Martin

Graham, Thomas

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Patchett, Terry

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Pendry, Tom

Grocott, Bruce

Pike, Peter L.

Hardy, Peter

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Prescott, John

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Heffer, Eric S.

Radice, Giles

Henderson, Doug

Randall, Stuart

Hinchliffe, David

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)

Reid, Dr John

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Home Robertson, John

Robinson, Geoffrey

Hood, Jimmy

Rogers, Allan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Rooker, Jeff

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howells, Geraint

Rowlands, Ted

Hoyle, Doug

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sedgemore, Brian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Short, Clare

Illsley, Eric

Sillars, Jim

Ingram, Adam

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

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

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)

Kennedy, Charles

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Kirkwood, Archy

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Lambie, David

Snape, Peter

Lamond, James

Soley, Clive

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Leighton, Ron

Steel, Rt Hon David

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Straw, Jack

Lewis, Terry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Litherland, Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Livingstone, Ken

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Livsey, Richard

Turner, Dennis

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Vaz, Keith

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wall, Pat

Loyden, Eddie

Wallace, James

McAllion, John

Walley, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

McCartney, Ian

Wareing, Robert N.

Macdonald, Calum A.

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McFall, John

Widdecombe, Ann

McKelvey, William

Wigley, Dafydd

McLeish, Henry

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Maclennan, Robert

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McNamara, Kevin

Winnick, David

McWilliam, John

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Madden, Max

Worthington, Tony

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Wray, Jimmy

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)

Martlew, Eric

Tellers for the Noes:

Maxton, John

Mr. Frank Haynes and

Meacher, Michael

Mr. Alan McKay.

Vleale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to
280
defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on other external relations.
MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order [15 December], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Estimates appointed for consideration this day.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1989–90
Question put,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,881,927,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for defence and civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 603 of Session 1988–89—[Mr. Lilley.]
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 8.

Division No. 26]

[8.55 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Alexander, Richard

Cormack, Patrick

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Couchman, James

Alton, David

Cran, James

Amess, David

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Amos, Alan

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

Arbuthnot, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Day, Stephen

Ashby, David

Devlin, Tim

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Dicks, Terry

Aspinwall, Jack

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Atkinson, David

Dover, Den

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Dunn, Bob

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Durant, Tony

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dykes, Hugh

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Evennett, David

Beggs, Roy

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Beith, A. J.

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Bellingham, Henry

Fishburn, John Dudley

Bendall, Vivian

Fookes, Dame Janet

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Forman, Nigel

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Fox, Sir Marcus

Body, Sir Richard

Franks, Cecil

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Freeman, Roger

Boswell, Tim

French, Douglas

Bottomley, Peter

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Gardiner, George

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gill, Christopher

Bowis, John

Glyn, Dr Alan

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gorst, John

Brazier, Julian

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Bright, Graham

Greenway, Harry (Baling N)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Burns, Simon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Burt, Alistair

Grist, Ian

Butcher, John

Grylls, Michael

Butler, Chris

Hague, William

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carrington, Matthew

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Carttiss, Michael

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Cash, William

Harris, David

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Haselhurst, Alan

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hawkins, Christopher

Chapman, Sydney

Hayes, Jerry

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Colvin, Michael

Hill, James

Conway, Derek

Hind, Kenneth

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

281

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

Roberts, Wyn (Conmy)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Howells, Geraint

Rost, Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Rowe, Andrew

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Irvine, Michael

Ryder, Richard

Jack, Michael

Sackville, Hon Tom

Janman, Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Kennedy, Charles

Shelton, Sir William

Key, Robert

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Kilfedder, James

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Knapman, Roger

Shersby, Michael

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Sims, Roger

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knowles, Michael

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Knox, David

Speed, Keith

Lang, Ian

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Squire, Robin

Lightbown, David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Stern, Michael

Livsey, Richard

Stevens, Lewis

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Lord, Michael

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Summerson, Hugo

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maclean, David

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Major, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mans, Keith

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mates, Michael

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Maude, Hon Francis

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thome, Neil

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thurnham, Peter

Mills, Iain

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Miscampbell, Norman

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Sir David

Tredinnick, David

Moate, Roger

Trotter, Neville

Monro, Sir Hector

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Viggers, Peter

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Morrison, Sir Charles

Waldegrave, Hon William

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Walden, George

Moss, Malcolm

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Mudd, David

Wallace, James

Neale, Gerrard

Waller, Gary

Nelson, Anthony

Ward, John

Neubert, Michael

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Watts, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wheeler, John

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Whitney, Ray

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Widdecombe, Ann

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wiggin, Jerry

Paice, James

Wilshire, David

Patnick, Irvine

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Winterton, Nicholas

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Wolfson, Mark

Pawsey, James

Wood, Timothy

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Yeo, Tim

Porter, David (Waveney)

Powell, William (Corby)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Mr. Alistair Goodlad and

Rhodes James, Robert

Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Riddick, Graham

NOES

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

Corbyn, Jeremy

Canavan, Dennis

Cryer, Bob

Cohen, Harry

Loyden, Eddie

282

Meale, Alan

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Win Griffiths and

Mr. Alan W. Williams.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ESTIMATES 1990–91 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)
Question put,
That a sum not exceeding £58,271,200,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 604, 605 and 606 of Session 1988–89.
The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 7.

Division No. 27]

[at 9.07 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

French, Douglas

Alton, David

Gale, Roger

Amess, David

Gardiner, George

Amos, Alan

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Arbuthnot, James

Gill, Christopher

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Ashby, David

Goodlad, Alastair

Atkinson, David

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Gorst, John

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bendall, Vivian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Grist, Ian

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Grylls, Michael

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hague, William

Boswell, Tim

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Bowis, John

Harris, David

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Hawkins, Christopher

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hayes, Jerry

Bright, Graham

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Browne, John (Winchester)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Burns, Simon

Hill, James

Burt, Alistair

Hind, Kenneth

Butcher, John

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

Butler, Chris

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Butterfill, John

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Howells, Geraint

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Carrington, Matthew

Irvine, Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Jack, Michael

Cash, William

Janman, Tim

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Kennedy, Charles

Conway, Derek

Key, Robert

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Kilfedder, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Cormack, Patrick

Knapman, Roger

Couchman, James

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Cran, James

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

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

Knowles, Michael

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Lang, Ian

Day, Stephen

Lawrence, Ivan

Devlin, Tim

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Dorrell, Stephen

Lightbown, David

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lilley, Peter

Dover, Den

Livsey, Richard

Dunn, Bob

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Dykes, Hugh

Lord, Michael

Evennett, David

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Fenner, Dame Peggy

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fishburn, John Dudley

Maclean, David

Fookes, Dame Janet

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forman, Nigel

Major, Rt Hon John

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Mates, Michael

283

Maxell-Hyslop, Robin

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mills, Iain

Steen, Anthony

Miscampbell, Norman

Stern, Michael

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stevens, Lewis

Mitchell, Sir David

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Moss, Malcolm

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Neale, Gerrard

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nelson, Anthony

Temple-Morris, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thorne, Neil

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Thurnham, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tracey, Richard

Paice, James

Trotter, Neville

Patnick, Irvine

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)

Viggers, Peter

Pawsey, James

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Waldegrave, Hon William

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Walden, George

Porter, David (Waveney)

Waller, Gary

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Ward, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Riddick, Graham

Watts, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wells, Bowen

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wheeler, John

Rost, Peter

Whitney, Ray

Rowe, Andrew

Widdecombe, Ann

Sackville Hon Tom

Wiggin, Jerry

Shaw, David (Dover)

Wilshire, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Winterton, Nicholas

Shelton, Sir William

Wolfson, Mark

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Wood, Timothy

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Woodcock, Dr. Mike

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Yeo, Tim

Shersby, Michael

Sims, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Mr. Tony Durant and

Speed, Keith

Mr. Nicholas Baker.

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

NOES

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

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Cohen, Harry

Tellers for the Noes:

Cryer, Bob

Mr. Win Griffiths and

Loyden, Eddie

Mr. Alan W. Williams.

Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Lilley and Mr. Richard Ryder.
Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1990 and 1991; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12].

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must inform the House before we begin the debate that Mr. Speaker has determined that the instruction is not being called, but it can of course be referred to in the debate.
Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have looked for a copy of the Bill, but one is not available. Will one be made available before business starts?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The papers necessary for the debate are now available in the Vote Office and have been for some time.
Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have referred to the instruction to the Committee, which I tabled but which was not accepted for debate by Mr. Speaker. You said that it will be in order to discuss it during the Second Reading debate. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, will it be in order for the Committee that might be established to consider the detail of the Bill to consider the matters referred to in the instruction?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes. It was because of consideration in Committee that the instruction was not selected.
9.22 pm
Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to have reached this Second Reading debate, although the carry-over debate was rather like a Second Reading debate and covered much of the ground. I shall try not to repeat myself and will attempt to be brief. I am forced to be excessively brief by the requirements of the House, but I want to give the positive developments that have taken place since the carry-over debate.
The Bill is a positive measure for the environment and for people. The economic case for it has been strengthening all the time. Interest in Cardiff continues to grow, as it has since Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council took the first and major step of faith by building the new county hall in the derelict heart of my constituency. Commitment by the private sector waits in the wings for the Bill to go through. Confidence grows with the success of the carry-over motion, and will continue to grow as time goes on.
Not only Cardiff will benefit from the barrage and the economic development that will follow its building. Thirty per cent. of the jobs created in Cardiff go to people living outside it, and I cannot believe that, in the surrounding area, the local authorities and people of the valleys will want the scheme to be defeated and its benefits lost to the region.
Mr. Rogers: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that there is always a spin-off from any development to the surrounding area. He has emphasised that the main promoters of the Bill are the Labour-controlled authorities. If that is so, why did not South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council consult other Labour-controlled authorities in the surrounding area?

285
Indeed, it was only after fairly strenuous opposition from me that Mid Glamorgan and the adjacent Labour authorities were consulted.
Mr. Michael: My understanding is that there has been plenty of discourse between the different local authorities.
The economic evidence shows the benefits that will come to the whole area. The private-sector leverage for the total scheme involving the barrage is assessed at 8·9:1. That means that £1 billion of private-sector development over the next 10 to 15 years depends on the barrage being built.
The scheme has been evaluated in line with Treasury guidelines: in terms of net economic impact, which assesses benefits against costs, the barrage far outweighs a mini-barrage or no barrage at all. The comparative figures at net present value terms are plus £77 million for the barrage, minus £61 million for the mini-barrage and minus £113 million for no barrage. The Select Committee can cross-examine that evidence and consider it in detail. I give that outline because it is an overwhelming argument for building the barrage. Those economic arguments should certainly be considered in detail in the Select Committee. The Bill and the barrage are needed to achieve the full regeneration of the docklands, the region of Cardiff and south Wales.
The second important aspect relates to groundwater. Hon. Members will know that, as recently as the carry-over debate, I reserved my position on groundwater. I said that, if all the evidence pointed to serious detriment to my constituents, I would not hesitate to say that that price could not be paid for redevelopment. I have gone on a genuine search for truth, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has also been concerned about groundwater.
I sought the services of an independent expert of international standing. We did not just bring somebody in. I went looking for somebody who could approach the matter with complete independence and authority. I then went to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and sought its agreement to that on the basis of testing the evidence to destruction and hearing the worst, and access to all data, information and work undertaken to find the effects of groundwater levels.
The end result was the identification of Mr. Glyn Jones, who directs the postgraduate course in hydrogeology at University college London, to undertake the study. He was critical of the work done on behalf of the development corporation and exhaustive in his investigations. At the end of the day, he gave the barrage and certainly the work undertaken on behalf of the promoters a clean bill of health. He said:
"The consultants have certainly built in a generous safety factor which should improve confidence in the less-thanprecise calculations used for predictive purposes and outweigh any margin of error."
Mr. Rogers: My interventions are to establish facts. I have yet to be convinced either way. My hon. Friend mentioned the report by a completely independent hydrogeologist. Will it be available to hon. Members, perhaps not this evening, but at some stage? My hon. Friend will be aware that I have had reservations about groundwater reports in the past.
Mr. Michael: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that it is available to anybody who is interested. I have made a copy available to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who has a serious interest as the Member for the neighbouring Constituency. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library because it should be available to hon. Members. My hon. Friend will find it worth perusing.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: While I accept that there is no question about the academic credentials of Mr. Jones, surely they are no higher than those of Dr. Stuart Noakes, who reported in similar circumstances for the residents action groups. That was paid for by the Cardiff Bay development corporation, but commissioned by the residents action groups against the barrage and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which together set out the terms of reference. Dr. Noakes came out with critical comments about the likelihood that studies done so far by the hydrogeologist commissioned by the Cardiff Bay development corporation did not give any guarantee against flooding. The one thing that is missing from Glyn Jones's report is any mention of the exact terms of reference.
Mr. Michael: I have undertaken to give my hon. Friend a copy of the terms of reference, and I managed to locate them this evening. My desk, like his, tends to be a minefield.
The report will be available to the Special Standing Committee, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West that it was done on the basis of tests to destruction, and that all the evidence and the worst possible solutions would be made publicly available. I do not accept his comparison of the expertise, but the Committee will be able to consider that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West knows that little difference was left between Dr. Noakes and the experts who acted on behalf of the development corporation, by the end of the House of Lords' consideration of the report.
I have a reference for Glyn Jones's expertise from Sir James Lighthill, the former principal of University college, London, which says:
"Scientists from all over the world come to study hydrogeology with Glyn Jones, returning with a master of science degree in the subject, which is internationally recognised as a guarantee of excellence and sound knowledge in this field."
Other references have been taken up.
The independence of the work, which involved the testing to destruction of the available evidence, and the fact that it was overseen by me and County Councillor Peter Perkins, who represents the area nearest to the bay and has no connection with the development corporation, are assurances of the neutrality and validity of the report.
The end result of the investigation should give greater confidence than the evidence available in the House of Lords' report, when the Committee ended by giving a clean bill of health to the work done on groundwater.
Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would care to rethink one of the remarks that he made, because I think that he implied that the academic expertise of Glyn Jones is greater than that of Dr. Stuart Noakes. If he is asserting that, can he say why?
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend may have misinterpreted what I said. There is no doubt about the pre-eminence of

287
Mr. Jones in this field. There was hardly any gap between his assessment and that of Dr. Noakes, and the experts called upon by the Cardiff Bay development corporation at the end of the House of Lords session. However, I can assert with confidence that the Jones report is the result of the only study into all the work done to date, by a genuinely independent expert of international repute. His findings will, of course, be open to scrutiny by the Committee.
Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the scheme goes ahead, we could be presented with a unique opportunity to clean up the waters of the bay and, for the first time in many decades, it will also be possible to clean up the waters of the Bristol channel?
We know that sewage outfalls into the bay will have to be redirected. Presumably they will be redirected to the existing outfalls on the coast, including those in my constituency. We have a unique opportunity to ensure that the waters of Cardiff Bay are treated, and the existing sewage outfalls are treated, and that will clean up the Bristol channel.
Mr. Michael: That is outside the scope of the Bill, but, in fairness to my hon. Friend, I agree with him that there will be an opportunity to clean up water and sewage outfalls to meet European standards, and like my hon. Friend, I have spoken to the promoters of the Bill about that. I hope that it will be pursued.
My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan share a boundary in the south Penarth and Lavernock area. I hope that the opportunity he mentions will be taken up, and I commend it for further investigation by the Minister.
During the weekend, I met the Butetown residents. Despite the title of the group, it stressed that it is not against the barrage but wants protection to he built into the Bill. I pay tribute to the tenacious way in which it has pursued that clear objective. It raised the protection period of 20 years and sought an assurance that common law protection will remain after that time. The promoters gave that assurance clearly to the Committee of another place, but the group fears that that assurance has not been written into the Bill. I am pleased to say that, at my request, the promoters agreed this week to amend the Bill so that such assurance appears on the face of the Bill.
I have pursued several vital issues with the promoters, such as affordable homes, and the retention of existing jobs even if their relocation is inevitable. There have been detailed discussions. They have sometimes been abrasive, but they have also been positive and productive. The local authority has a similar creative relationship with the development corporation. That is not always the case in other parts of the country.
The question that has to be answered today is whether there is any reason to deny the Bill a Second Reading. The answer must be a resounding no. We have the alternative proposal by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which bears a strong similarity to the idea it launched one year previously. While it should receive fair consideration, there are obvious problems with it, to some of which I have referred. If opponents of the scheme are so confident, why do they not allow the Special Standing Committee to consider all the evidence, including information about sites of special scientific interest, to which my hon. Friend the
288
Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred? I agree that some of the matters to be considered require serious consideration.
Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend referred to me and asked a question, so I must reply. The objection to the barrage is a matter of principle. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has written to most hon. Members involved in the debate, has made it clear that the alternative it suggests does not involve the construction of a barrage. That is why the RSPB and many other conservation bodies oppose the Bill in principle.
Mr. Michael: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument. It is something on which we have to agree to differ, as we have from the beginning.
The most vigorous campaign has been conducted by those who want to protect the natural environment. As the natural environment is one of my passionate concerns, I respect the motivation but believe that the wrong target has been selected. This is not a natural environment. It is manmade, derelict and polluted. That is what birds have adapted to. A real clean-up allied to silting would destroy an environment that suits them now.
The promoters have offered major investment in alternative feeding grounds. Nature will adapt to a cleaner, healthier Cardiff bay. The human inhabitants will benefit from a cleaner, healthier environment. It is they, the people of the communities with high unemployment and a poor environment who need the benefits that the Bill and the barrage would bring to their job prospects, their future and their environment. It is for their sakes that I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that it can receive the detailed scrutiny of a Special Standing Committee.
9.33 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for this opportunity to pursue the questions initiated, after a fashion, by the carry-over motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, a great deal has happened since that motion was passed. I want to draw attention to some of the new material.
We meet within seven days of the 10th anniversary of the last major flood of the River Taff, which runs through my constituency. On 26 December 1979, a major flood almost caught a large audience of children at Chipperfield's circus in my constituency. They narrowly escaped with their lives into the offices of the Transport and General Workers' Union in Cathedral road in which both my hon. Friend and the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and I have our constituency offices—[HON. MEMBERS: "On the fourth floor!"] The children were taken to the mezzanine floor.
Mr. Roy Hughes: It is worth pointing out that the Transport and General Workers Union is wholly in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Morgan: I was not aware of any vote on the issue by the Transport and General Workers Union which sponsors me and my hon. Friend and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition.
In my surgeries I am still dealing with compensation cases which have not yet been completed since that flood 10 years ago. I hope that the House will understand just

289
how badly scarred are the residents of the low-lying areas of my constituency—Riverside, Pontcanna Canton and Leckwith from the past flooding.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend explain the reasons for that flood and the previous one, which have nothing to do with the Bill?
Mr. Morgan: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) thinks that he knows the answer to that question, but I think that it is wrong. He thinks that the flood was caused by the inrushing tide coinciding with water coming down the river, but that is not the case. It was caused by human error in the operation of the flood prevention warning.
Mr. Flynn: I thought that.
Mr. Morgan: He did think that. My constituents are worried that human error can still occur and that, if there was a barrage, the consequences would be even more catastrophic than they were in 1979. Trauma still affects the elderly people in the low-lying parts of my constituency which were flooded in 1979 and 1960. Some people still come to my surgery to untangle the compensation cases, and even when the compensation right has not been contested by the city or county council, compensation has still not been paid in full. This is 10 years, less one week, later. That is why my constituents are extremely concerned about the effect on them of anything that alters the water regime to lock the water in, rather than letting it out.
Mr. Michael: I have frequently said that I understand the impact of those events on the inhabitants of my hon. Friend's constituency. Does he not accept that this has little to do with the actual or likely effects of the Bill and the development?
Mr. Morgan: I wish that were true. My hon. Friend has already adduced the names of various distinguished and, as he calls them, pre-eminent, academics such as Mr. Glyn Jones, who has assured him about the groundwater conditions in his constituency. Although I was not consulted about that exercise, I think that, for reasons best known to him, my hon. Friend believes that it also applies to my constituency. If my hon. Friend is interested in the views of pre-eminent academics, he will also be aware of the views of other pre-eminent academics, such as Dr. Gordon Saunders, also of London university, who say that this will increase the flooding risk. That is not only Dr. Saunders's view, but that of Dr. Stuart Noakes, who is at least as well, if not better, academically qualified and has more practical experience because he lives in south Wales and is more familiar with the flood risk to the low-lying terrain in the four wards of my constituency.
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Morgan: I shall give way to my hon. Friend at the rate of once every 10 seconds.
Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that Dr. Saunders's evidence cannot be tested because it has not yet been given?
Mr. Morgan: That is a mysterious definition. If my hon. Friend had read the local newspapers, he would have seen Dr. Saunders's views which they gave, in extenso, making
290
it clear that this was the view of an academic who has an equal, if not greater, right to be regarded as a pre-eminent academic to the one whose evidence my hon. Friend used. My hon. Friend cannot come to the House and pick and choose which academics he wants us to believe. If he thinks that Mr. Glyn Jones is some sort of God from the sky, a Roger Quittendon type of figure, whom everyone in Wales must bow down to and accept without further reference to other academics who do live in or come from south Wales, he is asking an awful lot.
Three major academics—Dr. Saunders, Dr. Noakes and Dr. Miles—all believe that the research done so far by the development corporation into the barrage and its effects on flooding is deeply flawed and inadequately researched. No hon. Member would gainsay the fact that those three are also extremely distinguished engineering experts on underwater geology.
Mr. Michael: I contest that. It is only sensible to allow the Select Committee to consider the comparative qualifications of the different people and the evidence that they give.
Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend might allow me some sort of intermission so that I can continue my speech. If he contests the principle that they are pre-eminent academics, he must say why—[Interruption]. Now my hon. Friend is suggesting that he does not contest that. It is nonsense. Perhaps he would allow me to proceed for, shall we say, 20 seconds?
Three matters have altered substantially since the carry-over motion. The first is the production of the "Living Waterfront" alternative by the Save the Taff Consortium, which is a combination of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other naturalist bodies, together with the residents action groups against the barrage. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the alternative was produced by the RSPB. It was not. The person who designed the scheme was a member of a residents action group against the barrage. The Save the Taff Consortium is a unique conjunction of conservation bodies and residents action groups against the barrage. It would be wrong to give the impression, as my hon. Friend did, that it entirely emanated from the RSPB.
The second change relates to grants from the EEC. We must allay any fears that the Opposition are opposed to persuading the Welsh Office to spend more public money in Cardiff, in the three Glamorgans, in Gwent, in Wales or in the United Kingdom. We are in favour of the spending of strategically designed sums of public money intended to engender more public and private investment. However, the Bill is the wrong way to do it.
The EEC determination will be rubber stamped tomorrow. However, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that it has already been taken. South Wales will be short of regional development funds. The four counties of industrial south Wales and the industrial part of Dyfed will have to manage on very short rations from the EEC for the next three years. Only £50 million will be available for four and a half counties of industrial south Wales. It is a cut of at least a half in what we usually have. The amount will have to be made up by the Welsh Office, because otherwise we shall be short of development money. Extra public money will have to go into the Butetown link.

291
I hope that Conservative Members will not accuse us of being churlish about the offer by the Welsh Office and the Treasury to spend public money on this scheme. We have much better ideas for what should be done with public money. The "Living Waterfront" scheme is a better barrage and our ideas for spending public money will produce far more jobs than would the sterile barrage idea. We are pro-development and pro-environment.
Some 550 people attended a meeting in the city hall at Cardiff to launch the "Living Waterfront" scheme. I thought that it was mad to book the main assembly rooms. I expected only the front three rows to be filled. In fact, the hall, which holds 800 people, was more than five eighths full. It was a most impressive gathering—a combination of conservationists and anti-barrage residents groups.
We must understand those critical factors. Industrial south Wales will be short of public money for development. A report by Coopers and Lybrand pleads the case for the Butetown link being given European regional development fund and Welsh Office support through transport supplementary grant or by an extra grant, through the back door, to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which would pay it to South Glamorgan. The report makes it clear that there would be development in Cardiff bay if the Butetown link is built. That is far more important than anything that the barrage is likely to contribute.
There is absolutely no other way of interpreting the statement in paragraph 549 of the report. After interviewing people in the property development industry, the writers of the report said:
"A majority of interviewees not yet committed to investment would still consider investment in the wider area if there was no barrage."
Remember, the report is talking about property developers.
"However, this would significantly influence the timing and scale of their investment, the quality and value of activity and their choice of location either within the Bay or elsewhere. None of them interviewed would invest without improvement in road links in the Bay area."
The Butetown road link is the critical factor. That will not now get an EEC grant, and that will leave South Glamorgan either with a shattering level of poll tax in the coming few years or it will be necessary for the Welsh Office to up the level of grant to South Glamorgan because that road is now estimated to cost £116 million, making it easily the most expensive county highway project ever launched in Wales.
A grant of at least £25 million over and above the normal 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant is now necessary to replace the lost European regional development fund grant. I will not now go into the reasons why we lost that grant; that is a debate for another place and time.
Not only Coopers and Lybrand say that the barrage is not as important as other essential factors. For example, in the December 1989 issue of Housing magazine there is an interesting quotation from Barratt's south Wales general manager, Mr. Melhuish:
"Barry Melhuish, Sales Director of Barratt, South Wales, confirms this. 'Our development is planned as a waterside development"'—
he was referring to the Windsor Quays development on Ferry road—
"'which can cater for the barrage happening or not happening.' He says, 'We are proceeding without a care for the barrage.'"
292
Not only is Barratt's saying that. It is now as plain as a pikestaff. During the summer, Sam Pickstock of Tarmac South Wales said that he did not intend to wait for the barrage and that his investment decisions had nothing to do with whether the barrage went ahead—and that was the view of the largest housing developer in Britain.
With industrialists, the CBDC has become a dirty word. The CBDC has sterilised development for the last two years in the area of the old East Moors steelworks. Indeed, during the summer, things got so bad that the Welsh Office issued a warning to the CBDC to the effect that it must get its act together.
It is not unfair to say that the CBDC has, in Cardiff's case, been the biggest job destroyer since the Luftwaffe. In the middle of last year, AA Insurance Services was launching a project which would have brought an additional 500 jobs to Cardiff, but as a result of being messed about by the CBDC, that development went to Newcastle.
That is one reason why the CBDC has become a dirty word, although we could also quote in graphic terms Mr. Mike McGrane of Paul's Industrial Services, one of the major employers in the bay, with 400 jobs involved. When the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the former Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, was opening some premises, Mr. McGrane said:
"The main problem with Cardiff Bay is that I have always failed to get a response. Their development people have been courteous and helpful, but I believe their hands have been tied. I honestly cannot understand the motives of the Bay. It is also worth pointing out that as a local firm, we have never been asked to submit a tender for any of the work being carried out for them. How can they say that this is for the benefit of local businesses?"
It is interesting to note what Lord Callaghan said. On this occasion he was opening new premises, and the Cardiff Bay development corporation had already said that those premises would have to be knocked down. Lord Callaghan said:
"I shall never forget this day. Never before have I been asked to unveil a plaque for a building that was going to be knocked down."
That is the present state of affairs. The job-creation agency set up by the Government is destroying jobs before reaching the job-creation stage.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is quoting a series of examples which are not open to proper debate in the House. Indeed, it would be wrong for us now to debate those individual examples. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that 4 have been involved with a number of problems of concern to individual firms?
Mr. Morgan: I have the details of the examples with me.
Mr. Michael: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred. I assure him that I take an interest in firms in my constituency, and I feel better placed than he is to say that he is grossly overstating the case.
Mr. Morgan: I find it difficult to understand how I can be grossly overstating the case when I am quoting what has been said by major employers.
The question, then, concerns the competence of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, something which grievously worries my constituents. Since the carry-over motion, the development corporation and the county council have attempted to correct the incorrect map that

293
they signed. When we debated the motion, I was told that the issue of the incorrect map was a minor one, that all would be put right and that everyone would be happy. My constituents, however, are still extremely unhappy about the compensation map signed in error by Lord Elibank.
Lord Elibank has since signed a new plan, which has been displayed in certain public places—the city hall, the county headquarters and Baltic house, the corporation's headquarters. Lists have been sent out to local residents affected by the change in the line of the plan, telling them, "We are very sorry that we put your house on the wrong side of the line; we have now corrected our mistake." There is still a mistake, however.
The corporation told me about one further change that it had made, but it has also made further uncovenanted changes involving nine houses in Severn grove, Nos. 63 to 81. Those houses have still been omitted from a list in which—according to the original plan put before the House of Lords—they should have been included. The intent of Cardiff Bay and the co-promoter, South Glamorgan, is still being defeated. At 7 pm today, I was given a press release by Pontcanna Residents Against the Barrage, which has studied the plans most diligently. I am told that its secretary had the two maps in front of her, and saw that the large one did not tally with the small one that had been distributed to everyone.
The corporation's competence is in doubt on two counts: the destruction of jobs, and the failure to get the compensation maps right. Compensation is a major issue in my constituency, as I am sure that it is in Cardiff, South and Penarth. Tenants probably have not received letters at all, simply because they were addressed to "The Resident"—one resident per house—meaning that those in bedsit-land would not receive the information. That may be why the Woolwich Building Society is to publish tomorrow a survey of house price changes in south Wales up to the year 2000. According to tonight's edition of the South Wales Echo, the report—which I have not read—comments that concern about flooding may well cause the price of houses in low-lying parts of Cardiff to lag behind that of houses in other parts. The Bill, however, contains no proposals for changes in property values that penalise residents of low-lying areas.
Among the academics who have studied the geological aspects of the case, there are those who believe that there is nothing to worry about—for instance, Mr. Jones, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and Mr. Roly Edwards, who works for Cardiff Bay and is a consultant to Wallace Evans and Partners—and three who believe that there is a great deal to worry about: Drs. Saunders, Miles and Noake, who are all extremely distinguished in their field. What marks out the opponents of the barrage, however, is their familiarity with geological conditions in south Wales.
I am in no position to judge who is pre-eminent, but it is surely more than a coincidence that the practical but highly qualified academics who are worried about flooding and groundwater were either born and brought up in south Wales or worked there—or both. That is not true of Mr. Jones or Mr. Edwards, who are not so well acquainted with the unusual geological and water conditions there. The level of rivers can rise dramatically following rain in
294
the Beacons and the valleys, and when the great Atlantic depressions sweep across for three weeks, followed by a final great downpour, the river flow is strongly affected.
Mr. Rogers: I am sure that hon. Members are bored with the ping-pong battle between the consultant geologists. I am an engineering geologist by profession, and quite frankly I am completely bored with it. I do not claim any pre-eminence; all I can do is read the report that was financed by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. On table 6.1, Wallace Evans listed nine potential hazards in the area. It takes into account some hazards and discounts others. A closer reading of the part of the report that discounts the hazards shows that the consultants for the corporation cannot dismiss them completely, so it will become a matter of conjecture between the so-called experts because they are dealing with marginal hazards that have been acknowledged. It is as simple as that.
Mr. Morgan: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who is academically, geologically and politically pre-eminent. I hope that he will be satisfied with my decision to leave geology and turn to environmental matters. I wish to depart from the chambers of the Royal Geological Society and turn to water quality, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West, for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
One question that has emerged since we last debated the Bill is how to clean up the waters of the Taff beyond the stage at which all the sewage is treated without locking rich nutrients into the lake that would be formed behind the dam. I am told that the only way to do that would be to do what is done in parts of Germany, as most of Germany is landlocked—phosphate stripping.
Phosphate stripping is a major exercise which requires a large area of land, so it would have to be done somewhere in my constituency or that of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr Grist)—somewhere in Blackweir or Pontcanna fields. It would require a very extensive acreage for a large double treatment works so that the water entering the bay was cleaned of all the rich nutrients from the treated sewage from the Cynon valley, the Rhondda that is trapped at Cilfynydd and elsewhere at other sewage treatment works.
That would create a very major problem. It is not in the proposals of the CBDC or the Welsh water authority. It has not been costed or designed and it is not on offer to us, so we must assume that the water entering the lake would be extremely rich in nutrients from treated sewage.
Is there a way to prevent untreated sewage from forcing its way into the Taff on a massive scale? Last week, during the heavy rain, we all went down to check on the Taff and we saw a massive wave of plastic bags, council house doors, and sanitary items, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) so graphically the last time we discussed these matters. The only way to get rid of that would be to have rainwater drains in the valleys so large that they would be something like 10 ft above the road.
The flashiness of the rivers in south Wales in response to heavy rain is such that the rainwater goes straight into the river on a colossal scale because there is no soil cover on the sides of the valleys as the trees were all cut down for pit props during world war one. There is no way of coping

295
with that. We shall always have that problem. In every heavy rain storm during the winter, untreated sewage will be forced into the river and trapped in the bay and the lake, making the lake extremely unsightly and microbiologically hazardous for anyone brave enough to think of immersion or occasional immersion sports.
Finally, the residents have every right to remain extremely concerned about their future happiness and security in their homes. They are deeply cynical about the way in which they have been treated over the past 10 years by the city council and the county council in respect of flood compensation claims. They do not, therefore, always believe what authority tells them. We might say that they should believe what authority tells them and that the scheme will reduce flood danger, but they know that academic opinion on the subject is divided.
People will naturally play safe and say that if all the academics had told them that the scheme would reduce the risk from flooding, they would believe them, but as the academics are split 50:50 and the experts who live in south Wales have said that we must be careful about the scheme because it could make matters worse, it is natural that those of my constituents who live in low-lying areas which are prone to flooding and who have experience of flooding will say that they do not want the scheme and that they do not think that it will he good for their environment. Whatever is good for the environment must not mean 4 ft of dirty floodwater from the Taff in their ground floor premises every 20 years.
It is all very well for people to say that the CBDC is staffed by experts and has the most expensive consultants that money can buy. Let us never forget that the Titanic was built by professionals, whereas Noah's Ark was built by inspired and very committed amateurs.
10.5 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: It may seem trite to say so, but the Bill seeks to build a barrage. If one looks at the long title to the Bill, it is also intended to build a lagoon at Wentlloog. I understand, from reading the evidence in the other place and from listening to what has been said tonight, that if the Bill does not become law, the development of the dockland area in Cardiff will still go ahead. It is not the purpose of any of us who oppose the barrage to oppose such a development. I concede readily that the development may be of a different form, and that it may be at a slower pace, but no one has argued that there will be no development.
There have been various objections, which I shall merely mention because I am not competent, as the Member for Llanelli, to deal with them. They are matters for my hon. Friends who represent Cardiff constituencies. One objection is that the barrage scheme will have a bad effect on the local community and there is the danger of flooding. There are also environmental problems, including problems for bird life, and the question of public subsidy. I have read the reports of the previous debate in this House and the debates in the other place, and the evidence that was given to the House of Lords Select Committee. It is surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and other hon. Members did not mention the public subsidy. We deserve to know about it and I hope that the Minister will realise that he has a duty to tell us about it.
The Welsh Office issued a press release on 11 December
296
this year which, in effect, boasted about the £100 million to be paid to the development corporation out of Government money over a period of three years, as I understand it. We were not told in the press release what the money would be spent on or what part of the Welsh Office budget the money would come from. I hope that we shall be told tonight what the money will be spent on, where it will come from and how much there will be. Apparently, the private sector can put in £8 for every £1 of public sector money. Let us be told how much the public sector will put into what is, in effect, a private venture.
All those objections are valid, but I should like to widen the debate a little and to concentrate on some other aspects of the scheme. To me and to some of my hon. Friends—I am sorry to say this in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—this scheme seems, as do so many others of its kind, to epitomise much of what has been wrong about 10 years of Thatcherite Britain. The scheme will contribute little, if anything, to primary production. It is concerned with consumption, not with production. It is about property, up-market housing, shopping malls, leisure and tourism.
Those are all no doubt good and worthy when they are the by-product of the fruits of production in a healthy economy. Such projects may be very worthy in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Japan and other countries with strong economies, but they are not something to boast about or to embark upon in the Britain of the late-1980s and 1990s, given our weak industrial base. Britain cannot afford them, and south Wales, with an even weaker industrial base, can afford them even less.
The scheme is all too familiar and predictable. Most of us know the syndrome, although perhaps on a smaller scale. First, one finds a consultant. The very word "consultant"—especially if one puts the word "management" in front of it—strikes awe and terror in many people's hearts and minds. Once one has found a consultant, he goes away and looks into the matter I am sorry to say that very few of these guys have much imagination. They follow fashion and they are good at drawing up Bills, but they lack imagination. I have not seen a Leonardo da Vinci among them so far.
The fruits of the consultants' work are predictable. In this case, we have a barrage, or a lagoon, or a lake: it does not really matter what one calls it. As Cecil B. De Mille might have said, "You've got to get water, and plenty of water." That is where they start; then they put little boats on the water and build houses round it. Once they have done that, they need a golf course. After all, these hard-working consultants have to have a break between one report and the next. Then, if they can, they make a ski slope, which might be very difficult in Wentlloog.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Come to Merthyr. We have a fine ski slope there.
Mr. Davies: Indeed, but my hon. Friend does not have a lagoon.
I suppose that we could have a water ski slope in Wentlloog. I am sure that the corporation, whose representative must be listening to the debate, could come up with some sort of ski slope.
If one pays a little bit extra, one can also get a park for rare breeds of animals, such as Jacob sheep, or whatever. In Llanelli some time ago, it was suggested that land that used to be employed for a modern steelworks that was

297
destroyed in the early phases of Thatcherism—in the early 1980s—could be used as a park for pink pigs. Luckily, with their well-known wit and sense of the ridiculous, my constituents managed to laugh that bit of consultancy out of town.
Mr. Ron Davies: What was their colour?
Mr. Denzil Davies: They were pink.
Mr. Ron Davies: Well, most of them are.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Oh, dear!
The Bill is not about water but about residential and commercial property. No doubt somewhere in the pretty plans there will be a few sites for factories, just to satisfy those of us old-fashioned enough to believe in production and manufacturing. But most of the property will be residential or commercial because residential and commercial land values in that area are far higher than land values for factories, and it is easier to borrow on the basis of those higher land values.
Most of the properties will be housing; not any old housing, oh no! I have read the evidence from the other place and the Select Committee report, and I know that it will be up-market housing for the professional classes. The Select Committee gave the game away. If there is no barrage, we are told, there will still be about 2,700 houses, but unfortunately very few of them will be "of high quality". That means that they will be houses for the working classes, and that, of course, will not do. So—hey presto!—we have a barrage. Then we are allowed 5,000 houses, and three quarters of the 5,000 houses will be of "the highest quality". That means houses for the professional classes.
We have not heard any economic analysis. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth did not mention any economic benefits and there has been no study of them. Presumably, the "trickle down" theory applies. If houses are built for surveyors, stockbrokers, solicitors, lawyers and accountants, their expertise, wealth and everything that they contribute will trickle down and irrigate the land and the economy all around them. That is the theory, but I do not believe it and the history of south Wales during the past 10 years does not show that it happens. Indeed, despite all these wonderful developments, income per head of population in Wales during the past 10 years has fallen dramatically.
Housing in Britain is heavily subsidised. In my opinion, it is too heavily subsidised, but we could debate that matter on another occasion. Although it is heavily subsidised, the money that the Welsh Office will put into this project may not go directly into housing. However, it will be spent on roads, sewers and other ancillary matters needed for house building. In effect, the £100 million will be a subsidy to private sector housing—and to up-market private sector housing at that. If money is available for housing, I, and I am sure most of my hon. Friends, can think of better places and better ways of spending it.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a quarter of the housing that is to be provided will be low-cost housing for first-time buyers and that that will be of tremendous benefit to people in Cardiff?
Mr. Davies: I said that three quarters of the housing would be high-quality housing, so on that basis presumably one quarter will be low quality. About 25 per cent. of the housing will be for the low-quality end of the market—[Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend cannot deny that—
Mr. Wardell: It will be low-cost housing.
Mr. Davies: Well, "low cost" and "low quality" sometimes go together—[Interruption.]—but not always.
During the past 10 years, one third of Britain's manufacturing industry and base has disappeared. Probably more than one third of our industrial base has disappeared in south Wales and we may never get it back. Britain has a balance of payments deficit of £20 billion. We have an inflation rate of 8 per cent. and interest rates of 15 per cent. During the past 10 years, money has been poured into property development in the residential and commercial sectors, causing the kind of inflation that we now have and contributing to the high interest rates that are crucifying manufacturing industry.
If the property companies that are to be part of the development examine the cost of borrowing the money that they will need for the development, I wager that they will find that the average cost of the interest is far below the best or market rate of interest when amortised over the life of the property. Although small engineering companies, small foundries and small machine tool companies pay interest at 16, 17 or 18 per cent., pension funds or property companies pay nothing near that rate.
However, without the manufacturing concerns, the foundries or machine tool shops, all these developments will wither on the vine and eventually become white elephants. As for jobs, we know the kind of jobs that will be produced by the development. They are part-time, low-paid jobs. That is what we have suffered from in south Wales during the past 10 years.
In conclusion, the building of the barrage is a product of the excesses and profligacy of Thatcher Britain during the 1980s—of the borrowing and reborrowing on property. I do not know whether the Bill will become law, but if the provisions are enacted in 1990, the building will no doubt begin in 1990. However, the boom is over and the excesses will have to be paid for. I do not know whether the country will be prepared to pay in the early 1990s for the excesses of the 1980s. I do not know whether it will be prepared to pay for this development and, whether or not the Bill goes through, I suspect that we shall not be able to pay for this development.
10.18 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: My qualification for speaking in the debate is that I spent the first 30 years of my life living in Grangetown, an experience that few, if any, hon. Members will have shared. I have a passionate interest in the area and a desire to see its improvement.
I can speak about Llanelli with the same authority with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke about Cardiff—nil. He clearly does not understand the effect that the Bill will have on a great circle of working-class homes that are already there. The area of Channel view, the Marl, Avondale road, the Hamadryad and going round to Splott has for several generations been shunned and despised by Cardiff.

299
We hear talk of Cardiff bay. When I was a boy I knew all about Tiger bay, but I had never heard of Cardiff bay. It has suddenly been presented as an area that is desirable and unique. It is unique in some ways. It is a vast mud slum surrounded by refuse tips. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds finds it beautiful. I know that distance lends enchantment to the view. We know that Cardiff bay looks attractive from Caerphilly, and from Scunthorpe it looks magnificent.
Mr. Elliot Morley: Does my hon. Friend accept that I have had letters from people who live in the area who share the view of the environmentalists that the bay is not only important environmentally but should be built into the city—that it is part of the city's heritage and should be developed and improved? I accept my hon. Friend's points, but does he accept that if the barrage were scrapped, the money could be diverted to enhancing the area so that we could have the bay, the birds and the improvements?
Mr. Flynn: I shall come to that point. My hon. Friend is a member of the ruling body of the RSPB, whose president comes from Iceland. From Iceland, Cardiff bay looks as beautiful as the Bay of Naples. It looks wonderful. When we previously debated the matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) complained bitterly that if the barrage is constructed the water will not be blue. But even the Bay of Naples is not blue. The Bristol channel is brown. Roath park in the centre of Cardiff is an ugly green colour, but it is acceptable and many of us use such areas with pleasure for recreational purposes. The only chance of the water becoming blue is if there is an outbreak of blue-green algae, which is the great threat to the barrage and could result in toxins being released.
But the great lesson here is not in the pessimism and the hundreds of reasons that people can think up why the project will go wrong. Rather we should look at the environmental crime that has been committed in Cardiff over the years. When I was a boy I used to swim in the River Taff from Penarth road bridge. The water there was not blue or brown, it was black, but it has improved enormously since. The crime is not that we shall create a lagoon that will be polluted; the crime is that we have allowed such pollution to continue all these years. The need to clean up the Rivers Taff and Ely must be part of the construction of the barrage.
I worked in the area for many years. I have walked from Grangetown to Victoria wharf. Such a slum of industrial buildings would never have been allowed in any other part of the city. Many people have come from elsewhere and they are playing on the fears of the people of Cardiff. I remember the two great floods and the terror and squalor that they caused. We must avoid a recurrence, and the issue of groundwater must be properly investigated. However. I understand that attempts—not made on a basis of fact—have been made to arouse people's fears. It is a shame that emotions should have been aroused so unnecessarily.
We have heard a great deal about birds and about the great environmental offence that is about to be committed. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that for the first time a national body is to destroy an entire site of special scientific interest. It is interesting to consider just how many SSSIs there are. They already
300
number more than 5,000, and the figure is rapidly approaching 7,000. There will be a time when 10 per cent. of the whole land area of the country will be designated as special.
We are talking here about the estuary of the Taff and the Rhymney—not about the estuaries of the Mawdduch Towry, or Tawe, or about various magnificent other estuaries in Wales. One could argue a case for preserving them.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that when an SSSI is designated, great care must be exercised not to make that action counter-productive? In my constituency, there is an SSSI at Broughton, which has been designated so that the tide can come in and erode the cliff face. It is taking away a farmer's land so that a glacial till is exposed and the public can view it. One must remember that a farmer's livelihood is just as important as the facility to view a glacial till.
Mr. Flynn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
How many SSSIs have been destroyed or threatened in the past few years? I can tell the House that the figure is nearly 300, so such occurrances are not unusual. The areas in question were not significantly special.
There has been a great deal of debate about the various species of birds on the barrage site. They include dunlins and redshanks. Is it not amazing that, since the time of the archaeopter, and through millions of years of evolution, birds have managed to survive in myriads of species, shapes and colours—all without the help of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds?
It is now being claimed that every possible bird habitat must be protected in aspic and left unchanged. The fact is that great changes are occurring anyway. Ports and industrial areas are closing and are being recolonised by birds. A particular feature of an estuary is that it is always changing. Cardiff bay has already changed enormously because dredging has stopped there. The area alters every year because of the growth of the salt marsh.
Birds are very robust. I remember one area being changed for the benefit of farmers, who seemed to reign supreme in these matters, in Gwent. A huge area at Collister pill was drained and the habitat of many thousands of birds was destroyed. They could no longer breed because the wetland had disappeared. Without the help of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the species concerned migrated to a wholly artificial, manmade ash pond a few miles away and happily multiplied in numbers. They found new feeding grounds on an area outside the Usk estuary.
Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the habitat of which he speaks is very different from that of Cardiff bay and that there is no comparison between the two? Does he acknowledge that there is a scientific case that in North and South America, as well as in Europe, many species of birds and animals are on the decline? As my hon. Friend rightly says, habitat changes are occurring, but unfortunately they are for the worse, not the better. To take out Cardiff bay would place even more stress on the habitat and hasten the decline of many species that has already begun.
Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend gives a clue to the true purpose behind the RSPB campaign. It is interested not in

301
Cardiff or the bay but in the estuaries around our coast, and it is using Cardiff bay as an example. It knows that the population of dunlin and redshank is not unique. There are probably millions of dunlins in the world; there is no threat to them. If there is precious birdlife, one has to go to Bridgewater bay to find it.
The RSPB is campaigning and putting Cardiff's prosperity at risk because it wants to fight the line at Cardiff. It knows that if it can win its case in a bay as ugly as Cardiff's, it can fight and win in the Mawddach estuary, the Towy estuary and other beautiful estuaries.
Mr. Rogers: I am listening to my hon. Friend with amazement. Speeches have been made about the development of the bay and its usefulness to the people of Cardiff and the surrounding area. My hon. Friend's outlandish attack on people who are genuinely concerned about conservation does the argument no good. He should consider the far more serious issues rather than making this silly attack.
Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
One of the fauna that exists in great numbers on the marl and foreshore of Cardiff bay is the rat. If one wants to see a living waterfront, one should go to certain areas—I shall not name them now—at high tide, when rats come over the sea walls. They are welcomed by the children of the area who trepan them with hammers. The rat is not regarded as an attractive animal, and because we do not have pictures of it painted by Peter Scott on our dining room walls it has no sentimental appeal. The environmental movement here is based on animals that are attractive.
When the presentation of the barrage was made, many conservationists and others came to Cardiff to fight the test case. The national press and its photographers were invited. I feel sympathy for Mr. Neil Libbert, a gifted photographer whose work I have followed for many years. His challenge was to present Cardiff bay as an attractive place. He had to turn down the F stop on his camera to fade into the shadows, and soft focus the squalor that surrounds it to present an attractive picture.
Cardiff bay is the least beautiful part of the city. Of course details must be discussed at length, but hon. Members should not be misled by the extravagance of the arguments of people who live many miles from Cardiff. There is a need to beautify the bay, and I hope that at this stage hon. Members will discuss the Bill, then sort out its detail in Committee and make a decision on Third Reading.
10.33 pm
Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will read his speech carefully when it appears in Hansard tomorrow. I know that he has a sense of humour and that occasionally he likes to be deliberately provocative, sometimes with the objective of catching the odd headline. He referred quite specifically to me in his speech. I think that his remarks were very silly, offensive and unfounded. I am sure that he did not intend any personal affront, but I hope that on reflection, having read his speech carefully, he will want to withdraw some of his wilder statements.
302
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is the only hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the Bill, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who moved the Second Reading.
Two tasks face those who promote or support the Bill. The first is to justify the construction of the barrage. No hon. Member so far has made any attempt to justify its construction. The second is to justify the destruction of a site of special scientific interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West poured scorn on the whole ideal of conservation, and he will regret that tomorrow. He mocked those of us who are concerned about our natural heritage. This proposal will entirely destroy an SSSI. I am prepared to accept that, where an overriding national interest is involved, those of us who normally rate conservation issues most highly would have to recognise that conservation came second. If there is an overwhelming national case to justify the destruction of an SSSI, it has not been made this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth talked only in the broadest terms about the redevelopment of Cardiff. I will tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West until I am blue in the face that we entirely support the redevelopment of Cardiff dockland, but we question the wisdom of constructing a barrage and the idea that it will somehow facilitate or accelerate the reconstruction of our dockland. The House of Lords examined that in minute detail and it is abundantly clear to those who have read their reports that that case has been stripped away. There is no economic case.
Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Davies: I shall make my speech. My hon. Friend will find another opportunity.
What happened in the House of Lords is a matter of record—
Mr. Michael: On that point?
Mr. Davies: I would prefer not to give way to my hon. Friend. He made his speech and I have many points to make. If he seeks to intervene merely to reinterpret what has already been said, I must tell him that I am not in the business of saying that my interpretation is better than his or that my experts are better than his. That is a matter of opinion. If he seeks merely to challenge me on matters of opinion, it would be better if I could make my speech in my own way.
Mr. Michael: The House of Lords Committee was convinced on evidence that the economic case was sound and investment prospects good. It accepted the need for the barrage. If there is alternative evidence, the details should be brought before the Select Committee and argued there. If, in stating a different view from mine, my hon. Friend is sincere in his belief, as I am sure he is, it is appropriate not to oppose the Second Reading, but to allow the Bill to pass to a Select Committee where the difference of view can be properly explored in great detail.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is wrong on all counts. I am opposing the Bill as a matter of principle because I believe that the construction of the barrage is wrong. It is no good my hon. Friend saying that we should refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I am opposed to the

303
construction of the barrage. I hope that he understands that. I referred to the evidence presented to the House of Lords Committee, not to the conclusion drawn by four or five geriatrics after considering the evidence.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make disparaging references to Members of the other place.
Mr. Davies: I was wrong to make that remark and if I caused any offence, I withdraw it wholly and without reservation. That shows the danger of giving way.
My hon. Friend is wrong on many counts. The evidence presented to the House of Lords Committee stripped away the arguments for the barrage. If their Lordships in their wisdom decided not to accept that evidence, it is not a matter for me. I read the evidence that way presented and I hope that my hon. Friend understands that. Some time ago we debated a carry-over motion, and it was abundantly clear during that debate that there were four principal objections to the Bill: the conservation case, the argument about water quality, the question of the groundwater level and the water table, and the economic case—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) supported in a powerful speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the case for the barrage has been strengthened since that debate. However, my understanding is that what has happened in Cardiff since we had that debate does not strengthen the case.
The weekend after we debated the carry-over motion, a river in my constituency was subject to the grossest pollution. Given the geography of the valleys, and the juxtaposition of industry, commerce and the waterways, it is an undisputable fact that there will inevitably be flooding and there will be occasions when pollutants and toxins get into the water.
At present the Rhymney river flows out to the Severn, but if similar pollution occurs in the Taff or the Ely when we have a barrage, what will be the consequences? Instead of the natural system, whereby the toxins are flushed out to sea and can be diluted and broken up by sunlight and seawater, they will be pounded up behind the barrage.
We have been told that the National Rivers Authority will have a mysterious way to ensure the maintenance of water quality. It will have a big oxygenating plant, and it is going to turn the whole of the lagoon—1·8 hectares—into a bubble bath. It will pump oxygen through to burn off all the nutrients.
People who live in the valleys know about the everyday consequences of pollution, and that is one of the reasons that we have fears about the arguments on water quality.
In the summer, the South Wales Echo was one of the most fervent allies and advocates of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It ran a campaign, calling Cardiff the dirtiest city in the United Kingdom. The city council and South Glamorgan county council could not keep the streets clean. Yet now they tell us that they will use new technology and all the marvellous modern methods that have never been tried before, to maintain water quality in 1.8 hectares of man-made lake. That stretches my incredulity, if not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
We were told in the previous debate that the experts had been called in. Hydrogeologists and geologists have looked at the groundwater conditions in Cardiff and they say,
304
"Don't worry. There is nothing to worry about. The thousands of homes that are potentially jeopardised will be okay, the groundwater will not rise, it will not cause flooding, and if it does there will be compensation."
On 12 December I came across an article in the South Wales Echo referring to the Celtic Bay hotel. It is the hotel to which hon. Members were invited for a free weekend so that they could see the marvels of Cardiff bay. Many of us did not attend. It should be noted that the advisers of the development corporation would have been the experts who advised the hotel. The article reported:
"Cardiff's new Docklands Celtic Bay Hotel was flooded last night for the third time.
An urgent meeting with the architects and builders was called after carpets were ruined in the basement bar and Health Suite. The flooding of the hotel, opened in July, has followed high tides and heavy rain causing the water-table to rise."
If heavy rain and high tides make the water table rise, what will pounding all the rivers and creating an artificial lake do?
The article continued:
"South Glamorgan Fire Service were called to the £3 million hotel today and used suction machines to clear the basement. General Manager Mr. Essex said, 'We are becoming masters at coping with it.'"
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has to explain to thousands of people in Cardiff how they will have the resources of the county council and the South Glamorgan fire service to hand all the time and whether they will become masters at dealing with flooding.
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Davies: I shall not give way.
Mr. Michael: That is irresponsible and misleading.
Mr. Davies: I wish to make another point on winch my hon. Friend may like to comment.
The economic argument has been the subject of debate in south Wales. It has been proved that pumping public money into the bay development is a way to put a premium on private investment and that it will be ripped off by the private sector. We know the role being played by the erstwhile Nicholas Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, as director of Associated British Ports in 160 acres of prime development land. Cardiff city council has played sweetheart with the development corporation and the Secretary of State.
The South Wales Echo reported on 16 December:
"City hit by £40 million cut in budget. All council schemes in Cardiff—from house repairs to leisure projects—are threatened by a massive Government spending cut which will almost certainly mean loss of jobs."
It is the end of the capital building programme in Cardiff. If there is a case to be made for the regeneration of Cardiff—and there is—it must be based on decent homes for the people who already live there. It must be based on investment in manufacturing industry, in infrastructure, in hospitals and in leisure centres and recreation facilities. That is the type of investment that is needed. Instead, Cardiff bay gets money and the city council gets a £40 million cut in budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth may be tempted to say, as might others who live in Cardiff, that these are internal matters and that hon. Members from outside the area should not involve themselves in it. My response is that the promoters decided to come to the House to ask parliamentary permission.

305
They put the Bill in our court. Secondly, I must state in the strongest possible terms that all of us have a right to comment on a projected development which threatens our natural heritage. That natural heritage does not belong to Cardiff city council, or to Glamorgan, or to Cardiff bay or to my hon. Friends from Cardiff. It is part of our national natural heritage, and we all have a responsibility to ensure that it is safeguarded.
The overwhelming objection to the development must be that raised on conservation grounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West who I am glad to see has returned to the Chamber, suggested that only people from outside and the RSPB are objecting. The local groups who are objecting on only conservation grounds include the Severn Estuary Conservation Group, the Glamorgan Wildlife Trust, the Cardiff Naturalists' Society and the Cardiff branch of Friends of the Earth.
The national bodies which oppose the plan are the RSPB, which has more than 600,000 members, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and, most critically of all, the Government's own nature conservation advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council. They are the prime objectors to the Bill and have petition No. 1 against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth may have dismissed the local bodies, and he may want to dismiss the RSPB, but he should not dismiss the NCC. I do not think that he would want to do that.
I can do no better than quote what the RSPB has written, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will develop this line of argument. I want to stress in the strongest possible terms the importance of the combined estuary of the Rivers Taff and Ely of between 5,000 and 8,000 waders and wildfowl. It is the most important estuary within the greater Severn estuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West should remain for a while.
Ian Prestt, the director general, of the RSPB said:
"Cardiff bay is one of Wales' most prestigious natural assets holding 5–8,000 birds each winter including dunlin, redshank, shelduck, teal and knot. Many of these birds travel thousands of miles from as far away as Iceland, Greenland and Siberia to winter on Cardiff's ice-free bay. The birds depend on this bay for their survival. We have an international responsibility to protect it."
When my hon. Friend makes his throwaway remarks about people from outside daring to criticise or people from as far away as Iceland making comments about our responsibility for nature conservation, he should understand that we all have responsibility for migratory birds. We cannot draw artificial natural boundaries around them and say, "Cardiff has this responsibility," or, "Wales has that responsibility," or, "Britain has that responsibility."
We all have a common responsibility because these winter residents are the summer breeding population in the rest of—
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Davies: Let me finish my sentence and then I shall give way.
These birds are our responsibility during the winter when they are our residents and they are the responsibility of the north Atlantic breeding areas during the summer.
I shall give a final quote from the RSPB and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend who, I think, referred to the
306
president of the RSPB, Magnus Magnusson, when he talked about Iceland. Commenting on the "Living Waterfront" scheme, the RSPB's president said:
"Acceptance of the Development Corporation's proposals would be a major tragedy for South Cardiff. The alternative `Living Waterfront' scheme will enhance the living and working conditions of the local people while maintaining the wildlife interest. Unlike the barrage it will not cause problems such as poor water quality, insect nuisance, flooding and the destruction of a nationally important site for birds."
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and if my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is so agitated I shall then give way to him, but after that I want to continue my speech and come to a fairly early conclusion.
Mr. Flynn: I apologise for leaving the Chamber but, as my hon. Friend knows, I have a deep interest in the terrible events in Romania being revealed by the hour. That was why I was absent from the Chamber.
There has been a serious environmental analysis of what is likely to happen when the barrage is built. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are still huge areas of changing mudflats that will remain outside the barrage, on which the birds can grow, multiply and on which they now nest? They will be able to use the vast hundreds of square miles that exist in the estuary. How much land outside the barrage is being used by the dunlins and redshanks?
Mr. Davies: By definition, birds that overwinter in this country do not nest here in the summer. When my hon. Friend considers the nature of his question, he will find its answer in his own remarks.
Mr. Michael: I accept that this is a matter about which my hon. Friend feels passionately, which is why he has such a concentrated approach to it. His passion carries him a little too far. It is a little surprising that the RSPB discovered the tremendous importance of this area of Cardiff bay only when a development was suggested. It did not give it such importance in its previous publications. My hon. Friend undermines his case by overstating it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend should try a bit of charm.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend suggests that I should try a bit of charm, but given the company that surrounds me, my natural charm is pressed.
The RSPB has not suddenly found Cardiff bay. It was the subject of designation as a site of special scientific interest in 1979. Nobody objected to that then.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Nobody knew.
Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend sometimes lets his tongue get him into trouble. He said that nobody knew.
In 1979 South Glamorgan included Cardiff bay in its structure plan as a site for nature conservation, so the conservation case is well established. No one argued against development prior to Nick Edwards's brainchild in 1986 because until then he had not had his brainchild. It was not until 1986 that anyone suggested that Cardiff bay should be developed.
My hon. Friend for Newport, West grossly exaggerated his views when he tried to dismiss the idea of designations of sites of special scientific interest. He tried to suggest that because there were 5,000 such sites one did not really matter. He should look carefully at those 5,000 sites, although not individually. Some 1,000 of them are sites of

307
scientific geological interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) made a telling point about that and there was a great deal of merit in his case.
The other sites are designated not by whim, not because someone simply says, "This is a nice site, let's designate it." They are based on strict, objective, scientific criteria. Those SSSIs that are estuarine and therefore have particular importance for migrating birds number only 48. My hon. Friend cannot say that there are 5,000 when there are only 48.
I resist the development of SSSIs to the extent that they would be destroyed, for the first time, by Government action. It sets a precedent. My hon. Friend was right to say that we are resisting it because it is the first one. I must ask him—and it is a rhetorical question; I do not want an answer and I will not give way to him—if we do not resist the first one, when do we start to resist? Will it be an arbitrary figure? Will it be the fifth, the 10th or the 48th? Will we destroy them all? If so, what is the point of designating SSSIs?
We have a moral obligation, which I believe to be overriding, although I understand that others may think differently. It is my view that our natural heritage has been handed down from those who went before, and it is our responsibility to conserve for those who come after. I freely admit that that is my own, perhaps idiosyncratic, view. Others may take a different view. However, even if they reject the moral argument, they cannot reject the constitutional argument. They cannot reject our statutory responsibilities to protect our SSSIs.
We have international obligations. The SSSI in Cardiff bay is part of the Severn estuary, which is a candidate for designation under our commitment to Ramsar—the treaty under which we have international obligations. We are internationally obliged under article 3 of the treaty to ensure the wise use of our wetlands. Article 4 states:
"Each contracting party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands whether they are included in the list or not."
We are free and willing signatories to that treaty. I defy anyone to say how the construction of the barrage across the mouths of the Taff and Ely rivers and the creation of this midge-ridden polluted lake, destroying an SSSI, is a wise use of our wetlands.
The EEC directive on the conservation of wild birds requires the protection of species and especially of migratory birds. It makes it clear that, in the case of irreconcilable conflict, the legal obligation of member states is to give priority to ecological needs. Article 2 of the treaty does not say that there shall be a balance but that priority shall be given to ecological needs. For that reason, if the Bill reaches the statute book, that will not be the end of the matter. We will find ourselves before the European Court of Justice charged with a breach of article 2.
Mr. Flynn rose—
Mr. Davies: I sat patiently while my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West made his case and I did not attempt to intervene. He has been absent—for reasons that I appreciate—for a large part of my speech. I trust that he appreciates that I, too, am entitled to make my speech without interruption.
I believe that the Bill flouts our legal obligations to conservation, that it defies logic in the matter of groundwater and the question of water quality and that the promoters of the measure are making a gross error of
308
judgment in believing that the barrage will be a positive factor in the redevelopment of Cardiff docklands. I hope that the Bill will fail tonight and that, if it does not, it will fail during its passage through Parliament.
11.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I thought it might be helpful, after that extremely deeply felt speech by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) if I gave the House a brief summary of the Government's attitude to the Bill. The Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill, as the intention is that the cost of building the barrage will be met by the development corporation with the assistance of grant in aid provided by the Welsh Office, which commissioned the initial studies into the proposal.
The Government believe that the key to the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay area is the construction of a barrage across the harbour mouth. The range of quality developments which will arise from this will benefit not just Cardiff and the people who live and work in the bay area, but also the economy of south Wales generally. The image and perception of Wales worldwide will also be transformed.
The Government carefully considered the wide-ranging and detailed studies of the economic, technical and environmental issues involved. We accept that the environmental considerations must be weighed against the great economic, recreational and other benefits expected to arise from a barrage, and concur with the view that the economic case for the barrage is very strong, a view shared by the Committee in the other place.
Indeed, it is the intention, once the barrage is in place, for the development corporation to carry out as part of the development the highest-quality environmental improvements and to create, with conservation groups, a superb freshwater, wildlife and natural habitat within the bay area.
The Government have already made plain their commitment to providing grant in aid to enable the barrage to be built if Parliament agrees the legislation. As a further demonstration of our commitment to this proposal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 11 December that he was making £31·5 million available to the Cardiff Bay development corporation next year, and that, over the next three years, Government funding would total £100 million, bringing the total amount given, or announced, to date to some £150 million. Beyond that, we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the corporation to carry through its task.
Mr. Rowlands: At last we are receiving an official statement about the public expenditure consequences of the Bill. The Minister spoke of the Government's commitment of £150 million and went on to speak about further amendments. We should not permit this stage of the measure to pass until we have teased out of him his estimate of the total of public and Welsh Office expenditure, and from which vote it will come.
Mr. Grist: I do not think that that is entirely germane to the proposal for a barrage, but capital costs of some £84·78 million are shown in the financial memorandum accompanying the Bill, and those are the costs for which parliamentary approval is being sought. There are, of

309
course, additional costs for sewerage diversion, environmental matters and so forth, which bring the amount to £113 million. The total cost to the development corporation is estimated—as the hon. Gentleman said in his last speech—to be some £402 million. He will appreciate that the multiple of private investment expected to follow that makes the operation very feasible.
Mr. Rowlands: We have now agreed that the total cost will be some £402 million. What proportion of that will be paid out of Welsh Office funds, and under which vote?
Mr. Grist: There will be transport grant funding for the Bute link; the rest will come out of the general Welsh Office block Vote, which is in the hands of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] It is Welsh Office money. The hon. Gentleman has read the evidence given to the Committee in the other place.
That is why I believe that the House should agree to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee.
11.6 pm
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister, and apologise for twice interrupting him. At last we have been given some indication of the enormous public expenditure consequences of the Bill. When we last debated it, we tried to tease the information out of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I was mildly disappointed that, in opening today's debate, my hon. Friend made no reference to the public expenditure consequences. It took some time for us to extract from the Minister the information that the amount involved will be over £400 million.
Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help; I was seeking to help the Minister on the same point. I referred to the public expenditure implications, but I must point out tht the £402 million mentioned by the Minister includes some £219 million which would be required without the barrage—the primary distributor road, for instance. We should be specific about which developments are barrage-related, and we would need the PDR irrespective of the barrage.
Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: further teasing is producing more estimates and qualifications. It is about time. My hon. Friend mentioned none of this in his opening speech; he did not come clean with the House or with his colleagues. Even if that £200-odd million is deducted, however, we are still left with a £200 million public-expenditure Welsh Office grant for the scheme. As has already been said, the matter is no longer one of local concern; it has profound public expenditure implications for the Principality as a whole.
Let me prompt my hon. Friend to interrupt my spech again, in the hope of teasing out further information. In our last debate on the Bill, I mentioned operational losses of £652,000. How will that amount be paid?
Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for posing his questions. I assure him that it is not a case of "teasing out"; the figures are in the public domain, and I am quoting from documents that my hon. Friend has read and from which he too has quoted.
The operational cost of the barrage and the inland bay are estimated at £1·1 million annually in the November 1988 figures, with expected revenues growing over time to a total of £0·475 million, leaving a deficit of £0·642 million. That is a little over half a million pounds. It is only fair to put it in perspective. The maintenance of Cardiff's parks—an expense that we do not begrudge—costs about £3 million annually. So the cost of the project is not as excessive as my hon. Friend suggests.
Mr. Rowlands: That is extremely interesting. The scheme is supposed to have enormous benefits and tremendous consequences for the development of the city. All that private money is to pour into it, yet the public—through the Welsh Office and the ratepayers or poll tax payers of South Glamorgan county council—will pick up the losses. That is the only conclusion I can draw.
Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend makes an extremely cogent point. It seems that losses will be £500,000 in the first year. Does my hon. Friend have any idea where that money will come from? Will it come from the Welsh Office or will it he raised through the poll tax?
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Rowlands: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who is seeking to intervene yet again, is about to tell us.
Mr. Michael: I am seeking to help my hon. Friend with answers to these questions. The maintenance of parks in Cardiff—which we properly consider to be an important matter of public expenditure—is of the order of £3 million. We are talking about a little more than £500,000 for the maintenance of the lake and the inland water area. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we use the term "subsidy" when we do not approve of something, but we say "expenditure on maintenance" when we do.
Mr. Rowlands: We are simply trying to discover the facts. Again my hon. Friend has not answered the question. I understand that the barrage will be owned by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Will the corporation pay the operating cost or will it he paid by the community charge payers of South Glamorgan?
Mr. Michael: Initially, the corporation will fund the running costs. After its dissolution, it is intended to create a fund from assets to enable the successor body to pay for operating costs. Again, I refer only to what is public knowledge and is in the documents to which my hon. Friend has referred. One cannot deal with every detail. These matters have been open and available to my hon. Friend. There is nothing new in what I am saying today.
Mr. Rowlands: It is not a matter of detail, but one of considerable public consequence and concern. We now know that the Welsh Office will underwrite the capital expenditure. We all know about the concept of competing for resources. Ministers constantly tell us that the Welsh Office does not have a bottomless purse. Therefore, that money is coming from the same purse that could be paying the Welsh Development Agency to clear derelict land in Merthyr Tydfil or Rhymney or to finance other developments in other parts of the Principality. Therefore, we are rightly entitled to challenge the use of those public resources, as they come from one central budget that we share and for which we compete with Cardiff and other communities.
Mr Grist: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the development corporation will be raising money through sales of capital assets and land and will be arranging part of the financing.
Mr. Rowlands: That is fascinating. Does it mean that the Cardiff Bay development corporation is likely to pay back any part of the £400 million to come out of Welsh Office funds? I invite the Minister to reply to that perfectly reasonable question.
Let me ask the Minister again. He just got up and said that the Cardiff Bay development corporation will be able to raise money because it will sell houses and assets and develop its land. Does that mean that, if there is a nice large surplus, it will come back to the Welsh Office and pay off the £400 million initial investment? Are we talking about a pump-priming exercise which will be repaid to the Welsh Office, or can it be described as a £400 million grant for what is basically a private development?
Will the Minister answer the question? As he has not risen from his seat, we must make the simple assumption that the £400 million is all grant and that if the CBDC

313
earns lots of money as a consequence of the scheme, the money will not come back to the Welsh Office. That is the simple lesson to draw from our series of exchanges.
Having indentified an important issue, I must explain that I intend to vote against the Bill, because it is a matter of priorities. I do not share the priorities of some hon. Members, and I believe that other communities have an equal, if not greater, right to challenge the levels of expenditure, which make the valleys initiative of the Secretary of State look like meagre rations.
I want to underline a point that I made last time I spoke on the Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth did not respond tonight. I refer to a previous experience, when I had the privilege to serve Cardiff, North. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), in a forceful speech, underlined the point about consultants. Consultants have a vested interest in grandiose schemes. The nature of their thinking—and sometimes of their fees—is based on the sum total of the scheme that they propose. There is an inherent tendency for consultants to produce grandiose schemes.
Cardiff has several times suffered from such proposals. It suffered when Ravenseft and Land Securities came along to build a huge addition to the centre of Cardiff, combined with the destruction of houses with the building of a hook road. Everybody in the city talked about the jobs that would flow from that and how Cardiff would become a great metropolitan centre if only we built that enormous shopping development and the hook road to feed it. I am grateful that, as a result of a switch in public opinion and the strength of resistance to those proposals—
Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rowlands: No, because I have given way fairly to my hon. Friend.
I am grateful that those grandiose schemes were swept away. Cardiff is such a beautiful city now because it has grown organically. It has grown out of the existing centre and by rejecting the grandiose schemes.
Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rowlands: No, because I have responded to my hon. Friend in a series of exchanges and I want to make a couple of brief points.
The city grew out of organic development from the existing centre. Much of what is now being proposed has the approach of those grandiose schemes of 20 years ago. To turn our backs on such schemes and to create a sensible, civilised development out of the existing dockland area would be a better choice than the scheme that is proposed in the Bill.
I want to answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made about the "rippling" effect. He does not realise how much the concept that our development is a rippling effect from a marina in Cardiff, spreading to Merthyr Tydfil, to Rhymney and to Tredegar, is now resented in the heads of the valleys communities.
We reject that idea on two grounds. First, we do not believe that it would happen.
Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Rowlands: I want to make my point. I sat and listened patiently and I did not interrupt any hon. Member, so I intend to make my final comments in my own way.
The major rippling effect was a result of the enormous development of coal and iron from the valleys, which built Cardiff and created the great docklands and ports from which coal, iron and timber were exported. That was the original rippling effect, which came from the valleys. We do not believe that the development that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli so eloquently described will ripple up in the same way to create jobs and investment for the people of Merthyr Tydfil or the heads of the valleys.
We not only do not believe in such a development, but we do not want it. We have spent the past 15 to 20 years fighting for a countervailing economic centre. We do not want a rippling effect from Cardiff up; we want to build an alternative economic development around the heads of the valleys. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, we want that to be based on the real contribution that it can make to the industrial regeneration not only of our own communities but of the Principality and of Britain. That will not be achieved by giving enormous sums of public money to build a marina in south Cardiff.
This is not the first occasion on which we have fought against a grandiose scheme such as this. We opposed the whole idea of an equally grandiose scheme at Llantrisant. The whole project was based on the so-called rippling effect. We were told that, if only that new town was built at the bottom of the valleys, our problems would be solved; we should only have to travel as far as Llantrisant. Now we are told that we must travel to south Cardiff for our jobs and investment. We do not want to be told that.
We rejected the principle when we rejected the Llantrisant new town scheme. We should reject the principle when it is advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in support of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. We do not want a rippling effect from a lagoon or pool in south Cardiff; we want to develop our own alternative economy, and we need a large amount of public expenditure to do that. I believe that we are competing for the same resources as the Bill, so naturally I oppose it.
11.22 pm
Mr. Allan Rogers: I am completely in favour of the scheme to develop the Cardiff docklands, but, like many of my hon. Friends, I oppose the development of a barrage, because there is only one reason why such a development is required. One tragedy of this debate is that Welsh Members on different sides of the argument are becoming more and more polarised, with the argument getting more bad-tempered as we proceed.
Mr. Rowlands: No.
Mr. Rogers: Yes, we have had some very bad-tempered speeches, and it is no good running away from the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was not bad-tempered at all, but other speakers have been very bad-tempered. I see no reason for that. I deeply regret the way in which the debate has developed.
Let us consider the history of the project. I see that the Minister is smiling. It is a pity that he could not have

315
smiled a little more during his speech and given us a few figures instead of trying to defraud the people of Wales of the money by putting it into the new outfit set up by his previous boss, Lord Crickhowell. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said in the letter that he sent out on 7 November:
"At this stage my plea is a simple one: Here we have Labour initiative".
He was eliciting the support of Labour Members, of course. But that was not true.
Mr. Michael: It was.
Mr. Rogers: No. The barrage was the brainchild of Nicholas Edwards, the former Tory Secretary of State.
Mr. Michael: It was not.
Mr. Rogers: It was the Tory Secretary of State who proposed it.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is misrepresenting the position.
Mr. Rogers: I shall certainly not attack my hon. Friend or add to the bad-temperedness of the debate.
Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is trying hard.
Mr. Rogers: No. I am more concerned about Conservative Members and what they are about, because they want different things from us. In answer to Paul Foot, Lord Crickhowell, who is now chairman of the National Rivers Authority [AN HON. MEMBER: "Smiling in the Gallery."] I cannot refer to people in the Gallery.
Lord Crickhowell said:
"There is hardly a conflict of interest. The position is that, on my instruction, anyone at the National Rivers Authority giving advice on Cardiff Bay must not refer to me."
I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to waste his time in the Gallery listening to our speeches. Who would want to waste his time here this evening? We are told that he is not interested in the barrage, that he does not care about it and that he wants to stand away from it because, of course, he must not have an interest. In fact, he has interests, but not as a public guardian of the cleanliness of rivers or of the pollution of the environment. His interest is as a director of Associated British Ports, which owns 160 acres in the Cardiff bay area.
However, he is not the only one who has a financial interest in the development of the scheme—
Mr. Michael rose—
Mr. Rogers: I was certainly not referring to my hon. Friend, but I give way to him.
Mr. Michael: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the consideration that guided Labour county councillors and city councillors in favouring the scheme and, in the case of the county councillors, in promoting the Bill was based on long deliberations and their sincere belief that it will benefit the area and the environment and enhance the job opportunities of the children and grandchildren of the area.
Mr. Rogers: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The motives of most of the Labour county, district and city councillors could not be questioned in any way. But when the scheme was initially put forward, Nicholas Edwards, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, did not give the city or county councils any
316
options. He said, "Either have the urban development corporation or have nothing." Naturally, having been blackmailed, the county and city councils accepted the situation. They acted, as many of us have as county and district councillors over the years when we participated in decisions, because they genuinely thought that they would bring a benefit. I am sure that the development of Cardiff bay will be of great benefit to the people who live in the area.
But over and above all that, there is something rather smelly about this. There has been a lot of talk about pollution, but there is something rotten about this business. There is something incestuous about it—too many people are involved. Apart from Lord Crickhowell, someone else has been extremely interested in our debate tonight. The chairman of the urban development corporation was the slight unsuccessful Tory candidate for the constituency of Ebbw Vale in 1979. There is a saying in Wales—coined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—"Lose a deposit and gain a quango." All that anyone has to do in Wales is to lose a seat and he or she can then become chairman of a quango or some other body. The same principle was exercised by the former Secretary of State for Wales, when the motto was "Leave a seat, gain a quango and several directorships on the way." An enormous number of conflicts of interest are involved.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will convey to his friends who spoke on the conservation issue, such as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has now left the Chamber, that I am sorry that this debate has been used to attack conservation principles and the principle behind the designation of sites of special scientific interest. At least the Minister said that his Department had balanced the environmental hazards against the economic benefits and had concluded that the economic benefits were more important. That is a good, honest statement and it is a pity that we have not heard more honest statements tonight—
Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Mr. Rogers: Yes, in a minute when I have finished this point about conservation.
Many people outside the Chamber will consider what has been said tonight and will wonder what the Labour party's attitude is towards green issues. The performance on this was scandalous. I have told the hon. Members concerned that I would refer to them. It was scandalous that the principles of SSSIs should be attacked. They were established after a great deal of discussion and investigation, and after a great deal of opposition from many sources. It would be a tragedy if SSSIs were to disappear. We are nibbling at the margins of our special wildlife areas. God knows, south Wales has had enough pollution.
Mr. Michael: I said that it was right that the Select Committee should consider SSSIs in the light of the other factors involved. The natural environment is one of my passionate concerns and I respect the motivation behind the opposition. But the wrong target has been selected. I am not rubbishing the environmental considerations: I am simply saying that their application in this case is wrong.
Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend must not take this too personally. I was not referring to him. If he mentioned the matter it was not in an objectionable way, attacking the principle of conservation or the establishment of SSSIs, and I do not include him in my comments.
But this is the nub of the problem. Someone came up with the scheme and ever since it was mooted all that we have done is to try to shoehorn all the facts to fit the scheme. What my hon. Friend does not understand is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, we are concerned with a point of principle. We would support a scheme for the development of Cardiff bay if there was no barrage. An alternative has been suggested—the one for the living waterfront. The estuaries and the mouths of some of the fastest flowing rivers in the United Kingdom do not need to be dammed up. We have seen from the plans and the maps that very little land accrues from the construction of the barrage compared with constructing a containment around the present dock area and getting rid of the mess, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred.
I do not see why we cannot all be on the same side. There is no reason why the barrage has to be built. I am sorry, there is one reason—the profit, greed and selfishness of people who will not live there and who have no real link with the industrial development of south Wales but who are simply interested in making a substantial profit from the people of Cardiff and the other people of south Wales. That is where the real interest lies in this matter.
Even the literature sent to us today by my noble Friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa says that the scheme will only create a lake. It may be a good lake or a bad lake—I do not want to go into that argument—but it need not be there. Factories will not be built in the middle of the lagoon or the bay. There need be no conflict at all. A simple containment on the east side of the estuary would give all the land that is required for the regeneration of the area. It would not have one of the 16 problems that have been identified by the opponents. Why does the Cardiff Bay development corporation have to be so entrenched in its attitude that it is not prepared to accept that? Even if the scheme is considered by a Select Committee, the removal of the barrage will still not be proposed because its purpose is to provide a place for people to park their boats.
My constituents may criticise me. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a majority of almost 31,000, and at the last election 35,000 people voted for me. I am sorry to say that that majority will probably go rapidly downhill at the next general election, because my constituents will complain, "Look here, Rogers. You stopped me from mooring my boat at Cardiff." They will turn away from me and I shall lose all their support.
Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is not part of Government policy to give yachts to the working-class people of the Welsh valleys, knowing that they would only keep coal in them?
Mr. Rogers: That just goes to show that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is out of touch. We used to keep coal in our yachts, but today there is no coal left to keep.
From the wonderful pictorial representation of the area included in the map circulated today by my noble Friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, the deputy chairman of the
318
urban development corporation, it is obvious that the living waterfront proposals would provide sufficient development. There would be no problem constructing a link road across the scheme. The Minister could indulge himself and spend all the money that he never seems to have available for other purposes, by building a link road across the existing swamp or another one.
I shall vote against the scheme because I am not convinced that it is needed. If the urban development corporation is prepared to amend the scheme by removing the barrage, leaving sufficient land and other resources to regenerate the southern part of Cardiff, and to provide even the 30,000 jobs that have been mooted, the proposal would have my complete support, and not one of my right hon. and hon. Friends would vote against it.
I hope that my plea will reach the ears of the urban development corporation and of Associated British Ports, and that they will reconsider the matter and return with an amended scheme. I would not oppose any money being spent in south Wales. God knows, it needs money and jobs to counterbalance the tremendous decline in industry suffered under the present Government. The Government have ravaged south Wales and the mining communities, and there has been no investment. If the Government are prepared to put money into the proposal, I am prepared to support it—but only if they get rid of that damned barrage.
11.33 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Representing Carmarthen, I have none of the first-hand knowledge that has been evident in many of the excellent speeches made this evening. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, if the proposals mean that public money will come to Wales, I can guarantee that my constituency, and many others in Wales, could do with that money just as much as Cardiff.
As I support the Severn barrage, where does that place me in respect of the Cardiff barrage? I was surprised by many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), but my support for the Severn barrage is purely on energy grounds. Although it may create an environmental disaster for bird life, that must be set against the terrific energy that could be produced.
About 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom's energy could be produced by a Severn barrage for 100 years or more. There would be no greenhouse effect, no acid rain, and no nuclear waste. I advocate a barrage for the Severn for energy reasons, and I for one would be prepared to pay the environmental cost. The Cardiff bay barrage is a matter of economic development versus the environment.
I admit that I am not an expert on Cardiff bay, but like the Towy estuary it has mudflats, which are important to migrating birds. I am strongly influenced when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds takes a line on development. In the summer of 1988, I watched a video on 500,000 dunlin dinners and was impressed by its content. I was not aware that Britain's estaries are home to 40 per cent. of the wading birds that traverse Europe; the estuaries are very important to those birds. They come from Scandinavia, Siberia, Canada and Greenland. When we consider the environmental impact of the barrage, we

319
must do so not as Cardiffians or Welsh people but as Europeans, and we must be interested in its global implications.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), when I visited Cardiff bay I did not stay at the Celtic Bay hotel for fear of being flooded by the rise of groundwater that he mentioned. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) think that the environment of Cardiff bay is fit for wading birds? The malodour of the Dettol being poured into it to protect wading birds from its filth was such that I wondered whether a major improvement in its environment was necessary, with or without the barrage.
Mr. Williams: Other hon. Members have fully answered that point, and the same occured to me when I was listening fully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West. There is filth in many of our towns and cities and terrific pollution in many of our rivers. The answer is not to drown the filth and wildlife but to clean our rivers and to treat sewage. Two wrongs will never make a right.
Biologically, the mudflats in Cardiff bay are extremely productive—more productive than the most productive agricultural land. The food that they produce is extremely important to migrating birds.
I am concerned about the possibility of severe pollution if the barrage is built. The sewage that flows down the Taff and the Ely is rich in nitrates and phosphates. That is bound to cause problems, especially in the summer, because the high concentration of nitrates and phosphates in the trapped water in the bay will cause eutrophication. It is then a question of how severe that eutrophication will he. I believe that in the summer, rather than fresh water eutrophicated water will be trapped, it will stink of grey-green algae and its texture will be more like pea soup.
The main environmental concern must be that we are destroying a site of special scientific interest that is important to migrating birds.
Mr. Flynn: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Recently I tabled questions about eutrophy. Does he agree that the algae problems and what we are seeing in the North sea are so worrying that we must tackle them, not just in the Taff and the Ely, but in all the rivers that run into the Severn, which has been described accurately as the greatest flush toilet in Europe? If it was not for the scouring action of the second highest tide in the world, it would be a stinking mess now. Is that not a different problem? If the barrage comes to Cardiff, we must tackle the problems of our rivers.
Mr. Williams: That is not a different problem. The barrage would exacerbate the problem rather than contribute in any way to solving it. It would increase the problem and hold it within Cardiff bay.
The only argument in favour of the barrage is the economic development argument that this public money will stimulate private investment and create jobs and high-cost housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) completely demolished the economic case. I do not know what the figures are, but if £100 million is to be spent in Wales, I want the whole of Wales to share in the benefits. It is a case of priorities. Two weeks ago we debated tolls for the Severn bridge. Why not use that
320
money to get rid of those tolls rather than spend it on Cardiff? That would benefit the whole of the Welsh economy. Then there is the M4. There are problems in Newport and on the stretch from Baglan to Neath.
My constituency needs a link road from the M4 to Ammanford and the upper Ammanford valley. There are no end of road infrastructure improvements which would help to bring jobs into all our areas.
I am impressed by the arguments of hon. Members representing the Rhondda, Neath and Rhymney valley constituencies. They are poor areas. Earlier this year I was privileged to be involved in the Pontypridd by-election. In those weeks I travelled and got to know Pontypridd, as I did not know any of those valley communities previously. There is terrific impoverishment. Those communities need public investment. Surely the money should go to these other areas of Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about the neglect and destruction of manufacturing industry during 10 years of Conservative rule. Manufacturing should be our priority, particularly considering our massive balance of payments deficit. We should direct public money into manufacturing. That would attract private investment. The Cardiff bay barrage rates nowhere in the list of priorities for economic development; nor are there environmental arguments in its favour.
11.47 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: At the outset I must say that I find the private Bill procedure objectionable for gigantic projects which would normally be the subject of a detailed legal planning inquiry. That is a reason why the promotion of the barrage scheme is unsatisfactory and unhelpful in conducting the argument about the issues at stake for the citizens of Cardiff and south Wales.
Moreover, by using the private Bill procedure, the barrage scheme does not have to come under the direct legal scrutiny of the European Community's environmental impact assessment directive. Although environmental impact assessment studies have been made, the Commission cannot intervene in any way to assess the value of the barrage to the economy of Cardiff and south Wales, as against the possible environmental damage.
I am opposed to the way in which the scheme has been brought forward, on the ground that one should allow full public participation in the construction and development of the barrage scheme, and on the ground that it does not come under the legally enforceable directives on environmental impact assessment.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that every environmental development or consideration in Britain should always come under the scrutiny of the European Commission. He seems to be making the assumption that the European Commission needs to intervene in all our deliberations. One only has to consider what it has done in the case of two dangerous mutagens and carcinogens—carbadox and olaquindox— to realise that its interventions are often far from helpful to Britain, and that they can be extremely unhelpful.
Mr. Griffiths: I do not dispute that example. However, none of us is perfect all the time. I should have thought

321
that my hon. Friend would agree that that applies to the present British Government—they are capable of making mistakes.
There is a European Community directive that requires major schemes—not every little factory scheme that is being developed—that are perceived to have a major impact on the environment to be examined specifically to assess that impact and, because of the private Bill procedure, that directive has no force.
Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend has referred to the document. A report has been made by independent people. He may be excused for not having seen it, because there is no copy in the House of Commons Library, but there is a copy in the House of Lords Library. I commend that report to him because it is a splendid study, and it was not made by anyone with an axe to grind. Few schemes of such a magnitude have been presented with such a thorough independent assessment of their environmental impact.
Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a study made by the university of Liverpool. I am aware of it and I knew that that environmental impact assessment was going to be made as a result of questions I put to the European Commission about whether it could intervene, and because of letters I wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales a number of years ago.
The directive has no legal force behind it to make an environmental impact assessment, and that is why I am against the use of the private Bill procedure; it does not depend on any legal force, but on whether any attention is paid to the assessment.
There is also the question of the amount of money that will need to be spent simply because the barrage is to be built. Several hon. Members have referred to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the additional costs, over and above the money that will go to develop the Cardiff docklands. He mentioned some £200 million in additional expenditure, and because of the existence of the lagoon, there would also be a need to spend £500,000 a year on its maintenance.
One must ask whether that is financially sustainable in the long term for the city of Cardiff. It is all very well for the Minister to refer to the ability of the corporation to sell land and other assets to help pay for development and the maintenance costs, but there will come a time when assets cannot be sold to pay for running the dockland area.
Mr. Rogers: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when the Minister gave that information. After Associated British Ports has made extensive profits, the running costs of the scheme will be met by the Welsh Office. The Minister said that, after the initial capital grants of about £400 million, there will be sufficient funding for the scheme. The Welsh Office will run the scheme and the profits will be taken by the corporation and Associated British Ports.
Mr. Grist rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I am happy to give way to the Minister.
Mr. Grist: I must correct that impression. There is more than £400 million of expenditure, but £150 million of that
322
will come from asset sales. The sum from the Welsh Office is about £250 million, of which £150 million has already been announced.
Mr. Griffiths: The one thing that we know is that, wherever the money comes from—some of it is coming from the Welsh Office—it is a major investment, but is it strictly necessary for the docklands to be developed? Can the docklands be developed without the barrage that is currently proposed? I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the answer is yes. As some of the money does not have to be spent, therefore, could it not be put to much better use cleaning up the Taff and Ely rivers, for example, just to mention the two that are directly affected by the scheme?
Mr. Michael: Without the barrage, we were previously talking about £219 million of expenditure, so the balance of the £402 million is directly barrage-related. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appraisal has to describe the benefits, the jobs that will be brought in and the costs? Such detail is open to scrutiny by the Committee.
Mr. Griffiths: That is true, but we are taking an unnecessary step if we go for the barrage scheme. I believe that we can get virtually the same results and have more balanced development across south Wales if some of the money is used for other projects which could be just as useful for the economy and the environment. We should not spend it all on the barrage, against which there are so many question marks. That is why I shall not support the Bill being sent to a Committee. I would have much preferred the matter to be dealt with by public planning inquiry procedures in Cardiff.
11.57 pm
Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). We have had a well-balanced debate so far. It has even been relatively good-tempered. I calculate that, including interventions, seven hon. Members have spoken in favour of, and seven against, the Bill. I shall add to the majority by speaking in favour of it.
I do not understand or accept the do-nothing approach of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who talked about resenting and rejecting a ripple effect out of Cardiff. I far prefer the tone of a letter from Councillor Bill Herbert, of which I think all Welsh Members have a copy. He was last year's Labour Lord Mayor of Cardiff. He comes from the valleys and, like many of us in Cardiff, has a considerable affinity for them. He anticipated the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. He rejected the idea of a ripple and talked of a river of development and opportunities flowing from the south Cardiff redevelopment.
I far prefer the real enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). It was a contagious enthusiasm as he described his experiences of living in Cardiff and his view of the south Cardiff redevelopment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong connections with Cardiff. His brother, Michael Flynn, is a Labour councillor in my constituency, and I am glad to have him there. He is certainly as hard-working and diligent a member and servant of the Labour party as the hon. Member for Newport, West. I appreciated the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman.

323
I share that enthusiasm for the regeneration of south Cardiff. It is necessary. Cardiff is an attractive city with many fine features—old ones such as the castle and civic centre and newer ones such as St. David's centre which, despite what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, did not come about by organic development, but through the planning process. It moved on from the Ravenseft development to which he referred.
The regeneration of south Cardiff will create 6,000 new homes, 25 per cent. of which will be important low-cost housing. It will create 5,000 to 6,000 sq ft of industrial business units and 3,000 to 4,000 sq ft of office space. Estimates have ranged as high as 30,000 jobs from the redevelopment of south Cardiff. Those jobs will not be confined merely to Cardiff or south Cardiff, but will be taken up widely through south Wales.
In my constituency on the northern edge of Cardiff I have the obvious example of Amersham International and A.B. Electronics. Between them, since 1983, those two firms have created more jobs than the total unemployment in my constituency. According to that narrow theory, a naive person might imagine that unemployment in my constituency has been eliminated. That has not happened; many people travel to work in Cardiff—to those two firms in my constituency—and will certainly travel to the new jobs created in south Cardiff.
The regeneration will provide a dramatic expansion to the economy of south Wales. It will increase the region's importance. As a capital city of Wales—
Mr. Rogers rose—
Mr. Jones: The evening is late, I must not hold up the debate too much and so should not give way.
I often see Cardiff as rivalling the city of Bristol across the Severn. I see us rapidly overtaking Bristol in importance. We will soon outstrip that provincial town in England, and Cardiff and south Wales generally will, properly, rank alongside Birmingham.
This necessary regeneration of south Cardiff will improve our environment. It will change the present rundown docks, which are only a shade of the past. It will rejuvenate the variety of assorted and not too attractive buildings, and the other traces of industrial dereliction—which all too often include waste, litter and debris being dumped on the waterside.
Mr. Rogers: I support all that the hon. Gentleman asks for—I do not want to make his speech for him. Will he comment on my proposition about achieving the same purposes without the barrage—just a consolidation of the area which, I accept, is desperately run down?
Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to come to that point in a minute or two.
The regeneration of south Cardiff will eliminate those mudflats which are best seen at low tide. I defy anyone to describe those mudflats as attractive or beautiful. At low tide we see, essentially, the results of industralisation and digging out Cardiff docks. That involved the extensive reclamation of our coastline, which has totally changed since the docks were dug out.
The present mudflats are the result of accretion since the digging out of Cardiff docks. I understand from experts that this is demonstrated by the presence of spartina grass, which is found growing only on high level, stable mud. Cardiff bay is natural, but the present mud is
324
not. It is ugly and its appearance can be improved upon. The environment of not just Cardiff but the valleys could be improved.
The economic benefits will not be confined to Cardiff. The barrage will be a catalyst for improving the Taff and the Ely rivers that flow through the valleys. One advantage of water privatisation was the splitting of the functions of poacher and gamekeeper. There is now a proper gamekeeper in the form of the National Rivers Authority.
What will happen with the barrage and the south Cardiff development will be a great challenge for the N RA —probably its biggest challenge for the foreseeable future. Can it rise to the occasion? I am confident that it can. The barrage and the south Cardiff development will be the catalyst for an improvement that will flow up the rivers through the valleys. The people will demand for their valleys what they see happening in south Cardiff.
I am in considerable sympathy with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I remember being almost a lone voice calling out that the case for the birds and the environment was too important to go unheard. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) was the only other Member who, in the 1985–86 Session, shouted "Object" when the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill came before the House.
Mr. Ron Davies: I am reluctant to intervene, as I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his speech. However, for the sake of accuracy it should be put on the record that I objected to the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill. It was only when the hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to continue to block the Bill that I withdrew to allow him, as a local Member, to voice his objections.
Mr. Jones: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which certainly do not fit in with my recollection. However, I do not want to quarrel with him, because I know that he has strong sympathy with my point.
I welcome the RSPB's constructive contribution. I was grateful to receive a letter from its parliamentary officer this week which provided most useful information. Early in the letter, he said that the RSPB is not against the redevelopment of the city. The word "not" was underlined. Instead, the RSPB is proposing a living waterfront scheme. The proposal is well-intentioned, but I am not sure that it is as well worked out as the scheme before us. I understand that its proposal would involve the loss of slightly more than 15 per cent. of the SSSI and would increase accretion in the remainder of the bay, which would in turn enlarge the amount of salt marsh, which would have the effect of reducing the feeding grounds. I also understand that there is a problem with the water supply, which might be much more expensive for the living waterfront scheme than has been imagined. That would lead to further problems with water quality for the scheme.
A survey, not of the living waterfront scheme, but which might be close enough for our purposes at this stage, was carried out by Peat Marwick McLintock. It tried to estimate the most likely effects on Cardiff of a barrage, of a mini-barrage, or of not having a barrage at all. The mini-barrage is not dissimilar to what is now proposed as a living waterfront. Peat Marwick McLintock estimated that the mini-barrage would create just under 15,000 jobs, but that the full barrage would create more than 22,000 jobs. Private investment for the mini-barrage would

325
generate only £607 million, while £1,051 million of private investment would come from the full barrage. Most importantly, the mini-barrage would require a leverage of private to public investment of only 4·8:1 and the full barrage would require 8·9:1. The net worth of the development would be more than £77 million from the full barrage, but there would be a loss of £61 million from the mini-barrage. That substantially makes the case for the barrage. It makes it superior to the mini-barrage and probably also to the living waterfront scheme proposed by the RSPB.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that studies throughout the world show that such large-scale investment in a capital city gives rise to the danger that the periphery becomes relatively poorer because of the rapid expansion that follows elsewhere? What does he think the Government would do to invest money in the valley communities—over and above what is in the valleys initiative—to ensure that they develop and there is no huge gap between the standard of living in Cardiff and that in the valley communities?
Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question in arguing what appears to be a highly academic case. I suggest that the peripheral areas would be relatively better off.
I am more than willing, in my regard for the RSPB, to countenance the society fully arguing its case before the Committee that will examine the Bill. Indeed, I regard that as another important reason why the measure should receive its Second Reading tonight. The RSPB is right to point out that the suggested artificial feeding area is only theoretical. There is a real risk to the bird population. There are uncertainties about the artificial feeding alternative and about the birds relocating in other estuaries.
We welcome the commitment of the promoters to develop alternatives, but I still call for all efforts to be made to achieve the greatest success of the alternatives. In turn, I want the RSPB's fullest involvement. The artifcial feeding ground is an innovation and an opportunity, and the RSPB should be involved in managing it. It would have the greatest chance of getting it right and of developing the potential use of the concept elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a wide assumption about the cost and funding of the south Cardiff redevelopment. I expect that the total cost of £402 million will, in large part, be met by land sales and other receipts, and certainly not solely from grant aid. In addition, we shall have the leverage of much larger commercial investments. It may not mean a return to the Welsh Office of money expended, but it will mean much less than £402 million having to leave the Welsh Office.
I note that the best argument against the Bill came from a supporter, "The Insider" columnist in The Cardiff Independent, who wrote:
"If CBDC really believe there will be so little damage within their arbitrary lines and none outside, they have nothing to lose by offering full compensation for all damage, wherever it occurs, because if they are right—and there is no excuse if they are not—there will be little or no damage, and so they will have to pay little or no compensation. It is simple —but unanswerable."
But it is answered. Clause 12 of the Bill provides full protection. There is a protected property area based on a
326
six-metre ground water contour. That should be well beyond the furthest extent of any affected property. But that does not limit it. Anywhere outside the protected property area is covered. In other words, anywhere in the United Kingdom is covered. A claim anywhere can be made against the CBDC and if, by independent survey, loss can be shown, there will be full reimbursement. We have the fullest protection and the fullest potential. I am more than happy to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the House aware that there is terrible news tonight? The massacre in Romania is continuing, with at least 2,000 men, women and children having been cut down by the secret service police. Can you use your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that by tomorrow, the House will have an opportunity to express its outrage at, and to use our great influence on, President Ceausescu, who has driven his country to a state where it can no longer be regarded as a civilised country?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a serious matter, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. Doubtless what has been said will have been heard by the occupants of the Government Front Bench.
12.14 am
Mr. Elliot Morely: I recognise that I am an outsider, but for that very reason I want to talk about the national significance of the scheme, and its national impact.
I appreciate very much the role played by local Members of Parliament, and feel that the people of Cardiff are very fortunate in being represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Those two excellent and hard-working Members have put the cases for and against the barrage with sincerity and diligence, and they deserve every credit for so doing.
I have my views on architecture, design and even popular planning, but I do not wish to speak about them: those are issues properly to be decided by local people, who will have to live with the designs. I want to discuss the way in which the importance of Cardiff bay fits into the national scale of things, and also to answer some specific points—particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the effect of the barrage on the bird population.
Cardiff hay is important in its own right. It is a site of special scientific interest, and its destruction will create a precedent. I would not claim that that is why it has attracted attention, but that is not to say that the area is not valuable in itself. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has defined it as the most important small estuary around the shores of the greater Severn estuary, and there is no doubt that the Severn estuary is a site of international ecological importance.
The Severn, including the Taff area, has been identified as a wetland of international importance, and is a candidate for listing under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance. It also qualifies as a special protection area under article 4 of EC directive 79/409, on the conservation of wild birds.
Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most of us have been here for well over three hours. Now other hon. Members have come into the Chamber, and are

327
standing at the Bar of the House making a ridiculous noise. Can you bring them to order, or else throw them out?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber will be prepard to allow the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to make his speech in the same manner as earlier speakers.
Mr. Morley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It could be argued that the RSPB has a vested interest, and is therefore keen to stress the area's importance. Let me refer hon. Members to a report given to the Committee in the other place by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's own body, which is given the duty of presenting impartial scientific advice on which the Government may make their decisions. In the council's view,
"it has become very clear before this Committee that its importance"—
the importance of Cardiff bay, that is—
"bears no relation … to the size ratio between it and the estuary."
The point was put to Dr. Parker on day four:
"'So though we were told in opening, I think, that the whole of the Severn Estuary site is some 37,000 acres and Cardiff Bay itself is only 400 acres, the importance of Cardiff Bay, the Taff-Ely estuary, is far greater than those proportionate figures would perhaps suggest?'
'Yes', he said, 'there cannot be any argument on that point"'.
It has been mentioned that the estuary was artificially created. In the 18th century it was far larger, and would have supported a greater diversity of species than it does today, owing to the artificial changes in the construction of the docks. Nor is it true that its importance is due to the enrichment of the mud from nutrients flowing through sewage in the rivers. According to the NCC, that enrichment
"is not a matter which is dependent totally on the sewage coining down the rivers, it is matters mixed in from the sea including sewage and other nutrient algae and matters found in the natural marine waters."
The bay is therefore not dependent on pollution.
The crux of the issue is that the development of Cardiff bay should concentrate on clearing up the waterside and getting rid of pollution and dereliction, rather than spending money on the barrage scheme.
There is no evidence that the barrage scheme will necessarily attract inward investment. There is a great deal of evidence that if the area is covered by water, because it is a sheltered feeding area and the mudbanks are higher than the Severn estuary, it would remove an important feeding area for the species on the Severn estuary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West referred to increased density. Scientific research has shown that if Cardiff bay is closed off, the density of birds on the Severn estuary will be increased by 70 per cent. in the case of dunlin, the main species that would be affected—
Mr. Michael rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 15.

Division No. 28]

[12.20 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Amess, David

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Anderson, Donald

328

Arbuthnot, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Irvine, Michael

Atkinson, David

Jack, Michael

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Janman, Tim

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kilfedder, James

Bevan, David Gilroy

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Boswell, Tim

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Boyes, Roland

Lawrence, Ivan

Brazier, Julian

Lightbown, David

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

Lord, Michael

Browne, John (Winchester)

Maclean, David

Burns, Simon

McLoughlin, Patrick

Burt, Alistair

McWilliam, John

Butler, Chris

Mans, Keith

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Mates, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Meale, Alan

Chapman, Sydney

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Chope, Christopher

Michael, Alun

Coleman, Donald

Monro, Sir Hector

Conway, Derek

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Murphy, Paul

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Neubert, Michael

Cran, James

Nicholls, Patrick

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

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Dixon, Don

Paice, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Patnick, Irvine

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dover, Den

Redwood, John

Dunn, Bob

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Durant, Tony

Sackville, Hon Tom

Fallon, Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Flynn, Paul

Stevens, Lewis

Forman, Nigel

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Foster, Derek

Summerson, Hugo

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gale, Roger

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Goodlad, Alastair

Thorne, Neil

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Thurnham, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Tredinnick, David

Grist, Ian

Waller, Gary

Hague, William

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Wheeler, John

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Harris, David

Wiggin, Jerry

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Wood, Timothy

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Howells, Geraint

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mr. Gwilym Jones and

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Mr. John McFall.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Rogers, Allan

Beggs, Roy

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Rowlands, Ted

Cryer, Bob

Short, Clare

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Morgan, Rhodri

Tellers for the Noes:

Morley, Elliot

Mr. Alan W. Williams and

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Win Griffiths.

Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 16.

Division No. 29]

[at 12.31 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Arbuthnot, James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Amess, David

Atkinson, David

Anderson, Donald

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

329

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Jack, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Janman, Tim

Boswell, Tim

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Boyes, Roland

Kilfedder, James

Brazier, Julian

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Burns, Simon

Lawrence, Ivan

Burt, Alistair

Lightbown, David

Butler, Chris

Lord, Michael

Carrington, Matthew

Maclean, David

Chapman, Sydney

McWilliam, John

Chope, Christopher

Mates, Michael

Coleman, Donald

Meale, Alan

Conway, Derek

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Michael, Alun

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Mills, Iain

Cran, James

Monro, Sir Hector

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

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Murphy, Paul

Dixon, Don

Neubert, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Nicholls, Patrick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Paice, James

Dover, Den

Patnick, Irvine

Dunn, Bob

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Redwood, John

Durant, Tony

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Fallon, Michael

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Sackville, Hon Tom

Flynn, Paul

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Forman, Nigel

Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

Foster, Derek

Stevens, Lewis

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Gale, Roger

Summerson, Hugo

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Glyn, Dr Alan

Temple-Morris, Peter

Golding, Mrs Llin

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Thorne, Neil

Grist, Ian

Thurnham, Peter

Hague, William

Tredinnick, David

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Waller, Gary

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Harris, David

Wheeler, John

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Widdecombe, Ann

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Wiggin, Jerry

Howells, Geraint

Wood, Timothy

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Hughes, Roy (Newport B)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Mr. John McFall and

Irvine, Michael

Mr. Gwilym Jones.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Pike, Peter L.

Beggs, Roy

Rogers, Allan

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Rowlands, Ted

Cryer, Bob

Short, Clare

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Morgan, Rhodri

Tellers for the Noes:

Morley, Elliot

Mr. Win Griffiths and

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Alan W. Williams.

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

AGRICULTURE
Ordered,
That Mr. Elliot Morley be discharged from the Agriculture Committee, and Mr. Keith Bradley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENERGY
Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Brown be discharged from the Energy Committee, and Mr. Michael Stern be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT
Ordered,
That Mr. Paul Boateng be discharged from the Environment Committee, and Mr. George Howarth be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Mr. Tony Worthington be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee, and Mr. Alan Meale be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE
Ordered,
That Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, and Mr. John Garrett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

  Broadcasting (Deaf People)
  12.41 am
  Mr. James Kilfedder: It is a pleasure and a privilege to present a petition to the House signed by 2,047 persons in respect of the deficiency of the television service provided for the deaf.
  This is part of a national appeal on behalf of deaf people who number about 4 million in the United Kingdom and who believe that they are deprived of full and equal access to television because there is not adequate subtitling and sign language.
  The petition prays that television channel operators should have a duty to make their programmes more accessible to the deaf by a fixed date. I wholeheartedly agree with that petition and with that plea.
  To lie upon the Table.

Homelessness (Strathclyde)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]
12.43 am
Mr. John McFall: It is my pleasure to have an Adjournment debate on homelessness in the Strathclyde region and it is ironic that, as we approach the end of the final decade of the 20th century, the problem of homelessness in many of our towns and cities is reaching Dickensian proportions. The Government's onslaught on public housing over the past 10 years has resulted in a staggering 41 per cent. increase in homelessness in Scotland, and the pace is accelerating.
Homelessness has increased by 76 per cent. over the past six years. Bald statistics alone cannot convey the despair and anguish caused to many thousands of people through the lack of one of life's basic necessities—a home. Today, 192,000 people in Scotland do not have a home, and the policies being pursued by the Government show no prospect of improvement. Indeed, it is hard to detect any real concern by the Government for the plight of the homeless.
The statistics reveal only the extent of official homelessness as documented by those who apply to local authorities for help. The voluntary housing and caring agencies emphasise time and again that the true level of homelessness in Scotland is much higher when the "hidden homeless" are taken into account.
As a consequence of the Government's deliberate policy of under-investment in public sector housing, there has been a steady reduction in the number of decent homes available for rent from local authorities. An analysis of Government expenditure over the past 10 years clearly shows that housing has been wilfully neglected, while expenditure on law and order and on protective services increased during the same period by 59 per cent. Spending on industry, energy, trade and employment rose by 51 per cent., but that on housing decreased by 41 per cent.
If public authorities had been able to invest through the 1980s at the same levels evident in 1978, district councils would have spent an additional £821 million. The Scottish Special Housing Association—now Scottish Homes—would have an extra £289 million, and the new towns £384 million. A total of £1,494 million could have been spent on modernising and rebuilding Scottish housing.
One could easily gain an impression from an analysis of Government policies that, far from working to eradicate homelessness, they are conspiring to increase it. Fewer public sector houses are being built now than in any peacetime year since the 1920s.
It cannot be argued that the private sector has stepped in and soaked up the demand for housing. In 1976, a total of 16,304 private house starts were made in Scotland, but by 1985 that figure had fallen to 14,500. If the Government's present policies are maintained, that situation is unlikely to improve in the 1990s.
Only this month, the Under-Secretary announced a £90 million reduction in Scottish local authorities' capital housing allocation for the coming year. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities anticipated council housing investment increasing from £474 million to at least £512 million, to allow for the present high rate of inflation. In COSLA's words,
332
"the Minister has set an allocation of £421 million and attempts to defend such a reduction, which is £90 million in real terms, as a good deal for local government … the announcement is a terrible blow to housing authorities and their tenants."
COSLA is surely correct in its analysis.
The Government's high interest rates have put house purchase beyond the means of many thousands of our fellow citizens, and repossessions in Scotland rose by 1,000 per cent. over the past 10 years, placing ever-increasing pressure on dwindling resources of local authorities' dwindling resources.
What is there in the Government's housing policy that will provide a solution to the distressing and ever-growing problem of homelessness? Certainly that cannot be done by Scottish Homes. It was not established to deal with waiting lists and homelessness. The housing associations that Scottish Homes services can at best hope to add another 4,000 units per year to their housing stock, although current funding allows for considerably less. Even if we take an optimistic view, by the end of the century housing associations will still control only 4 per cent. of Scotland's housing, and they will make only a marginal impact on homelessness. No doubt the aggressive sales policy of the SSHA will be continued by Scottish Homes, which will further aggravate the position.
The Government's encouragement of the private rented sector is largely a matter of tenure changes, and the simple fact is that changing landlords does not increase the supply of houses. Homelessness is accelerating at a frightening rate, and on its own the cost of temporary accommodation has increased by 500 per cent. in the past four years. Nothing that the Government are doing or intend to do is likely to reverse that process.
A number of statistics show the negative impact that the Government's housing policies have had in Strathclyde region and Scotland. Between 1982 and 1986, the number of people on local authority waiting lists increased by 34 per cent., and each year 30,000 people become homeless. In my constituency, homelessness has increased by 279 per cent. in the past six years. One of the saddest aspects is that that has meant increased competition for housing between unfortunate groups of people. Local authority officers have been faced with Solomon-like judgments, and it is clear that in Strathclyde, as elsewhere in Scotland, the single homeless have lost out. In my constituency, the number of single homeless has increased over the past 10 years by 900 per cent. Within that group, the percentage of young single homeless has grown even more rapidly—by 1,000 per cent. in Dumbarton district in the past 10 years.
The Government have tried to evade their responsibility for the young single homeless by pretending that there is no problem and that leaving home is a matter of young people exercising choice. That is a flawed analysis. A national survey by the centre for educational sociology in Edinburgh showed that it is fallacious to regard youth as a universal category of people who have identical needs, who undergo similar experiences and who all have families who are willing and able to support them. It is a highly differentiated group, and it is people from higher social classes, with good qualifications, who are most likely to leave home at an early age. For them, it is usually a straightforward transition to adult life. But for others it will not be a matter of choice. They may have been thrown out or asked to leave following a breakdown in their

333
relationship with their parents, or they may be victims of physical or sexual abuse and have no alternative but to leave.
Research has shown that one third of the single homeless come from a care background and do not have stable family relationships to fall back on. The situation for many of those young people is perilous. If they cannot find the security in their own community which a home would provide, they will be forced to drift through society seeking shelter and comfort where they can and will be prey to every kind of exploitation.
The Government have recognised the special dangers facing young people and have built the concept of vulnerability into the codes of guidance accompanying the homelessness legislation. Although vulnerability is not defined in the legislation, there is recognition that the category should include the physical and mentally handicapped and young people who are exposed to sexual or financial exploitation. Any civilised society should provide that safety net for its vulnerable young people. I must tell the Minister that it has been rent asunder by the pressures put on local authority housing over the past 10 years. The need to update and make suitable positive changes to the code of practice is urgent.
A few months ago, the National Children's Home published the results of a major survey of housing authorities throughout Britain and 85 per cent. of local authorities in the United Kingdom participated in it. Its results make depressing reading indeed. Although the attention of housing authorities is drawn to young people in danger of sexual and financial exploitation, only two fifths of the responding housing authorities said that they would recognise a girl under 18 who comes into this category as vulnerable. Only one fifth of respondents said that they would regard a young homeless care leaver as qualifying under the conditions set out in the codes of guidance. Although it is hard to imagine, only one in eight authorities said that they would deem as vulnerable a young homeless person with no parents and no support. A similar percentage said that they would regard as vulnerable a young homeless person under a probation or after-care order and only one fifth would regard as vulnerable a young person with serious family or relationship problems. If young people in such appalling circumstances cannot qualify for housing under the vulnerability provisions, in what circumstances can they apply?
Does the Minister recognise that specific requirements to extend the code of conduct so that all young people recognised as being in priority need due to vulnerability when homeless should be considered? It is essential that any extension of the powers of codes of guidance is matched by an increased financial commitment to Scottish local authorities.
It is not the vulnerability of these young people that is in question. It is simply the fact that there are no longer resources available to meet this manifest need. Housing officers are being forced to act pragmatically, even if it means disregarding the law. After all, the law cannot provide the houses. That is the Government's job. Housing officers have been asked to make impossible
334
decisions between competing claims from equally desperate groups, and the young single homeless are the ones to lose out most heavily.
There are also clear differences in policy between authorities operating in various parts of the country. A young care leaver's chances of being accorded priority need status on the basis of vulnerability in Scotland is comparatively favourable, with an applicant having a one in three chance. In some parts of the United Kingdom the chance of such applicants is one in eight. The variation in what should be a national consensus should worry the Government, and it calls for action by them. The determining factors seem likely to include the relative size of the authority's housing stock, but are also likely to reflect political and social attitudes of members.
Ten years ago most young single people with housing needs had a reasonable range of accommodation options. Today the picture is very different and the need for a dependable safety net for the most vulnerable of our young people has never been greater. The present legislation simply does not work and the Government must tighten the relevant provisions to ensure that vulnerable young single homeless people who apply to the local housing authority under the homelessness legislation receive an objective assessment of their needs rather than a pragmatic assessment based on an analysis of competing pressures for housing, which is what is happening at present.
The present effective discretion of housing authorities must be translated into a legal duty to assess young single homeless people's cases objectively. In addition, it must be recognised that the only effective way to deal with the social scourge that homelessness represents is to invest more money in public housing. In the short term, the acute nature of the problem of homelessness in Strathclyde and, indeed, in Scotland demands that extra funds be made available.
The Government have already conceded that point in relation to homelessness in London, the south-east and Wales. Scotland needs a parallel financial package of at least £30 million to deal with homelessness before it is further exported. It is already estimated by the caring agencies that 15 to 18 per cent. of the homeless in London and other major English cities are young Scots. Why have the Government been so complacent in failing to respond to this demand from local authorities and voluntary agencies, which are so well placed to assess housing needs? It is incomprehensible that no such decision has yet been made in respect of Scotland and I urge the Minister to make an announcement that additional funds will be made available forthwith.
12.53 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on securing this Adjournment debate and on setting out his position lucidly and expressing genuine concerns. In the time available, I shall respond to all the points which he raised.
Several exaggerated claims have been made about the level of homelessness in Scotland. First, on statistics, a number of exaggerated claims have been made. The facts of the matter are that the number of households that have applied to local authorities in Scotland, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act

335
1987, have, for the past three years, remained relatively stable at about 25,000 per year. Of that total, the local authorities have assessed about 9,500 as homeless and about 7,500 as potentially homeless. Again, the figures have shown little variation in recent years.
In Strathclyde, the number of applications over the past three years has remained at 13,000, of which the number assessed as homeless is about 4,500 and as potentially homeless, 2,500. In Dunbarton, the numbers of applications have risen from 927 in 1986–87 to 1,383 in 1988–89, but in 1988–89 some 461 were assessed as homeless and 244 as potentially homeless. In both cases, the figures are lower than in 1987–88, when 483 were assessed as homeless and 334 as potentially homeless, on the combined basis. That represents a 12·5 per cent. reduction in the numbers assessed as homeless, or potentially homeless.
I am aware that Shelter claims that the level of homelessness in Scotland is higher than that shown by the Scottish Office figures. Shelter has failed to make clear the basis on which its estimates are made. The Scottish Office figures are not based on a survey; they are compiled from returns made by local authorities I am satisfied that they are an accurate reflection of the position notified by authorities. I recognise, of course, that the statistics should be treated with caution, as they measure local authority activity in relation to homelessness, rather than homelessness itself. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the available figures do not indicate that homelessness is increasing.
I do not wish to dwell on the statistics, however. As the hon. Member will appreciate, we cannot consider the problem of homelessness solely in terms of numbers. To be without a home is a personal tragedy and at this time of year it is a tragedy thrown into sharp focus.
The Government are committed to maintaining an effective legislative framework for dealing with the homeless, and the hon. Member is right to concentrate on the code of guidance. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, it falls to local authorities to carry out the tasks of providing advice and assistance to the homeless and, in certain circumstances, of securing accommodation. Authorities are required to exercise these functions in accordance with the code of guidance which was issued in 1980 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was Secretary of State.
The code of guidance sets out the way in which local authorities should exercise the homelessness functions placed upon them by statute. Among other things, the code explains the action which a local authority should take when a household applies to be considered as homeless. The code discusses the circumstances in which the local authority should secure accommodation for homeless persons. In addition, the code provides advice about how local authorities can prevent homelessness arising in the first place, and about co-operation between authorities and other agencies. The code of guidance, as the hon. Member said, requires updating to take account of new legislation since 1980, such as the matrimonial homes legislation, to reflect changes in such areas as social security and, most importantly, to respond to the greater concern which society now has for protection of children in danger and to the greater awareness of certain other social problems.
Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for replying constructively. Will he consider the possibility of the code of practice being made statutory? I know that that is under consideration at the moment. I told the survey of the National Children's Home that local authorities are not obeying or being guided by the code of practice. Therefore, I think that a statutory element is important.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall obviously consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we do not have a housing Bill before the House this year.
With regard to the revision of the code of guidance, the Scottish Development Department has been consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as well as interested bodies in the voluntary sector, including Shelter, the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless and Scottish Women's Aid, with a view to the preparation of a revised code of guidance. A draft of the new code will be issued shortly. The revised code will not only take account of the consultations which have been held, it will also reflect the results of the research which the Department has been carrying out into local authority procedures in dealing with homelessness. One of the main aims of the revised code will be to ensure that local authorities operate more consistently and fairly when dealing with homelessness applications. When the code is revised, one area that will require attention is that concerning how young people are dealt with. The present code makes it clear that homeless young people who are at risk of sexual or financial exploitation should be treated as having a priority need for accommodation. The revised code should consider the possibility of strengthening and expanding our advice on that.
Research is also being carried out into local authority waiting lists, which the hon. Member will appreciate are an important indicator of housing needs. A more accurate assessment of housing need should benefit the homeless by ensuring that authorities' housing provision more closely meets housing need.
With regard to resources, I should mention that, from 1974–75 to 1979–80, there was a reduction in real terms of 8 per cent. in housing capital investment, whereas from 1979 to 1989–90, there has been an average real increase of 2 per cent. a year in capital investment. The hon. Member referred to the additional resources that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced for homelessness in England, and complained about the apparent absence of a similar package for Scotland.
The English proposals are mainly directed towards bringing empty houses into use, particularly in London and the south-east. There are proportionally fewer empty public sector houses in Scotland. In Scottish circumstances, rather than earmark a specific allocation for homelessness, it makes more sense for the problems of homelessness to be considered in the context of housing needs generally.
I can assure the hon. Member that we have been no less generous in terms of the provision of resources than was my right hon. Friend south of the border. On the first of this month, I announced that there would be a substantial increase of £64 million over last year in the 1990–91 provisional net allocations for housing revenue account capital expenditure. This is to help local authorities to meet housing needs in their areas, including those of the homeless. It is for local authorities to take account of homelessness and other problems when drawing up their capital programmes. When making the provisional capital

337
allocations to individual authorities, which I expect to announce shortly, I will of course take account of capital programmes and the needs, including homelessness, which they are designed to meet.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new houses. Some 195,203 homes have been built in Scotland since 1979. Of those, 138,894 were built by the private sector, 27,616 by local authorities, 13,638 by housing associations, 7,048 by new towns, 7,503 by the Scottish Special Housing Association or Scottish Homes and 504 by Government Departments. That is approaching 200,000 new homes, which should assist considerably to meet housing need.
The answer to homelessness, however, is not simply the provision of more houses. We must also make better use of the houses we already have. It has been estimated that there are about 130,000 empty houses in Scotland, many of which are in the private sector. I believe that the reform of the private rented sector brought about by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 will increase landlords' willingness to make more property available for rent. The resulting increase in the supply of accommodation will help to alleviate homelessness, particularly for those sections of the population, such as single people, who have traditionally relied on the private rented sector.
I recognise, of course, that not all Scotland's empty houses are in good condition, but the availability of improvement grants will help to ensure that investment in the private rented sector will remain viable. Some £119 million is being made available for local authority assistance to the private sector in 1990–91.
On a small scale, the recent Shelter initiative on rural housing, to which the Government contributed £30,000 over three years, shows what can be done. With the help of housing improvement grants, the initiative brought into use some 150 private sector houses in rural areas for families on council waiting lists.
Nor should we neglect the contribution which can be made by the public sector. There are about 25,000 vacant council houses. This represents only about 3 per cent. of the total council house stock, and I accept that many of them are empty because they are awaiting repair or are being held to decant households during modernisation and improvement programmes, but at least 4,000 have been vacant for more than three months. In my meetings with local authorities—I have been to 33—I have taken every opportunity to encourage them to reduce levels of vacant stock. Bringing such houses back into use could directly assist the homeless. I urge local authorities to keep that in mind.
Empty houses in both the private and public sectors represent an unused resource. For various good reasons, it will never be possible for there to be no empty houses, but the Government have demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that this resource is brought back into use wherever possible.
However, the distribution of empty houses does not necessarily correspond to the distribution of homelessness. It was for this reason that a more imaginative approach to dealing with homelessness was signposted in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Under that Act, local authorities are enabled, with the Secretary of State's consent, to adopt schemes whereby cash incentives may be paid to council
338
tenants to persuade them to move into the private sector, thus releasing housing for homeless families or others on council waiting lists. Experience elsewhere in Britain has shown that this can make a worthwhile and cost-effective contribution to dealing with homelessness.
It is important to remember that, for the cost of building one new house, such schemes will release four or five existing houses for the homeless; and, what is more, will do it more quickly. In recent months, I have taken every opportunity to encourage local authorities to adopt such schemes. I know that Scottish Homes is considering introducing a similar scheme soon for housing association tenants; I welcome such a positive development and I hope that local authorities will follow suit.
I have already mentioned our financial commitment to local authorities next year. I should also point out that we have increased the resources available to Scottish Homes. Discounting loan repayments, Scottish Homes will be able to plan for expenditure of £348 million in 1990–91, £36 million above the comparable figure for the current year. That will enable Scottish Homes to make real progress in expanding the housing association movement and investing in its own stock, both of which will be of particular benefit to the homeless.
I should perhaps remind the House that the housing association movement has been one of the greatest housing success stories of the 1980s. The Government have spent nearly £930 million in encouraging the housing associations, and this has resulted in 32,000 new or rehabilitated houses. I am particularly pleased that many of these houses are designed to meet the needs of the elderly or of the disabled; while these may not have been of direct benefit to the homeless, they have eased pressures in the housing market and have released other accommodation which can be used for the homeless. In response to the hon. Gentleman's point about the single homeless, I should say that more than 3,000 of these houses have been specifically designed for single people and have been instrumental in relieving homelessness in this sector of the population.
We must remember that homelessness is not merely a result of the lack of houses. As I have already made clear, Scotland has a surplus of houses. We now understand that homelessness is caused by a mix of social, economic and demographic factors. The Scottish Development Department's statistics reveal that 66 per cent. of homelessness cases last year arose either because of marital breakdown or because relatives or friends were no longer willing or able to accommodate those involved. Less than 10 per cent. of homeless cases arose from court orders, evictions or other actions by landlords.
Finally, I reiterate my assurance to the hon. Gentleman that the Government not only care about homelessness, but are taking active steps to deal with it. This is not a task which we can accomplish alone. All the housing agencies in Scotland have a part to play. I hope that I have explained tonight how the Government—working in partnership with local authorities, Scottish Homes, housing associations and the voluntary sector—approach the problem of homelessness.
The motion having been made after half-past Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Disclosure Guidelines
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Attorney-General whether his guidelines as to the disclosure of unused material or potential witnesses apply in summary cases and those indictable offences that are to be tried summarily.

  Mr. Attorney-General
  No; the guidelines apply only to cases to be tried on indictment.

  However, in any case, whether tried on indictment or summarily, if the prosecution have taken a statement from a person whom they know can give material evidence but decide not to call him as a witness, they are under a duty to make that person available to the defence and should supply the defence with the witness's name and address.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  USSR (Human Rights)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the persecution and abuses of human rights suffered by members of the Ukrainian Christian Democratic Front; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We continue to take every opportunity to underline to the Soviet authorities the need to implement early and effective legislative reform which will guarantee the rights of all Soviet citizens. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will stress this point when he meets Mr. Shevardnadze in London on 19 December.

  BBC World Service
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the British Broadcasting Corporation world service to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  We understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for this exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall for a week from 2 April 1990.

  San Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions were taken by Her Majesty's Embassy in San Salvador to alleviate suffering during the recent heavy fighting.
  116
  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Our chargé has emphasised to the Salvadorean authorities the importance of proper respect for human rights in all circumstances and the need to facilitate relief work. He is making every effort to ensure that British relief workers can pursue their work in safety. On 20 November we gave £100,000 to the International Committee of the Red Cross for emergency relief work in E1 Salvador.

ENERGY

  Commissioners for Energy and Competition
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met the European Commissioners for Energy and Competition; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I and my colleagues have contact with these and other Commissioners from time to time and discuss a range of issues.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the accountancy firms advising the Government on the sale of British Coal have at any time since June 1979 been(a) criticised by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors or (b) criticised by any disciplinary committee of the accountancy profession for lacking in professional conduct, efficiency or competence.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No accountancy firms have so far been appointed to advise the Government on the sale of British Coal.

  Press Releases
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many departmental press releases have been issued in the past year; how many have dealt with(a) nuclear energy, (b) coal, (c) oil, (d) gas and (e) renewable energy technologies; and which academic institutions routinely receive these press releases.

  Mr. Wakeham
  From 1 December 1988 to 12 December 1989 my Department issued 218 press releases, of which nine dealt with nuclear energy; nine with coal; 79 with oil; 13 with gas; and 12 with renewables.

  The following academic institutions routinely receive press releases:

  Birmingham Polytechnic

  Dundee Polytechnic

  Heriot-Watt University

  Institute of Energy

  Institute of Petroleum

  Institute of Purchasing and Supply

  Institute for Scientific Information

  Journal of the Institute of Water Engineers and Scientists

  Sunderland Polytechnic

  The Open University

  The College of Petroleum Studies

  University of Dundee

  University of Glasgow

  University of Keele

  University of London

  University of Sussex

  Oakham School Science Faculty

  National Technical University—Athens

  National Energy Foundation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will arrange a meeting with the new National Energy Foundation, based in Milton Keynes; and if he has made any assessment of the benefits to his energy conservation policy that may arise from the work on energy audits in housing being developed by the National Energy Foundation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I shall be meeting trustees and the director of the National Energy Foundation on 20 December. I look forward to discussing at that meeting their progress on developing a scheme for the energy labelling of houses.

  Energy Surveys
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made in implementing the European Commission directive on the introduction of energy surveys on the United Kingdom housing stock.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government do not consider that the draft directive proposed in 1987 is appropriate. The Energy Efficiency Office supports the development of voluntary energy labels for housing and I consider this to be the best way forward.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many projects of the building research energy conservation support unit are(a) completed and (b) under way.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The building research energy conservation support unit manages projects for the Energy Efficiency Office under the energy efficiency demonstration and R and D schemes started in 1979, and the best practice programme which replaced them in 1989. On 15 December 1989 the figures were:

  Number

  (a) Projects completed

  82

  (b) Projects under way

  60

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether the Central Electricity Generating Board has yet submitted for his approval under section 63 of the Electricity Act a transfer scheme for the allocation of assets to the nuclear companies; whether the term nuclear companies includes for this purpose, the new publicly owned Nuclear company; and whether the Central Electricity Generating Board has discretion as to whether to transfer unused sites to the nuclear company or to another successor company.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The CEGB is required, under section 66 of the Electricity Act 1989, to make a scheme for the division of all its property, rights and liabilities to its successor companies. The new publicly owned nuclear company will be regarded as a successor company. The scheme, presently being prepared by the CEGB, will include unused sites.

  Oil and Gas Exports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give a breakdown between oil and gas exports both(a) in terms and (b) in value at constant prices on the same basis as that provided in his answer of 9 November, Official Report, columns 767–68; and if he will provide equivalent figures for 1989 up to the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The breakdown between oil and gas exports on the basis requested is:—

  Exports (f.o.b.)

  Quantity (thousand tonnes)

  Value (£ million at 1985 prices1

  Oil

  Gas (coal equivalent)

  Oil

  Gas

  1988

  89·037

  82

  15·018

  8

  1989 (10 months to October)

  53·809

  7

  9·304

  2

  Source: Customs and Excise. Overseas Trade Statistics (including subsequent revisions to oil exports figures).

  1 Figures at 1985 constant prices have been derived by applying the unit value for exports in 1985 to the relevant volumes in 1988 and 1989. The figures for gas are estimated.

  The standard international trade classification in use for years up to and including 1987 does not enable the breakdown between exports of petroleum gases and natural gas, and therefore between oil and gas, to be made for those years.

  Natural Gas
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list the countries from which Britain imported natural gas in 1988 together with the tonnages for each such country;

  (2) what was the tonnage of natural gas brought ashore from the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1988; and how much came from (a) gas fields and (b) oil fields.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The main countries from which Britain imported natural gas in 1988 were Norway (15·4 million tonnes of coal equivalent) and Algeria (0·1 million tonnes of coal equivalent).

  The tonnage of natural gas brought ashore from the United Kingdom continental shelf in 1988 was 45·9 million tonnes of coal equivalent from gas fields and 14·2 million tonnes of coal equivalent from oil fields.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his Department's estimate of the likely exports and imports of natural gas in each year till 1995.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The United Kingdom imports approximately 20 per cent. of its gas from Norway and small amounts of liquefied gas from Algeria and elsewhere. This proportion is expected to decline over the next three or four years as imports are replaced by indigenous supplies. Gas exports are at present small and their future size will depend on market opportunity.

  Fuel Exports and Imports
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide equivalent figures about fuel exports and imports to those given in the tables in his answer of 9 November,Official Report, columns 767–68, for 1989 up to the most recent date for which figures are available.
  119
  Mr. Wakeham
  The equivalent information for fuel exports and imports for the 10 months to October 1989 following my previous answer on 9 November is as follows:

  Table 1

  Thousand tonnes

  Exports (fob)

  Imports (cif)

  1989

  Coal

  Oil

  Coal

  Gas (coal equivalent)

  Oil

  January to October

  1,672

  53,8131

  9,594

  12,410

  48,969

  Table 2

  £ million at 1985 prices2

  Exports (fob)

  Imports (cif)

  1989

  Coal

  Oil

  Coal

  Gas

  Oil

  January to October

  64

  9,3061

  510

  933

  7,851

  1 Contains a small amount of natural gas exports.

  2 Figures at 1985 constant prices have been derived by applying the unit value for exports in 1985 to the relevant volumes in 1988 and 1989. The figures for gas are estimated.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Child Care
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to amend the Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948 as amended by section 60 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1960 to incorporate stricter criteria regarding the standards, training and qualifications of registered child carers.

  Mr. Needham
  The Nurseries and Childminders Regulation Act 1948, as amended by section 60 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968, does not extend to Northern Ireland. However, similar provisions are contained in the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. The Great Britain legislation has recently been modified and updated in the Children Act 1989. Consideration is being given to the relevance for Northern Ireland of various provisions in the Children Act 1989, including those relating to the registration of childminders, and revised provisions will be included in a proposal for a draft Order in Council which will replace the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to encourage both private and public sector employers to provide more good quality day care facilities for children under five years old.

  Mr. Needham
  The ministerial group on women's issues, on which my noble Friend represents Northern Ireland interests, has been looking at child care needs and how best to ensure a growth in the provision of high quality day care facilities so that parents are enabled to balance their family responsibilities with employment opportunities. Consideration is given to the relevance to Northern Ireland of any initiatives endorsed by the group —for example, further encouragement to employers to use the tax reliefs available to provide child care facilities.

  The Government encourage the growth of child care provision in Northern Ireland by funding women to set up
  120
  childminding businesses under the enterprise allowance scheme and, under the job training programme, assist females to retrain for work by providing a weekly allowance of up to £50 to meet child care costs. They would also welcome any proposal to extend certain private sector initiatives such as the child care voucher schemes to Northern Ireland.

  In the public sector, day care facilities for staff already exist in some health and social services and educational facilities. The Northern Ireland Civil Service is considering with the trade unions whether day care facilities for under-fives can be provided for its staff.

  Consideration is being given to the need to improve the registration and enforcement arrangements for child-minders, playgroups and day nurseries in Northern Ireland legislation, in the light of new provisions introduced for England and Wales in the Children Act 1989.

  Fire Brigade Training School, Jordanstown
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the planning procedures which have been followed in respect of the planning application for a fire brigade training school or depot at Jordanstown, Newtownabbey, County Antrim.

  Mr. Needham
  On receipt of the planning application on 25 May 1988, it was advertised and neighbour notification letters were issued. The usual consultations, including several with Newtownabbey borough council, were carried out before the issue of refusal of planning permission on 6 April 1989. An appeal was lodged against the Department of the Environment's refusal. The appeal hearing was held on 19 October 1989, and a final decision is awaited from the independent planning appeals commission.

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the number of deaths where hypothermia was mentioned as a cause; and what is his estimate of the total number of deaths where hypothermia was the underlying cause of death in Northern Ireland in each year from 1978 to 1988.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: The information is as follows:

  Any mention

  Underlying cause

  1978

  15

  5

  1979

  113

  13

  1980

  118

  18

  1981

  110

  10

  1982

  117

  17

  1983

  110

  10

  1984

  111

  11

  1985

  28

  16

  1986

  32

  14

  1987

  21

  7

  1988

  18

  7

  1 Prior to 1985 hypothermia was not coded as an associated cause of death.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans for the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute to become an executive agency under the Next Steps programme.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have decided that it would be right for the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute to become an executive agency. I believe that the freedoms and disciplines which agency status will bring will further enhance the institute's contribution to the British aid programme and development of the poorer countries, and will reinforce its position as an international centre of scientific excellence. We are planning for ODNRI to become an agency on 1 April 1990. Mr. Anthony Beattie, the present director of the institute, will be appointed as the agency's first chief executive.

PRIME MINISTER

  Methodist Conference
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she has any plans to meet the president of the Methodist Conference.

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

  NATO
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on her recent meeting with NATO Heads of Government.

  The Prime Minister
  The NATO Heads of Government meeting on 4 December, at which President Bush gave an account of his talks with President Gorbachev, was a very successful meeting. We reaffirmed the importance of NATO for our security, for arms control, and for stability in Europe, and welcomed President Bush's statement that United States forces and nuclear weapons will remain in Europe as long as the Allies want or need them. At the same time, there was universal support for the momentous changes taking place in eastern Europe.

  Ambulance Dispute
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the ambulance staff dispute.

  The Prime Minister
  NHS management has made a final offer to the ambulance unions. Nobody will receive a basic pay increase of less than 9 per cent., and some will get over 16 per cent. As a result qualified ambulance men and women are already eligible for back pay ranging from over £600 to £850. Leading ambulance men and women in London trained in paramedical skills are eligible for back pay of up to £1,290. For the first time, staff with extended training and using paramedical skills will receive extra pay of £500 a year. There will also be a review of the 1986 salaries structure which could mean additional payments.

  The demands of the trade union side of the Ambulance Council are unreasonable and I am very disappointed that
  122
  it continues to take action against patients and has rejected the NHS chief executive's very reasonable suggestion of a truce over Christmas and the new year. Over 96 per cent. of NHS staff have settled their pay without recourse to industrial action. The unions should accept the very fair offer on pay and resume normal working.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on European economic and monetary union in the light of the Strasbourg summit.

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement that I made in this House on 12 December at column 857–59.

  Crisis at Christmas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will visit the Crisis at Christmas centre in London during Christmas.

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

  Cereals
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the recent decision of the Agricultural Council to disregard the stabiliser regime for cereals; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I do not accept that the stabiliser regime for cereals is being disregarded. Recent decisions by the Agriculture Council will in fact tighten up its operation and should therefore secure further savings.

  Church Lawford
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to make an official visit to Church Lawford.

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

  Constitution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of Wednesday 13 December, which Minister would be responsible for putting proposals on a constitutional separation of powers to Parliament in respect of(a) a democratically elected second Chamber, (b) an Executive elected separately from Parliament, (c) a written constitution and (d) judicial review of the constitution.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have no such proposals.

  India
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has written to Mr. V. P. Singh, the new Indian leader; and if she will make a statement on relations between the new Indian Government and the United Kingdom.

  The Prime Minister
  Yes. In my message to the new Indian Prime Minister I said that our two countries had an excellent relationship.

  We look forward to working closely with the new Indian Government to strengthen our close links.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Prime Minister why she has refused to discuss the Government's National Health Service plans with the medical royal colleges, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the joint consultants committee and the Royal College of Midwives; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has said on many occasions that he welcomes constructive views on how to implement our proposals for the Health Service. He remains willing to engage in constructive dialogue with the leaders of the health professional bodies. That is why he, his fellow Ministers and senior officials in the Department of Health have met the leaders of the medical profession to talk about the proposed reforms on over 100 occasions since the White Paper was published. We are convinced—as are many people working in the NHS—that change is essential if the service is to prosper. I see little purpose in having a separate meeting.

  Doctors and Dentists (Remuneration)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will make a statement on the chairmanship of the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration.

  The Prime Minister
  Sir Graham Wilkins' period as chairman comes to an end at the end of the current review. I have appointed Sir Trevor Holdsworth to succeed him. The Government are very grateful to Sir Graham for his long and valuable work, first as a member of the review body since 1979 and latterly as chairman.

  Engagements
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

  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, including one with Mr. Shevardnadze, the Soviet Foreign Minister.

ENVIRONMENT

  Cleaning Contracts
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of cleaning contracts in schools.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Under the Local Government Act 1988, local education authorities are required to invite 124
  competitive tenders for school cleaning when they wish to carry out this work using their own employees. The successful tenderer is required to perform the contract to the specification set by the authority and for the price quoted.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what percentage of total water shares has gone to(a) small investors, (b) United Kingdom institutions, (c) foreign investors and (d) others;

  (2) what provision was considered to ensure that small shareholders were allocated more than half the total water shares available.

  Mr. Howard
  Under the offer arrangements for the water offers, 26·55 per cent. of the available shares were initially allocated to the United Kingdom retail public offers (including shares reserved for employees and bonus shares), 54·95 per cent. of the available shares were allocated to the institutions; and 18·5 per cent. were allocated to overseas offers in Japan, continental Europe, Canada and the USA.

  In view of the heavy demand in the retail public offers, various clawback arrangements were triggered to increase the size of the retail public offers. As a result the final allocations were 46·875 per cent. to the retail public offers; 39·25 per cent. to the institutions and 13·875 per cent. to the overseas offers.

  The retail public offers were significantly oversubscribed in each of the 10 offers and applications had to be scaled down. In deciding a basis for scaling down, preference was given first to employees, pensioners and customers of each company, with 2·4 per cent. of the retail public offers being allocated to employees and pensioners and 57·5 per cent. to customers. Preference was also given to small applications over large. For example, applicants in the retail offers at the minimum application band all received a 100 per cent. allocation. Applicants applying for 10,000 or more shares, in contrast, received from 6·4 per cent. to 40 per cent. of the shares they applied for and, in the case of one company, no allocation.

  Toxic Algal Blooms
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on toxic algal blooms; and what steps he is taking to reduce this problem.

  Mr. Howard
  Algal blooms are a common occurrence in many waters during the summer although sampling results this year showed that toxic forms of algal blooms were present in a number of reservoirs, lakes and similar waters in England and Wales. The NRA, which is now responsible for monitoring such waters, informed site owners and appropriate environmental health officers. The problems have subsided with the onset of colder weather. The NRA is conducting investigations into the cause of the problems this year, and will be considering the need for measures to reduce the risk of their recurrence.

  EC Habitats Directive
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that the proposed European Commission habitats directive will be
  125
  effectively applied in England, Scotland and Wales following the proposed fragmentation of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in this House by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 23 November—Official Report columns 17–18—which set out the arrangements that will apply after the reorganisation of the NCC for a statutory joint committee dealing inter alia with issues that have an international dimension. I am confident that any future European Commission directive on habitats—if agreed by the Council of Ministers—could be applied effectively within this framework.

  House of Commons (Lighting)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply of 7 December,Official Report, column 323, why there has been no lighting on the stairs leading from the Committee Corridor for the last 14 days.

  Mr. Chope
  From the limited description it is not possible to identify which of the five stairs to the Committee Corridor the hon. Member has in mind. A check on 13 December identified only two bulbs, each on separate stairs, which needed replacing, plus three emergency lights. But I hope the hon. Member understands that it is not necessary to use the formalities of a parliamentary question in order to have a light bulb replaced.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has on the future policy on effective control of hazardous toxic and dangerous wastes and their disposal; what provisions are currently in force; what are the penalties for illegal dumping of such wastes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Environmental Protection Bill contains measures to reform the whole of waste management legislation. The new duty of care on waste producers and the stronger powers for licensing authorities will apply to all wastes but will be especially relevant to those wastes which are dangerous or difficult to dispose of—known as special waste. Current provisions for licensing of disposal facilities will be greatly enhanced. The maximum penalty available on indictment for illegal deposit of special waste is five years imprisonment and an unlimited fine. The Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980 SI 1709, which control the movement of special waste from producer to disposer are under review and a consultation paper will be issued shortly.

  Swap Contracts
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have entered into swap and swap option contracts; and if he will provide an estimate of the notional value of each local authority's involvement at the end of the financial year 1988–89.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is not collected by the Department.

  Pollution Inspectorate
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to improve staffing and resources of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 18 December by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment for which matters concerning the policy and operations of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution he is responsible to Parliament.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is part of the Department of the Environment and reports jointly to the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many posts remain vacant in Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; what are the reasons for the shortfall; what steps he is taking to fill the vacancies; and how many and which of the vacancies are in the senior management level of the inspectorate.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution staff complement was increased from 219 to 240 from 2 October 1989. Vacant posts at 1 November 1989 numbered 41, most of which were professional posts. It is difficult to establish precisely the reasons for the shortfall. It reflects, inter alia, the limited pool of necessary specialist skills and experience available, and market rates of pay. To fill the vacant posts Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is undertaking a recruitment campaign offering exceptional salary increases of 28·5 per cent. over those offered in the last recruitment round. There is one vacancy currently at senior management level in the inspectorate.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to ensure that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has sufficient personnel fully to implement its responsibilities for the radiation monitoring network.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As a result of an open competition the Department hopes to fill the final remaining post on the radiation monitoring network team.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those local authorities which in 1987–88 were responsible for more than £35 million of expenditure.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows. Total expenditure is defined as rate fund revenue account expenditure on services plus debt charges and net contributions to other accounts (such as the housing revenue account), less interest receipts and specific and supplementary grants.

  Local Authorities whose total expenditure in 1987–88 exceeded £35 million

  £ million

  Avon

  392·6

  Bedfordshire

  234·0

  Berkshire

  283·4

  127

  £ million

  Buckinghamshire

  268·2

  Cambridgeshire

  238·1

  Cheshire

  435·6

  Cleveland

  301·1

  Cornwall

  181·7

  Cumbria

  225·3

  Derbyshire

  416·5

  Devon

  392·2

  Dorset

  230·8

  Durham

  257·8

  East Sussex

  249·5

  Essex

  599·1

  Gloucestershire

  207·8

  Hampshire

  578·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  251·8

  Hertfordshire

  365·2

  Humberside

  408·1

  Isle of Wight

  51·3

  Kent

  570·7

  Lancashire

  616·9

  Leicestershire

  383·7

  Lincolnshire

  220·1

  Norfolk

  273·6

  Northamptonshire

  237·8

  Northumberland

  127·7

  North Yorkshire

  278·5

  Nottinghamshire

  450·5

  Oxfordshire

  203·6

  Shropshire

  169·3

  Somerset

  181·6

  Staffordshire

  428·6

  Suffolk

  230·9

  Surrey

  334·3

  Warwickshire

  194·1

  West Sussex

  273·6

  Wiltshire

  216·2

  Bolton

  126·6

  Bury

  82·6

  Manchester

  316·5

  Oldham

  116·0

  Rochdale

  114·4

  Salford

  130·5

  Stockport

  119·9

  Tameside

  110·7

  Trafford

  92·4

  Wigan

  149·3

  Knowsley

  93·6

  Liverpool

  309·2

  St. Helens

  91·7

  Sefton

  130·8

  Wirral

  166·8

  Barnsley

  104·1

  Doncaster

  140·8

  Rotherham

  119·8

  Sheffield

  265·4

  Gateshead

  103·0

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  159·3

  North Tyneside

  100·4

  South Tyneside

  80·8

  Sunderland

  153·3

  Coventry

  159·9

  Dudley

  125·2

  Sandwell

  152·2

  Solihull

  80·3

  Walsall

  129·6

  Wolverhampton

  141·2

  Bradford

  254·6

  Calderdale

  97·2

  Kirklees

  196·6

  Leeds

  308·4

  Wakefield

  144·3

  ILEA

  975·4

  City of London

  71·7

  Camden

  156·7

  128

  £ million

  Greenwich

  93·3

  Hackney

  144·3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  105·5

  Islington

  103·8

  Kensington and Chelsea

  49·3

  Lambeth

  152·7

  Lewisham

  120·2

  Southwark

  130·6

  Tower Hamlets

  125·8

  Wandsworth

  100·7

  Westminster

  91·6

  Barking and Dagenham

  75·2

  Barnet

  135·9

  Bexley

  101·6

  Brent

  184·8

  Bromley

  114·3

  Croydon

  144·2

  Ealing

  173·1

  Enfield

  128·9

  Haringey

  154·2

  Harrow

  100·2

  Havering

  104·8

  Hillingdon

  118·5

  Hounslow

  118·2

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  62·5

  Merton

  73·1

  Newham

  177·5

  Redbridge

  98·4

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  61·8

  Sutton

  78·0

  Waltham Forest

  154·5

  Bristol

  35·3

  Leicester

  36·6

  Metropolitan Police Police Authority

  446·9

  Greater Manchester Police Authority

  88·1

  Merseyside Police Authority

  59·3

  South Yorkshire Police Authority

  35·3

  Northumbria Police Authority

  46·3

  West Midlands Police Authority

  84·4

  West Yorkshire Police Authority

  65·1

  London Fire/CD Authority

  180·2

  Greater Manchester Fire

  41·9

  West Midlands Fire

  40·1

  Greater Manchester Transport

  76·1

  Merseyside Transport

  62·4

  South Yorkshire Transport

  45·5

  Tyne and Wear Transport

  55·8

  West Midlands Transport

  55·5

  West Yorkshire Transport

  58·7

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the most specific detail available those people who are mentally or physically disabled who will be exempt from the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Any physically disabled person who has his sole or main residence in an NHS hospital or a residential care home, a nursing home, a mental nursing home, a private hospital or a hostel and is receiving treatment there, will be exempt from the personal charge. So far as mental disability is concerned, any person who is in receipt of an invalidity pension, severe disablement allowance,
  129
  unemployability supplement, an unemployability allowance, an attendance allowance or a constant attendance allowance, and who has a certificate from a registered medical practitioner stating that his or her intelligence and social functioning is severely impaired will be exempt from the personal community charge. It is not possible to be specific about the particular disorders which may lead to such conditions being fulfilled.

  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to make regulations on the final form of the community charge bill.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department has sent out today a letter to all charging authorities which encloses draft regulations which would provide for the final form of the bill and the explanatory notes which will accompany the bill. The purpose of sending this material out now is to enable authorities to arrange for the printing of these documents forthwith, if they wish. A copy of the letter and enclosures have been placed in the Library. I expect to lay the regulations in January.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he intends to give to those people, nominated as responsible individuals, who are in receipt of community charge changes of circumstances forms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Changes of circumstances forms are a convenient way of helping people to comply with their statutory duty to inform the community charges registration officer of any change in circumstances which affects their register entry. The responsibility for ensuring that they comply with the appropriate regulations lies with registration officers.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to monitor the issuing of changes of circumstances forms by community charge registration officers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Every individual has a duty to inform the community charges registration officer of any change of circumstances which affects his or her register entry. There is, however, no duty to volunteer such information about any other person. A responsible individual has a duty to provide information about people other than him or herself only in response to a specific request from the registration officer.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage of income represented by rate support grant for(a) the City of Durham and (b) Basildon for (i) 1978–79 and (ii) 1988–89.

  Mr. Chope
  The percentages for each authority are not comparable between years because of changes to the rate support grant system in 1981–82. Nevertheless, the information is as as follows:

  Rate support grant as percentage of rate fund revenue account income

  Per cent. 1978–79

  Per cent. 1988–89

  City of Durham

  64

  29

  Basildon

  52

  16

  Water Pollution
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be the division of responsibility for controlling water pollution between Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and the National Rivers Authority.

  Mr. Howard
  Currently the National Rivers Authority has responsibility for controlling water pollution under powers in the Water Act 1989, although additional controls are exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, advised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, to limit inputs of certain dangerous substances to sewers.

  Under our proposals for integrated pollution control wastes released to all environmental media from certain industrial processes would be controlled by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. The National Rivers Authority would, however, have powers to ensure that these controls were exercised so as to protect the aquatic environment. The authority would continue to have primary responsibility for discharges to water from all other sources.

  These arrangements were announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley) on 28 February following extensive consultation. They will be introduced through the Environmental Protection Bill which we shall shortly be introducing. They will entail close co-operation between the two regulatory bodies, and a memorandum of understanding will be drawn up to cover the detailed interface of their respective responsibilities.

  Waste Disposal
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he has received any representations from the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors on environmental pollution matters; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he last met the waste disposal organisation NAWDC; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have regular contact with NAWDC at all levels on environmental matters concerning waste management. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside last met it on 25 September to discuss, in particular, legislative proposals.

  World Conservation Monitoring Centre
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution his Department has made to the world conservation monitoring centre at Cambridge.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The world conservation monitoring centre is funded jointly by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature, and the United Nations Environment Programme from their respective subscription incomes, including those from the United Kingdom Government and private sources. The centre also earns income from providing services to customers in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. My Department does not at present directly fund any work at the centre.

  Stocken Hall, Rutland
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment upon what dates since April 1988 inspectors from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission visited Stocken hall, Rutland, to inspect the condition of the buildings; what similar visits have been paid by officials of his Department since January; and what action has subsequently been taken.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An inspector from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission last visited Stocken hall in April 1988. Officials from my Department carried out a brief external inspection in April 1989. On learning in October that a proposed sale of the hall had fallen through, my Department asked the commission to inquire into its condition.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment upon what date the planning appeal by Endersby Developments Ltd. regarding Stocken hall, Rutland, was withdrawn; and whether his Department has received details of any subsequent planning applications relating to this building.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The appeal was withdrawn on 21 August 1989. There have been no subsequent planning applications and we understand that sale to a new purchaser is imminent.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he has taken since 12 April to bring about the immediate protection of Stocken hall, Rutland; whether he has yet authorised the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission to serve a notice under section 101 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The owners have done some urgent repairs to weatherproof the hall. My Department has therefore not yet authorised the commission to serve a notice under section 101, but has asked it to monitor the situation closely.

  Homes Insulation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will give for each year since 1978 the total spending on the homes insulation scheme.

  Mr. Chope
  Information on the total spending on the homes insulation scheme in 1986, 1987, 1988 and the first half of 1989 appears in table 2.21 of "Housing and Construction Statistics part 2", No. 38. Figures for earlier years appear in table 7.7 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988". Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether inclusion of the homes insulation scheme within the home improvement grant scheme will make it more or less difficult to retain the same priority for loft insulation work.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: The new system of renovation grants to be introduced under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will enable local authorities to assist householders to carry out a wide range of measures to improve the energy efficiency of their
  132
  properties. It will be a matter for individual authorities to decide on the particular priority for loft insulation work within these measures. Additionally, the Secretary of State for Energy proposes to introduce a scheme of grants for basic insulation measures through community insulation services for low-income householders in the forthcoming Social Security Bill.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish in the Official Report the details of the means-testing for the new improvement grants payable from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  Details of the test of resources will be included in regulations which are currently being prepared and will be laid before the House in due course.

  Theatre Royal, Chatham
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why he decided not to exercise his powers with regard to the demolition order on the grade II listed building the Theatre Royal, Chatham, for which a privately developed complex of uses is being planned locally.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An application for listed building consent to demolish the Theatre Royal, Chatham was referred to my right hon. Friend by Rochester upon Medway city council to give him the opportunity of calling in the application for his own decision. Having obtained expert advice from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (English Heritage) my right hon. Friend decided that, in view of the poor condition of the building and the fact that the site was included in proposed shopping redevelopment for the improvement of Chatham town centre, he would not be justified in taking the matter out of the hands of the local planning authority.

  Map Errors
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he still proposes to take legislative action to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to enable the correction of errors on definitive maps.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The judgment in the Court of Appeal on 23 November in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Environment ex parte Simms and Burrows, has confirmed that the Act already includes the power to make orders to correct errors or mistakes, as Parliament intended. There is therefore no need for amending legislation; we will be issuing further advice to surveying authorities as soon as possible.

  Public Housing
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the contribution made by the federal and state governments in Germany to the building of new publicly owned housing in the latest year for which figures are available; and what is the net contribution made by central Government in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 30 November 1989]: A full comparison on an objective basis between the United Kingdom and Germany is not available.
  133
  Most dwellings in Germany (Federal Republic) that have been built with public subsidy are owned by non-profit-making bodies or by private companies and individuals. Some are owner-occupied. Total public expenditure for "social" dwellings (the German term) was estimated at 5,130 million DM in 1986. Separate figures for the share in this total of federal and state governments are not immediately available. In the United Kingdom central Government housing subsidies paid to local authorities are not divided into financing new building and other categories of expenditure. Central Government subsidies in 1986–87 to local authorities and public corporations were £811 million. This does not include subsidies to housing associations.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how his Department monitors the operation of rules laid down in respect of the assigning of contracts, the sale of assets, or the partnership arrangements for implementing development plans, by urban development corporations; if he has any plans to improve these arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 12 December 1989]: Urban development corporations are subject to annual audit by external auditors appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Auditors are required, inter alia, to report on whether corporations have complied with normal public sector procedures for letting contracts, disposing of assets and partnership arrangements. The Department liaises closely with UDCs on their progress; this includes appropriate guidance, monitoring, and approval of projects under financial delegation arrangements.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to ensure that drinking water meets the standards laid down in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: In addition to the continuing role of local authorities in checking the quality of water supplies in their areas, the new drinking water inspectorate, shortly to be established by my right hon. Friend, will seek to ensure that drinking water standards are met.

  Algae
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will issue guidance that the practice of back-washing blue-green algae, filtered from reservoirs, into streams, be discontinued and safer methods of disposal be introduced;

  (2) if he will list the reports he has received of poisoning of people, domestic and farm animals that have been linked with the contamination of reservoirs and streams with toxins produced by blue-green algae;

  (3) what changes he proposes in farming practices to reduce the growth of blue-green algae in lakes and reservoirs;

  (4) what proposals he has to discourage the formation and to reduce the growth of blue-green algae in lakes and reservoirs.
  134
  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: These are primarily matters for the NRA which is responsible for monitoring the quality of inland waters in England and Wales. Sampling of waters this year established that toxic forms of blue green algae were present in a number of reservoirs, lakes and similar waters. With the onset of colder weather, the problems have subsided. The NRA is conducting investigations into the cause of this year's problems with a view to establishing the need for possible preventive measures to be taken in the future.

  "Getting out of the Greenhouse"
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain a copy of the Friends of the Earth publication, "Getting Out of the Greenhouse," for his departmental library.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Friends of the Earth have already been kind enough to send a copy of this publication to the Department.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) families and (b) individuals he estimates will spend the 1989 Christmas holiday period in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England and Wales other than as tourists.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]The latest estimate of households accepted as homeless under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act and living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England is 11,880 at end September 1989. No estimate is available either of the number of individuals this represents or the number in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at later dates.

  For Welsh figures I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many(a) families and (b) people he estimates spent the Christmas holiday in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England and Wales in each of the years 1983 to 1988, inclusive, other than as tourists.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Estimates for England of the number of households accepted as homeless under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 and the 1985 Housing Act and living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation at 31 December in each of the years 1983 to 1988 inclusive are as follows:

  Year

  Number of households

  1983

  2,700

  1984

  3,670

  1985

  5,360

  1986

  8,990

  1987

  10,370

  1988

  10,970

  No estimates are made of the number of people this represented.

  For Welsh figures I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
  135
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many children he estimates spent the Christmas holiday period in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England and Wales other than as tourists during each of the years 1983 to 1988.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: The number of children among the homeless households in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England are not reported by local authorities and my Department has no estimates.

  For information about Wales I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year since 1978(a) the spending by local authorities under the energy conservation programme and (b) the number of dwellings thereby receiving energy efficiency improvements.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Information on activity under the energy conservation programme in 1986, 1987, 1988 and the first quarter of 1989 appears in table 2.21 of "Housing and Construction Statistics", No. 38. Figures for earlier years appear in table 7.7 of "Housing and Construction Statistics 1978–1988". Copies of these publications are available in the Library.

  The table relates to activity where the only work carried out to the dwelling is under the energy conservation programme. Local authority dwellings may also be insulated when other general renovation work is carried out, but these cases cannot be separately identified.

DEFENCE

  Ferranti
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the chair of Ferranti; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 November 1989 at column 237.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the European fighter aircraft project development.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The main development contracts for the European fighter aircraft were signed in November 1988. Since then work on the first prototype has progressed satisfactorily; and the first full-scale development engine is expected to be run next year. The selection of equipment for EFA is also proceeding; and to date only the choice of radar has presented significant difficulties.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence upon what subjects he has recently received representations from British Aerospace.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  My right hon. Friend and I, and Ministry of Defence officials, maintain contact with the 136
  senior management of all major defence contractors, including British Aerospace. The details of our discussions are always confidential.

  EH101 Helicopter
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present status of the EH101 helicopter programme; and who is now personally supervising the contract.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The RN anti-submarine warfare variant of the EH101 helicopter is in the sixth year of full development, whilst the RAF utility variant is in the project definition phase. Following normal practice the programmes are managed by a project director with the Ministry's Procurement Executive.

  TOGS System
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to take delivery of the TOGS system; and what is the present delay time of the contract with United Scientific;

  (2) whether he intends to involve any penalty clauses on the TOGS system contract with United Scientific.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Deliveries of these equipments are continuing behind schedule and we are seeking redress under the terms of the contract with Avimo.

  Battle Tank
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to proceed with the purchase of a new main battle tank in the time scale originally envisaged and in the same number.

  Mr. Alan Clarke
  As I told the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) on 14 December,Official Report, columns 822–23, it is our intention to reach a decision on a tank to replace Chieftain by the end of 1990. The precise number of tanks to be ordered has yet to be be decided.

  Chieftain Tanks
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what criteria the selection of a Chieftain replacement will be made; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend, the former Secretary of State, on 20 December 1988,Official Report columns 259–60.

  Scottish Landholdings
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the extent of land held in Scotland by his Department in(a) September 1988 and (b) September 1989; and if he will break this down by region and island authorities.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Landholdings statistics relate to 1 April each year. The table shows the position at 1 April 1988 and 1 April 1989, indicating land and foreshore holdings:
  137

  Region or Island Authority

  1 April 1988 Land/Foreshore Holdings (acres)

  1 April 1989 Land/Foreshore Holdings (acres)

  Borders

  Nil

  Nil

  Central

  197

  197

  Dumfries and Galloway

  10,620

  10,400

  Fife

  3,181

  3,269

  Grampian

  5,387

  5,361

  Highland

  12,854

  12,853

  Lothian

  2,923

  2,870

  Strathclyde

  9,103

  9,082

  Tayside

  3,874

  3,599

  Orkney

  9

  8

  Shetland

  120

  111

  Western Isles

  3,310

  3,314

  Totals

  51,578

  51,064

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received representations from Clydesdale district council complaining about the transport of nuclear weapons through the Clydesdale constituency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I am aware of one letter from Clydesdale district council which was concerned in part, though not exclusively, with nuclear weapon movements, and was sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in May this year. A copy was passed to the Ministry of Defence and a reply was sent at official level.

  Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's relationship with and contribution to the Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Interallied Confederation of Reserve Officers (CIOR) is the NATO reserve forces organisation which represents the reserve officers of member states.

  The Ministry of Defence provides some financial assistance towards office expenses, administration and subscription fees for United Kingdom participation in CIOR through the Reserve Forces Association, which has filled the role of the official United Kingdom representative since 1972.

  Military Service
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consideration has been given by his Department to the introduction of short-term military service for young people.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to introduce any further short-term forms of military service.

  Recruitment
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of his Department's recent report "Manpower and Recruiting in the Lean Years of the Nineties".

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  An abridged version of the MARILYN report was placed in the Library on 8 June 1989.
  138
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the amounts spent by his Department on recruitment advertising in the years 1985–86 to 1988–89; and what is estimated for 1989–90 for(a) the Regular Army, (b) the Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve and (c) the Home Service Force.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Spending on recruitment advertising from 1985–86 to 1988–89 was as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Regular

  Army

  3·625

  4·547

  3·984

  4·467

  110·093

  TAVR

  1·811

  1·879

  24·316

  34·264

  135·500

  Total

  5·436

  6·426

  8·300

  8·731

  15·593

  1 Estimated final outturn.

  2 Includes £ 2 million from National Employers Liaison Committee (NELC).

  3 Includes £2·1 million from NELC.

  Separate figures for the Home Service Force are not available, but would be included in the TAVR figures.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Ownership
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has of the number of United Kingdom companies which are under the ultimate ownership of Australian companies but which have intermediary ownership via the Cayman Islands or the Netherlands Antilles.

  Mr. Redwood
  The chief executive of Companies house tells me that the information is not available.

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and in the current financial year to date; and how many of these were(a) automatically renewed and (b) open to competition by advertisement throughout the European Community.

  Mr. Forth
  The number of contracts awarded by the Department of Trade and Industry and covered by the provisions of the EC supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000, was 24 in the 1988–89 financial year and 10 in the current financial year to date. Of these five were awarded following advertisement in the EC Journal and 29 were considered to be exempt from advertising and may have been awarded to the previous supplier.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those accountancy firms which have been criticised by(a) his Department's Inspectors and (b) the Registrar of Friendly Societies since June 1979.

  Mr. Redwood
  Ten reports of inspectors appointed under the Companies Act published since June 1979 have
  139
  contained criticisms of accountants. The extent of criticism varies in scale and reference should be made to individual reports.

  Name of company

  Date of publication of report

  Name of accountants

  Ashbourne Investments Limited

  31 July 1979

  Wright Stevens & Lloyd

  Data Investments Limited

  30 April 1980

  Robson Rhodes

  Cornhill Consolidated Group Limited

  31 December 1980

  Singleton, Fabian & Derbyshire

  Kina Holdings Limited

  24 March 1981

  Harold Everett, Wand & Co. Dixon Wilson Tubbs & Gillett Collins & Co.

  Scotia Investments Limited

  22 January 1981

  Lubbock Fine

  Gilgate Holdings Limited and others

  8 September 1981

  Thornton Baker & Co. Gerald Edelman & Co.

  Norwest Hoist Limited

  23 June 1982

  Price Walerhouse

  Ramor Investments Limited

  22 March 1983

  Price Waterhouse

  Greenbank Trust plc

  5 August 1988

  Pannell Kerr Forster

  Milbury plc

  27 October 1988

  Arthur Young

  I assume that the hon. Member intended to refer to inspectors appointed by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies under powers comparable to those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate under the Companies Act.

  No such inspector has reported since June 1979.

  Oil Products
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in view of the recent increase in the price of domestic heating oil, diesel fuel, agricultural oils and other non-petrol oil products, if he will ask the Office of Fair Trading to make an investigation.

  Mr. Redwood
  If the hon. Member has any evidence that such price increases are the result of monopoly abuse or anti-competitive or restrictive trade practices he should bring it to the attention of the Director General of Fair Trading who has powers under the competition legislation to investigate such matters if he considers it appropriate.

  Forklift Trucks
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current position on the inter-industry arrangement on forklift trucks from Japan, referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) on 30 March 1988,Official Report, columns 480–81.

  Mr. Redwood
  The British Industrial Truck Association (BITA) has told us that its bilateral voluntary restraint arrangement with the Japan Industrial Vehicle Association is no longer in operation. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Trade has, in reaffirming the Government's general policy against restrictive arrangements, informed BITA that any agreements to restric imports of forklift trucks to the United Kingdom would have to be fully economically justified.

  Computer Misuse
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he accepts the recommendations of the Law Commission's report on computer misuse; and what response he intends to make to the report;

  (2) what individuals and organisations he has consulted on the detailed proposals contained in the Law Commission's report on computer misuse; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is his estimate of the annual loss of trade and industry in the United Kingdom caused by computer misuse.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 15 December 1989]: In welcoming the Law Commission report, I stated that I was inclined to accept its recommendations subject to the views of interested parties. Representations that I have had since that date have convinced me that it provides a sound basis for legislation and that such legislation should be introduced as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.

  My Department has written directly to over 280 interested parties to ask for their views on the Commission's proposals. This represents a wide cross-section from industry and commerce, private individuals, consumer organisations, academia, the legal profession and other Government Departments. We have also contacted officials and law enforcement agencies in countries where legislation has already been introduced. The overall response indicates widespread support for the introduction of legislation along the lines suggested by the Law Commission.

  There are no centrally collected statistics on the damage caused by computer misuse on which a reasonably accurate estimate could be based. Private sector sources have estimated figures of between £400 million and £1 billion but I cannot validate them. However, the reported cases have convinced me that misuse is occurring, and that the problem is of sufficient magnitude to cause concern.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how much of Rover's trading tax losses was eliminated in the final agreement;

  (2) what was the maximum quantum of the Rover Group's pre-acquisition trading tax losses potentially available to claw back under the contractual sale arrangements between the Department of Trade and Industry and British Aerospace.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Because the £469 million of the cash injection relating to Rover's historic debt had, through conditions attaching to it, to be passed down to the operating companies in the form of a taxable subvention it eliminated a corresponding amount of trading tax losses. The remainder of the mechanism effectively to limit Rover Group's access to the benefit of past trading tax losses was the pound-for-pound contractual clawback affecting use of more than £500 million of such losses. It is not possible to state the amount of Rover's trading tax losses eliminated in the final agreement or the maximum amount potentially available to be clawed back. These depend on the outcome of the normal application of tax law to the circumstances of the Rover Group, including any claims or disclaimers made by it, and this is governed by the strict rules of tax confidentiality.
  141
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the capital allowances disclaimed by the Rover Group which, under the March conditional terms, could have been clawed back under the contractual sale arrangements if used outside the Rover Group were disclaimed within the statutory time limit set down in the relevant Finance Acts.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: As I said in my reply of 12 December on disclaimers of capital allowances by Rover Group—Official Report, column 638—this is a matter for Rover Group and the normal rules of confidentiality governing taxpayers' affairs apply.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the plan to defer payment of £150 million for the Rover sale was discussed; and what were the options under consideration in July.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: The deferment of the £150 million consideration was first raised at the end of June 1988. Three specific options were set out in a letter of July 1988 from the then Secretary of State to the chairman of British Aerospace, a copy of which has already been placed in the Library of the House. There were further discussions on 12 July following receipt of the letter at which it was decided that the consideration would be paid not later than 30 March 1990.

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he received the request from British Aerospace seeking abandonment of the golden share.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: I am unaware of any such request. As I explained on 13 December at columns 699–700, the company has consulted us on a number of occasions on the detail of certain provisions in the company's articles of association which require the consent of the special shareholder before any changes can be made.

  Telephone Chatlines
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish in the Official Report full details of the code of practice recently agreed between the director general of OFTEL and the telecommunications industry relating to the provision of telephone chatlines and one-to-one services.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: I have arranged for copies of the two codes of practice recently approved by Oftel to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Bananas
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the annual tonnage of imports of bananas from the dollar area received by each company under the quota arrangements.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 13 December 1989]: No. Details of allocation of shares in all import-administered quotas are regarded as confidential.

  Waste Reduction
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what discussions he has had in the last 12 months with Fisons Limited on waste reduction and minimisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions he has had in the last 12 months with Orsynthetics Limited on waste reduction and minimisation; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what discussions he has had in the last 12 months with Sterling Organics Limited on waste reduction and minimisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have had no discussions on waste reduction and minimisation with the particular companies referred to by the hon. Member. However, my Department is encouraging business in general to take further steps to reduce their waste and has recently published a business guide to waste minimisation entitled "Cutting Your Losses". A copy of the booklet has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Barlow Clowes
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will announce his response to the Parliamentary Commissioner's investigation into the role of his Department in the Barlow Clowes collapse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

EMPLOYMENT

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, whether he will publish in the Official Report a table showing (a) the increase in real earnings of manual and non-manual workers in the decade to June 1989 analysed in both cases to show for the worker at 1 per cent. and 5 per cent., from the top and the manual worker 5 per cent. from the bottom, (b) the average of the earnings above the high figures and below the low one and (c) for all groups the corresponding information (i) manufacturing and for the whole economy less the production industries, (ii) full-time adult female manual and non-manual workers in each case and (iii) the numbers covered by each category.

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

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, further to his reply of 11 December to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby,Official Report, columns 467–68,with regard to the increases in weekly and hourly earnings of certain workers, what is his estimate of the increase in unit labour costs in each case in the decade ending in April.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Information on unit labour costs is not available in the form requested.

  Business and Professional Women
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if his Department has considered an application for an exhibition relating to the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Services Committee, arrangements have been made with the authorities of the House for an exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 22 January to Friday 26 January.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many trainees are undergoing employment training in(a) Burnley, (b) Pendle, (c) Hyndburn and (d) Rossendale and Darwen constituencies; and how many training scheme vacancies exist.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available on a parliamentary constituency basis and can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what special funding arrangements there are to cater for the needs of people with disabilities participating in the employment training programme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Additional funding is available to meet the special training needs of people with disabilities, where these arise, as follows:

  (a) the necessary cost of providing special equipment, adaptations to premises or equipment, and, for the sensorily impaired, communication services.

  (b) variable Supplementary Grants—up to £40 per week per trainee—for places involving higher cost training (including, but not exclusively for, people with disabilities).

  (c) the necessary cost of creating an individualised training programme for those for whom, because of the effects of their disability, existing contracted training places would be inappropriate. This facility is known as Special Training Provision (STP).

  (d) the necessary cost of providing a residential training place where this is deemed appropriate.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to change the provision for travel costs in the employment training scheme.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 14 December 1989]: There are no plans.

  Trade Union Commissioner
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the annual accounts of the Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. Copies of the commissioner's statement of accounts will be laid before each House by the Comptroller and Auditor General in due course.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Labour and Social Affairs Council meeting held in Brussels on 30 November.
  144
  Mr. Eggar
  In the field of health and safety at work, the Council formally adopted three directives. These provide for minimum standards of health and safety for the workplace, for the use of work equipment and the use of personal protective equipment by workers at work. In addition a common position was reached on a directive dealing with protection of workers from risks relating to exposure to carcinogens at work.

  A draft resolution on the setting up of a European employment survey was also adopted; as was a proposal allowing the Commission to negotiate on behalf of the Community at the International Labour Organisation on certain issues.

  The Council continued its discussion of the proposal for a technology training programme (Eurotecnet) following amendments by the European Parliament with a view to its adoption at an early future meeting of the Council. Also in the field of training, the Commission outlined a proposal for a programme on continuing training throughout working life; and there was a statement by the presidency on the need for training measures to combat female unemployment and promote equality of opportunity in the labour market.

  The Council heard an oral presentation by the Commission on the proposed social action programme to implement the social charter. There was also an oral presentation by the Commission on the worker participation proposals in the draft European company statute.

  Skills Training Agency
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will place a copy of the information memorandum about the sale of the Skills Training Agency in the Library.

  Mr. Eggar
  Yes. The sale process has now reached a stage where I am able to place a copy of the information memorandum about STA, and a copy of the information packs about individual parts of STA, in the Library. Copies will also be made available to staff in the STA and to the recognised trade unions.

SCOTLAND

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has issued any recent guidelines to the Forestry Commission concerning the release of agricultural land for afforestation; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 24 October 1989,Official Report, columns 399–401, to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).

  Rape
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department has made of the implications for reform of the law of the recent High Court trial in Aberdeen in which a man was charged with raping his wife.
  145
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the sitting of the High Court in Aberdeen commencing on 6 November 1989 a man did appear on indictment charged inter alia with raping his wife on two separate occasions. After trial, he was convicted of attempted rape and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. It is not considered that this case has any implications for the reform of the criminal law of Scotland.

  Land Registration
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the extent of coverage by districts of Scottish land registration as at December.

  At 30 September each year

  Region/area

  Small holdings

  Other

  Total

  1988 hectares

  1989 hectares

  1988 hectares

  1989 hectares

  1988 hectares

  1989 hectares

  Borders

  504

  391

  25

  25

  529

  416

  Dumfries and Galloway

  521

  466

  259

  259

  780

  725

  Central

  11

  11

  2,292

  2,292

  2,303

  2,303

  Lothian

  170

  141

  511

  382

  681

  523

  Fife

  3

  3

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Tayside

  70

  41

  177

  177

  247

  218

  Grampian

  387

  366

  1,136

  1,136

  1,523

  1,502

  Strathclyde

  8,019

  6,788

  430

  430

  8,449

  7,218

  Highland

  93,564

  93,440

  1,142

  1,130

  94,706

  94,570

  Western Isles Islands

  18,096

  18,082

  279

  278

  18,375

  18,360

  Orkney Islands

  247

  247

  —

  —

  247

  247

  Shetland Islands

  2,161

  2,161

  —

  —

  2,161

  2,161

  123,753

  122,137

  6,251

  6,109

  130,004

  128,246

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the extent of land held in Scotland by the Forestry Commission in(a) September 1988 and (b) September 1989; and if he will break this down by region and island authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission compiles revised land use figures at 31 March each year by its forest districts. Figures are not available for other times of the year, nor are they held by local authority administrative areas.

  At 31 March 1988, the commission managed 727,670 hectares of land in Scotland; the figure at 31 March 1989 was 725,576 hectares. The breakdown into forest districts is given in the commission's annual reports, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House.
  146
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Land Register is operational in the areas of the counties of Renfrew, Dumbarton and Lanark, and the barony and regality of Glasgow.

  Land Holdings
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the extent of land held in Scotland by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland in(a) September 1988 and (b) September 1989; and if he will break this down into region and island authorities.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table.

  Hospital Shops, Glasgow
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his approval has been sought by Greater Glasgow health board to sell off its hospital shops currently run by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and replace them with a commercial service; and what is his policy towards the adoption of such a policy by other health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Greater Glasgow health board has not made any approach to my right hon. and learned Friend on this matter. I understand, however, that there have been discussions with the Women's Royal Voluntary Service about a particular site at Gartnavel general hospital.

  Health boards have been advised by the Scottish Home and Health Department that they should pay close attention to the views of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and other voluntary organisations when formulating proposals that would have an effect on the facilities used by these bodies to provide services for patients.

  Student Allowances
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the levels of students' allowances and parental contributions for session 1990–91.

  Mr. Lang
  I propose to increase the main rates of allowances by 5 per cent. in the 1990–91 academic year. In addition, I propose to increase the differential in the rate paid to students studying in London. The new rates for Scottish students will be as follows (rates for 1989–90 are shown in brackets):

  £

  (£)

  Student in the parental home

  1,660

  (1,575)

  Student living away from home

  outside London

  2,200

  (2,090)

  in London

  2,780

  (2,585)

  Students in receipt of maintenance allowances will be eligible for reimbursement of travelling expenses in excess of the £60 included in the main rates.

  The threshold for parental contributions, and the points on the contribution scales at which the rate of contribution changes, will be uprated to reflect the movement of earnings. Parents whose residual income is below £11,500 will not be assessed for a contribution.

  The full contribution scales for session 1990–91 are set out in the table.

  Contribution Scale

  Residual Income

  Scale 1

  Scale 2

  £

  £

  £

  11,500

  60

  45

  12,000

  131

  98

  13,000

  274

  206

  14,000

  417

  313

  14,700

  517

  388

  15,000

  577

  433

  16,000

  777

  583

  17,000

  977

  733

  18,000

  1,177

  883

  19,000

  1,377

  1,033

  20,000

  1,577

  1,183

  21,000

  1,777

  1,333

  21,600

  1,897

  1,423

  22,000

  1,997

  1,498

  23,000

  2,247

  1,686

  24,000

  2,497

  1,873

  25,000

  2,747

  2,060

  26,000

  2,997

  2,248

  27,000

  3,247

  2,435

  28,000

  3,497

  2,623

  29,000

  3,747

  2,810

  30,000

  3,997

  2,998

  31,000

  4,247

  3,185

  32,000

  4,497

  3,373

  33,000

  4,747

  3,560

  34,000

  4,997

  3,748

  35,000

  5,247

  3,935

  36,000

  5,497

  4,123

  37,000

  5,747

  4,310

  37,210

  15,800

  4,350

  38,000

  —

  4,498

  39,000

  —

  4,685

  40,000

  —

  4,873

  41,000

  —

  5,060

  42,000

  —

  5,248

  43,000

  —

  5,435

  44,000

  —

  5,623

  44,946

  —

  15,800

  148

  1 Max

  Notes:

  1. The second parental contribution scale was introduced following the announcement on 15 March 1988 that tax relief on new non-charitable deeds of covenant would cease; it applies primarily to students who first entered higher education in session 1988–89 or later. The contributions assessed on scale 2 are 25 per cent. less than those on scale 1.

  2. Contributions will rise with residual income, as follows:

  Income

  Scale 1

  Scale 2

  From £11,500 to £14,700

  By £1 in £7

  As in Scale 1, but reduced by 25 per cent.

  From £14,701 to £21,600

  By £1 in £5

  From £21,601

  By £1 in £4

  3. The contribution payable may be less than the amounts shown in the relevant table, particularly at the top of the scale where the contribution is in respect of one award holder only. It will depend on the level of grant against which the contribution is to be set and whether or not any of the assessed contribution is itself offset by allowances for other dependent children.

  Shipping Subsidies
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for shipping subsidies for sea transport services in Scotland in 1990–91; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the estimates I propose to make available in 1990–91 total subsidy provision of £11·628 million. The deficit subsidy for Caledonian MacBrayne will reduce, in line with recent trends in the company's increased carryings and reduced costs, to £5·438 million. The estimated requirement to continue the fares reduction support for P and O services to Orkney and Shetland is increased to £4·6 million. On the basis of budgets submitted by coastal shippers within the tariff rebate subsidy scheme, the funding requirements next year will be £1·59 million.

  These proposed levels of subsidy reflect the Government's continuing commitment to assisting the essential sea transport services to the Western and Northern Isles.

  Postgraduate Students
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many students have applied for assistance under the postgraduate student allowance scheme in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: This information is not readily available prior to session 1986–87 and figures from that date are as follows:

  Session

  Number

  Percentage awarded

  1986–87

  3,245

  90

  1987–88

  3,411

  89

  1988–89

  3,004

  89

  11989–90

  3,259

  90

  1 To date.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much has been spent, on a constant price basis, on the postgraduate student allowance scheme in every year since 1979.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Separate figures of expenditure on the postgraduate

  149
  students' allowances scheme are not available before 1986–87. Expenditure for that subsequent years at 1989–90 prices are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  Per capita

  1986–87

  9·1

  3,095

  1987–88

  9·2

  3,016

  1988–89

  8·5

  3,180

  1989–90

  110·8

  3,697

  1 Estimated.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his spending plans for the postgraduate student allowance scheme for the years until 1992–93.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: The detailed expenditure plans within the totals announced by my right hon. and learned Friend on 6 December (Official Report, columns 328–33) will be set out in the Scottish commentary on public expenditure to 1992–93 to be published in the new year.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will change his administrative procedure so that students know which courses are eligible for assistance under the postgraduate student allowance scheme before the student applies for the course.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: A review group of officials is currently examining ways in which the administrative procedures of the postgraduate students' allowances scheme could be improved. This will be one of the criteria under consideration.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 30 November,Official Report, columns 393–94, he will give for each year since and including the year ended 31 March 1974 the number of applications rejected by a single member, where, subsequently, the applicant is granted an award;

  (2) if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 30 November, Official Report, columns 393–94, he will give the number of applications rejected for each year ended 31 March since and including 31 March 1974 for (a) Scotland and (b) England and Wales.

  Mr. John Patten
  The table sets out the available information kept by the board and published in its annual reports. In many cases the decisions made at hearings relate to applications originally rejected in previous years.

  Year ended 31 March

  Applications Rejected

  Applications rejected by a single Member where an award was Wales made after a hearing

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  1974

  377

  930

  174

  1975

  407

  1,103

  186

  1976

  483

  1,303

  218

  1977

  504

  1,543

  258

  1978

  437

  1,486

  299

  1979

  543

  2,200

  348

  1980

  554

  2,213

  366

  1981

  1,081

  4,147

  1—

  150

  Year ended 31 March

  Applications Rejected

  Applications rejected by a single Member where an award was Wales made after a hearing

  Scotland

  England and Wales

  1982

  911

  3,484

  1—

  1983

  1,062

  4,292

  1—

  1984

  1,550

  6,072

  1—

  1985

  1,328

  5,612

  1—

  1986

  1,226

  5,485

  1—

  1987

  1,278

  5,202

  1—

  1988

  1,306

  5,178

  1—

  1989

  1,451

  6,768

  1—

  1 Information not collated.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 30 November,Official Report, columns 393–94, he will breakdown the percentage of cases submitted to a single member from date of registration of claim within a period of over 12 months to show the percentage of cases submitted within (a) 12 to 15 months, (b) 15 to 18 months, (c) 18 to 21 months, (d) 21 to 24 months, (e) 24 to 27 months, (f) 27 to 30 months, (g) 30 to 33 months and (h) 33 to 36 months.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board does not at present keep a breakdown of such cases for periods over 12 months but has been asked to do so in future years.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 30 November,Official Report, columns 393–94, he will instruct the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to record the average time taken to process a claim from registration to (a) issue to the applicant of the award, and in rejected applications (b) the date of final rejection of the claim.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. Collection of information on average times for awards to be made or claims to be rejected would provide no reliable guide to the board's performance. Average times would be distorted by cases where uncertain prognosis or the need for extensive inquiries precluded an early determination.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 30 November,Official Report, columns 393–94, he will instruct the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to record the number of applicants who die before their claims are decided.

  Mr. John Patten
  The board is not necessarily aware of the reasons why applications lapse.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Moray of 30 November,Official Report, columns 393–94, whether the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board records in respect of each application (a) the date of issue to the applicant of the decision of the single member, (b) the date of issue to the applicant of the decision of the board, where not by a single member and/or (c) the date of issue to the applicant of the award.

  Mr. John Patten
  This information is held on individual case files but is not collated.

  South Devon Clerkship
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many employees will be made redundant in the proposed enlarged south Devon clerkship and in merging the north and west Devon clerkships; and what are their designations;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to withhold his approval of the appointment of the Torbay clerk to the enlarged south Devon clerkship of the magistrates courts until he is satisfied that the reorganisation will result in an administration which is substantially more economic and efficient than merging the existing north and west Devon clerkships;

  (3) what consultations have taken place with each of the benches in the north and west Devon clerkships with regard to the proposed reorganisation of magistrates courts in south Devon; what weight has been given to their recommendations; if he will set out the steps taken to ensure adequate consultations; and who makes the final decision;

  (4) what is the estimated cost of the proposed reorganisation of the south Devon clerkships; what he estimates the savings will be in each of the next three years for the present system and for the enlarged south Devon system; and what estimate he has made of efficiency and cost savings produced by the merging of the present north and west Devon clerkships.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the Devon magistrates courts committee has been considering the possible amalgamation of petty sessional divisions and the reorganisation of clerkships in the county. However, the committee has not yet submitted a draft amalgamation order under section 23 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 for my right hon. and learned Friend's approval. The Act provides for consultation with interested parties before a draft order is submitted and for my right hon. and learned Friend to take relevant objections into account before reaching a decision on a draft order. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merits of proposals which have yet to be submitted to us.

  Nor has the Committee yet sought my right hon. and learned Friend's approval for the permanent appointment of a justices clerk (as it is required to do under section 25 of the 1979 Act) as part of any planned reorganisation of clerkships. Before approving an appointment we will consider any representations which might be made by magistrates of the division concerned.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will put a table in the Official Report showing (a) his recent allocation of police officers by police authority, (b) the number of police officers requested by the authorities concerned and (c) the number of police officers as a proportion of the population served that will pertain after the new allocations are made.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is as follows:
  152

  Police posts approved1

  Posts applied for

  Police/population2 for ratio taking into account police increases

  Avon and Somerset

  10

  50

  458

  Bedfordshire

  8

  8

  504

  Cambridgeshire

  7

  10

  541

  Cheshire

  20

  20

  506

  Cleveland

  13

  19

  368

  Cumbria

  19

  50

  416

  Derbyshire

  19

  34

  510

  Devon and Cornwall

  17

  48

  518

  Dorset

  14

  27

  516

  Durham

  —

  —

  434

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  —

  495

  Essex

  55

  79

  511

  Gloucestershire

  —

  —

  453

  Greater Manchester

  54

  248

  366

  Gwent

  2

  11

  441

  Hampshire

  25

  27

  527

  Hertfordshire

  18

  35

  503

  Humberside

  15

  20

  424

  Kent

  50

  50

  504

  Lancashire

  28

  81

  432

  Leicestershire

  53

  75

  488

  Lincolnshire

  14

  20

  487

  Merseyside

  —

  —

  308

  Norfolk

  46

  66

  528

  Northamptonshire

  20

  29

  500

  Northumbria

  38

  243

  403

  North Wales

  21

  10

  478

  North Yorkshire

  25

  35

  506

  Nottinghamshire

  26

  63

  430

  South Wales

  31

  67

  411

  South Yorkshire

  20

  50

  431

  Staffordshire

  14

  20

  469

  Suffolk

  18

  26

  531

  Surrey

  10

  50

  449

  Sussex

  39

  54

  475

  Thames Valley

  65

  158

  530

  Warwickshire

  15

  35

  482

  West Mercia

  32

  32

  530

  West Midlands

  63

  350

  380

  West Yorkshire

  20

  47

  390

  Wiltshire

  13

  19

  507

  City of London

  —

  —

  5

  Metropolitan

  150

  3—

  252

  1 In some cases increases are offered subject to the police authority's confirmation that it will meet its share of the cost.

  2 Police establishments at 1 April 1990. Population at mid 1988.

  3 The Home Secretary is police authority for the Metropolitan Police.

  Mr. Abdul Shamji
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will consider a transfer of Mr. Abdul Shamji, currently at Wandsworth prison, to an open prison;

  (2) if he will review the case of Mr. Abdul Shamji, currently serving a sentence at Wandsworth prison.

  Mr. Mellor
  Mr. Shamji's case for reallocation to open conditions is being considered by the authorities at Wandsworth in the normal way.

  Video Surveillance
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any proposals to place Devon the regulation of video surveillance on a statutory footing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  We have no plans to introduce legislation covering the use of video cameras in public places for surveillance purposes to combat crime. The Home Office issued guidelines in 1984 for the police on the use of surveillance equipment. These guidelines make it clear that CCTV devices should be used by the police only where they are necessary for the efficient conduct of police operations and with due regard for the intrusion of privacy that may result in particular circumstances.

  Video Recorded Evidence
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received the report of the advisory group on video recorded evidence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  I received the report of the advisory group on 6 October. I am most grateful to the chairman, the Common Serjeant of London, his Honour Judge Pigot QC, and to the other members of the group for their work. I have arranged for the report to be published today. A copy will be placed in the Library. Comments on the report are welcome: they should be sent to the Home Office, C4 Division, Room 339, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT by 30 April 1990.

  Law Courts
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many vacancies there are currently countrywide for court clerks, giving figures by region; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Manpower returns received from 91 of the 105 magistrates courts committees in England and Wales indicated that there were 102 vacancies for court clerks at 30 September 1989, the latest date for which information is available, as shown in the table.

  Magistrates' courts committee

  Vacancies (full-time staff)

  Avon

  3

  Barking

  2

  Barnet

  2

  Barnsley

  0

  Bedfordshire

  4

  Berkshire

  3

  Bexley

  0

  Birmingham

  6

  Bolton

  1

  Bradford

  1

  Brent

  2

  Bromley

  0

  Buckinghamshire

  n/a

  Bury

  0

  Calderdale

  0

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  Cheshire

  1

  Cleveland

  0

  Cornwall

  0

  Coventry

  1

  Croydon

  0

  Cumbria

  1

  Derbyshire

  3

  154

  Magistrates' courts committee

  Vacancies (full-time staff)

  Devon

  1

  Doncaster

  0

  Dorset

  0

  Dudley

  0

  Durham

  1

  Ealing

  2

  East Sussex

  1

  Enfield

  0

  Essex

  n/a

  Gateshead

  0

  Gloucestershire

  n/a

  Hampshire

  1

  Haringey

  1

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  0

  Hereford & Worcester

  1

  Hertfordshire

  3

  Hillingdon

  0

  Hounslow

  0

  Humberside

  3

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Kent

  n/a

  Kingston

  n/a

  Kirklees

  1

  Knowsley

  1

  Lancashire

  3

  Leeds

  0

  Leicestershire

  2

  Lincolnshire

  3

  Liverpool

  2

  London (City of)

  0

  London (Inner)1

  7

  Manchester

  2

  Merton

  0

  Newcastle

  0

  Newham

  n/a

  Norfolk

  n/a

  North Tyneside

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  Northamptonshire

  n/a

  Northumberland

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  5

  Oldham

  0

  Oxfordshire

  0

  Redbridge

  n/a

  Richmond

  0

  Rochdale

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Salford

  0

  Sandwell

  1

  Sefton

  0

  Sheffield

  0

  Shropshire

  1

  Solihull

  1

  Somerset

  n/a

  South Tyneside

  1

  St. Helens

  0

  Staffordshire

  6

  Stockport

  1

  Suffolk

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  Surrey

  4

  Sutton

  n/a

  Tameside

  0

  Trafford

  0

  Wakefield

  2

  Walsall

  0

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  Wigan

  0

  Wiltshire

  1

  Wirral

  n/a

  Wolverhampton

  3

  Clwyd

  1

  Dyfed

  1

  Gwent

  0

  155

  Magistrates' courts committee

  Vacancies (full-time staff)

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  Powys

  0

  South Glamorgan

  n/a

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Total

  102

  1 Comparable grade.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the latest figure available for the current year for(a) the number of cases in court which last five minutes or less, (b) the amount of legal aid costs these cases incur and c) what representation he has received on the waiting time for such cases; and if he will make a statement concerning the introduction of court timetabling.

  Mr. John Patten
  No information is available on the number of cases in magistrates courts which last five minutes or less and I understand from my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that information on the number of legal aid bills submitted for cases where legal representatives appeared in court for five minutes or less could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  From time to time complaints are made about long waiting periods for cases which were disposed of very quickly. However, it can be difficult to predict how long a case will take.

  As to the introduction of court timetabling I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to his question on 7 December 1989 at column 397.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many nuclear bunkers have been built or provided by local authorities in Wales to date; and how many additional hunkers are now being planned.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 impose on local authorities a duty to establish, equip and maintain emergency centres for the control and co-ordination of action in the event of hostile attack or threat of attack. Of the total of 53 such centres required in Wales, 16 are in place and comply with standards advised in guidance given to local authorities. A further 14 centres require modification in order to meet these standards fully. Planning for such modifications and for the provision of additional centres will be raised in current discussion with relevant authorities in connection with their performance generally in meeting civil defence statutory requirements.

  Vehicle Security
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to implement the conclusions of the working group on car security made in November 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The working group on car security made a number of recommendations, most of which were aimed at car manufacturers and the insurance industry.

  In response to the working group's recommendations, car security publicity by the Home Office, Department of
  156
  Transport and the DVLC has continued at a high level and there has been a noticeable increase in publicity from manufacturers.

  Five parts of a British standard on vehicle security, covering mechanical locking systems, security of in-car entertainment equipment, window etching, central power locking and dead-locking, and both parts of a standard on anti-theft alarms, have now been published. Much progress is already evident in new vehicle production, including high security door, boot and ignition locks, fuel filler locks, anti-theft radios and alarm systems and in the provision of window etching services. A computerised motor insurance anti-fraud and theft register was launched in March 1987 and there has been a general increase in car security advice from insurers and brokers, though more could be done.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Standing Conference on Crime Prevention working group on car crime, made in December 1988.

  Mr. John Patten
  The car crime working group continued its work this year. A group of experts has been formed to consider the production of a car-crime prevention video for use in schools. The working group and the Home Office have taken steps to bring the working group's recommendations to the attention of car manufacturers and the media. In response to the working group's recommendations, the Home Office scientific research and development branch is carrying out research into the production of an index of the vulnerability of types of car to theft and into the correlation between car theft and road accidents. The working group has explored ways in which statistics aimed at the prevention of car crime might be collected and published.

  It is encouraging that the most recent published statistics, covering the period of 12 months to June 1989 showed a reduction of almost 4 per cent. in the number of recorded offences of car crime, compared with the corresponding period to the end of June 1987.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent on research into drug addiction, other than on the campaign Heroin Screws You Up and its evaluation, in the past five years or for any other period of years for which the information is available, by(a) his Department, (b) the Department of Education and Science and (c) the Department of Health.

  Mr. Mellor
  Estimated expenditure on research into drug addiction in the current and preceding four financial years, excluding evaluation studies, is as follows:—

  Financial year

  Home Office

  Department of Health

  £

  1985–86

  8,769

  1

  1986–87

  26,331

  1

  1987–88

  56,525

  1

  1988–89

  32,182

  £311,222

  1989–90

  28,259

  £225,406

  Total

  152,066

  Sub-total

  £536,628

  5 year DH total £1·2 million

  157

  1 Separate figures for these years are not readily available, but an average of £221,124 was spent in each year.

  The Department of Education and Science has no responsibility for research into drug addiction, but has funded a number of projects related to the development and evaluation of education about substance misuse.

  Interpreters
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many interpreters are employed by his Department in the immigration service for translation from English to Kurdish; and what training they are given.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: There are no Kurdish-speaking interpreters in permanent employment with the immigration service, but seven have been employed this year on a casual basis. Interpreters are instructed to give a direct translation of questions put and answers given.

  War Crimes Inquiry
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his best estimate of the cost to public funds of prosecuting the three alleged war criminals referred to in paragraph 10.5 of the report of the war crimes inquiry, including the cost of obtaining witnesses and evidence from the Soviet Union and eastern Europe and assuming the provision of legal aid to the defendants;

  (2) what is his best estimate of the overall cost to public funds over the coming 10 years of implementing the recommendations contained in the report of the war crimes inquiry (Cm. 744) in respect of the 127 alleged war criminals believed to be in resident in the United Kingdom and recommended for prosecution or further investigation.

  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: It is not possible to give an indication about the costs which might arise in connection with any investigations and prosecutions of war criminals which might take place if the necessary legislative provision were to be made. However, the experience of other countries which have instigated investigations suggests that the costs involved could be substantial. The costs of conducting any trials of alleged war criminals which might take place would depend upon the number of such trials and the complexity of each case.

WALES

  Forestry
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has issued any recent guidance to the Forestry Commission in Wales concerning the release of agricultural land for afforestation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I recognise the important role that forestry can play as an alternative use of agricultural land. Guidance is readily available.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision he has made for expenditure on the National Health Service in Wales in the next financial year 158
  on (a) remuneration to non-executive members of health authorities and family practitioners services authorities, (b) arrangements necessary for establishing contracts for services, (c) arrangements necessary for establishing hospital trusts, (d) additional tasks as a result of the introduction of general practitioner practice funds, (e) capital cost of information systems for the management of drug expenditure, (f) audit costs, and (g) the upkeep of asset registers and the calculation of capital charges.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce the detailed provision for hospital and community health service resources to district health authorities when the House reassembles in the new year. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman then.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he gives local education authorities in Wales concerning(a) the repair of flat roofs in schools and (b) the use of flat roofs in plans for new school buildings.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Design note 46 entitled "Maintenance and Renewal in Educational Buildings: Flat Roofs" was issued to all local education authorities in England and Wales in 1985. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received as to which Welsh schools are in need of refurbishment; what is the age of the schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure plans submitted each year by local education authorities provide information about education building needs, including refurbishment of schools, and these are the subject of discussion with the Department. The age of schools is not a reliable indicator of expenditure needs.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will commission a survey of the school buildings in Wales concerning their state of repair, energy conservation and age; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  In the context of my right hon. Friend's efficiency initiative, local authorities have already prepared reports on energy management and property review, and have further action in hand. The property review requires the setting up of appropriate records in regard to age and condition of buildings, including schools.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he has any plans to meet(a) Clwyd local education authority leaders, (b) Clwyd parent—teacher association leaders, (c) teacher union leaders and (d) representatives of school governers to discuss funding for school regions and the problem of water seepage on flat school roofs; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a special allocation to the Clwyd local education authority to enable the authority to deal with the water seepage on flat roofs of Clwyd schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No. Allocations of resources within a local education authority's area and responsibility for education buildings are matters for the local education authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish estimated poll tax payments per head, in current prices, which will be required after removal of safety net arrangements and based on current Welsh Office targets for local government spending for(a) Wales as a whole and (b) each district council area.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Estimates of community charge levels for Wales as a whole and for each district council area were placed in the Library on Monday 18 December 1989. I no longer propose to make safety net adjustments to revenue support grant entitlements.

  Welsh Water
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for Welsh Water plc the estimated percentage held by(a) individual shareholders and (b) financial institutions as on the first day of trading in the new company.

  Mr. Grist
  The allocations to applicants for shares in Welsh Water plc were announced by Schroders in a press release on 11 December. The offer of Welsh Water shares to the general public was oversubscribed to an extent that the clawback provisions set out in the prospectus on the water share offers were triggered. Thus, 39·25 per cent. of the shares on offer was allocated to institutions and 46·875 per cent. of the shares on offer was allocated to applicants in the retail public offers.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the percentage of shares in Welsh Water plc which were in the hands of shareholders with addresses outside Wales on the first day of trading in the new company.

  Mr. Grist
  No. This information is not readily available, but at least half of the shares allocated to applicants in the retail public offer were to customers, employees and pensioners of Welsh Water.

  Improvement Grants
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the details of the means-testing for the new improvement grants payable from 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Details of the test of resources will be included in regulations which are currently being prepared and will be laid before this House in due course.

  European Regional Development Fund AE0
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his best estimate of the total level of European regional development fund aid commitments jointly to all eligible public bodies in the three counties of Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed in each of the years 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  European regional development fund commitments to eligible public bodies in the three counties of Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed in each of the past five years are shown in the following table:

  Year

  £ million

  1984

  6·6

  1985

  19·5

  1986

  7·5

  160

  Year

  £ million

  1987

  5·6

  1988

  14·0

  Figures do not include some Welsh projects which cross the boundaries of administrative areas.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his best estimate of the total level of European regional development fund aid commitments to all eligible public bodies in Clwyd in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest estimate for European regional development fund non-quota commitments to all eligible public bodies in Clwyd for 1989 is £2·4 million.

  No commitments have yet been made for 1989 and 1990 under the Clwyd integrated development operation programme.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate for the amount of European regional development fund assistance commitments to all eligible public bodies in the four counties of industrial south Wales in each of the years 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  European regional development fund commitments to eligible public bodies in the four counties of industrial south Wales in each of the past five years are shown in the following table:

  Year

  £ million

  1984

  51·1

  1985

  17·0

  1986

  17·8

  1987

  41·9

  1988

  29·1

  Figures do not include some Welsh projects which cross the boundaries of administrative areas.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate for the amount of European regional development fund commitments to all eligible public bodies in the four counties of industrial south Wales in(a) the present year and (b)

  Mr. Grist
  The latest estimate for European regional development fund commitments to the mid-Glamorgan national programme of community interest and for non-quota grant in the four counties of industrial south Wales for 1989 is £10·4 million.

  No commitments have yet been made for 1989 and 1990 under the integrated development operation programme for industrial south Wales.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the amount of European regional development fund commitments to all eligible public bodies in Clwyd in each of the years 1984 to 1988.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  European regional development fund commitments to eligible public bodies in Clwyd in each of the past five years are shown in the following table:

  Year

  £ million

  1984

  4·3

  1985

  18·3

  1986

  19·2

  161

  Year

  £ million

  1987

  10·2

  1988

  20·2

  Figures do not include some Welsh projects which cross the boundaries of administrative areas.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his most up-to-date estimate of the likely final total of European regional development fund aid commitments jointly to all eligible public bodies in the counties of Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed in 1989 and 1990.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest estimate for European regional development fund commitments to all eligible public bodies in the three counties of Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed for 1989 is £20·4 million.

  No commitments have yet been made for 1990.

  Health Service Resources
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has reached a decision about the allocation of resources for health and personal social services in Wales in 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Subject to parliamentary approval, I propose to allocate £1,472 million in 1990–91 to central Government's own expenditure on health and personal social services in Wales. This represents a cash increase of £156·7 million over 1989–90 plans, and an increase of some £98 million over planned provision for 1990–91.

  My proposals include £1,055·8 million for the hospital and community health services, an increase of £101·1 million over planned provision in 1989–90. I will announce allocations to individual health authorities as soon as

  Hospital and community health services—gross capital expenditure since 1974–75

  £ million

  Total at 1988–89 prices adjusted by:

  Public expenditure

  Capital receipts (mainly land sales)

  Total expenditure

  the GDP deflator

  the HCBS capital deflator

  1974–75

  243

  —

  243

  960

  950

  1975–76

  327

  —

  327

  1,027

  979

  1976–77

  356

  —

  356

  986

  952

  1977–78

  315

  —

  315

  767

  737

  1978–79

  358

  8

  366

  805

  766

  1979–80

  395

  10

  405

  763

  703

  1980–81

  540

  16

  556

  885

  766

  1981–82

  651

  20

  671

  972

  896

  1982–83

  682

  19

  701

  947

  921

  1983–84

  692

  33

  725

  936

  934

  1984–85

  767

  50

  817

  1,005

  1,010

  1985–86

  803

  85

  888

  1,037

  1,037

  1986–87

  812

  149

  961

  1,085

  1,069

  1987–88

  807

  201

  1,008

  1,081

  1,066

  1988–89

  804

  280

  1,084

  1,084

  1,084

  11989–90

  920

  291

  1,211

  1,132

  2

  1 Estimated.

  2 Estimates of HCHS capital inflation are not made until after the financial year has ended.

  Community Care
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the redeployment of financial resources from long-stay hospitals in the closure/partial closure programme and on how and where these have been used to develop services for community care for people with mental handicap.
  162
  possible. In addition to their allocations, health authorities will retain the benefit of cash released through cost improvement programmes, income from charges for the treatment of private patients and from income generation schemes, and receipts from the sale of surplus land and buildings.

  These additional resources will allow substantial investment in the information management systems that are required to support implementation of the White Paper "Working for Patients", and will also make possible the further development of modern patterns of service for those with mental handicaps, and those suffering from mental illness; of breast and cervical cancer screening services; of programmes to address the problems of alcohol and other drug abuse; and of initiatives to support the promotion of a healthy lifestyle.

HEALTH

  Expenditure
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each year since 1974–75 capital spending on hospital and community health services in net terms after deducting proceeds from land and property sales (i) in cash terms, (ii) adjusted using the gross domestic product deflator and (iii) adjusted using the relevant index of National Health Service prices.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I see no logical reason for excluding proceeds of land and property sales from figures on capital spending by the NHS and I have given these proceeds in addition to the information requested in order to give a sensible picture of capital investment in the service.

  Mr. Freeman
  Decisions regarding the redeployment of financial resources released from long stay hospitals are primarily a matter for health authorities in consultation with the relevant local authorities and in the light of local needs and circumstances. Proceeds from the sale of mental handicap hospitals must be used specifically for the development of services for that client group unless there are exceptional circumstances and the Department has
  163
  agreed otherwise. Systematic information as to how resources have been redeployed to community services is not available centrally.

  Energy Statistics
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give, for each region and as a total for England and Wales(a) the total number of licensed vehicles at the latest available date, (b) the total amount spent on energy during the latest year for which figures are available, broken down into (i) petrol supply, (ii) electricity supply, (iii) gas supply and (iv) other and (c) the total amount spent on insulation on the National Health Service estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Statistics on the total number of licensed vehicles which include Crown cars, ambulances and commercial vehicles, are not held centrally. The total amounts, for hospital sites in England and Wales, spent by health authorities on petrol supply, electricity supply, gas supply and others, in the financial year 1988–89 (£ million rounded up to two decimal places) are provisionally estimated as follows:

  Region

  Petrol

  Electricity

  Gas

  Other

  Northern

  1·40

  6·28

  4·14

  3·02

  Yorkshire

  1·49

  7·13

  5·48

  2·66

  Trent

  1·98

  10·60

  6·37

  5·04

  East Anglian

  1·10

  3·75

  2·39

  1·77

  North West Thames

  0·74

  7·67

  5·42

  2·90

  North East Thames

  0·89

  9·62

  4·45

  5·31

  South East Thames

  1·12

  8·18

  5·82

  2·66

  South West Thames

  2·32

  5·97

  5·26

  2·27

  Wessex

  1·14

  5·36

  3·88

  1·79

  Oxford

  1·00

  4·47

  2·65

  1·66

  South Western

  1·41

  6·16

  3·91

  1·75

  Region

  Campylobacter

  Cryptosporidium

  Leptospira

  Northern

  1,639

  134

  1

  Yorkshire

  3,049

  651

  11

  Trent

  3,429

  519

  3

  East Anglia

  1,018

  163

  1

  North West Thames

  1,756

  239

  1

  North East Thames

  1,786

  236

  1

  South East Thames

  2,049

  655

  1

  South West Thames

  2,648

  576

  1

  Wessex

  2,133

  864

  7

  Oxford

  1,761

  596

  5

  South Western

  2,385

  760

  11

  West Midlands

  3,159

  837

  4

  Mersey

  770

  125

  2

  North Western

  2,640

  864

  2

  Wales

  1,697

  475

  2

  TOTAL

  31,919

  7,694

  53

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the incidence by county in England and Wales and by occupational group of salmonella infection caused by(a) drinking unpasteurised milk and (b) contact with sick animals.

  Mr. Freeman
  Information is not available in the form requested. Three outbreaks of salmonellosis associated with drinking unpasteurised milk, in which there was microbiological or epidemiological evidence to confirm the association, were recorded in 1988 (provisional total), two in the north western region, and one in Wessex region. One outbreak affected the local community and two outbreak
  164

  Region

  Petrol

  Electricity

  Gas

  Other

  West Midlands

  1·91

  10·26

  4·34

  6·60

  Mersey

  1·00

  5·32

  3·19

  2·21

  North Western

  1·44

  8·21

  6·67

  3·92

  SHA's

  0·02

  2·13

  1·17

  0·52

  Total amount spent in 1988–89

  In England

  18·96

  101·11

  65·14

  44·07

  In Wales1

  —

  6·19

  3·71

  3·17

  Grand Total England £229·23 million Wales £13·07 million

  1 There is not a separate figure for total amount spent on petrol in Wales. Expenditure on petrol is included in "other" column.

  (c) Figures for the total amount spent on insulation on the NHS estate are not available. Guidance on insulation and other energy-saving measures is available to the NHS in my Department's national energy code ('ENCODE'). Ministers have, on a number of occasions, stated their wish for energy savings in the NHS commensurate with providing a proper service. So too has the Public Accounts Committee and its target of a saving in energy consumption of 1·5 per cent. per annum is generally being achieved.

  Infections
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of infection by county in England and Wales caused by(a) campylobacter, (b) cryptospiridia and (c) leptospira.

  Mr. Freeman
  The data requested are not available by county. The provisional data given in the table are a breakdown of reports by National Health Service health regions for England and Wales and are based on reports received by CDSC from laboratories in England and Wales. They cover 1989 up to and including the week ending 8 December 1989.

  affected farming personnel from the implicated milk-producing farms as well as persons in the local community. No outbreaks have been recorded so far in 1989.

  This information is based on reports of outbreaks of salmonella infection to the public health laboratory service communicable disease surveillance centre by laboratories and local authority environmental health departments in England and Wales.

  It is not possible to identify separately salmonellosis which is linked to contact with sick animals as distinct from that of a food origin.
  165
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the incidence of chlamydiosis arising from(a) domestic poultry and (b) other birds; and if he will make a statement.

  Chlamydia B/Chlamydia Psittaci 1984–88

  Laboratory reports to the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (not incidence), where contact with birds mentioned

  Year

  Total laboratory reports

  Poultry1

  Other birds

  Total birds contact

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  1984

  410

  5

  1

  59

  14

  64

  16

  1985

  322

  16

  5

  58

  18

  74

  23

  1986

  326

  9

  3

  52

  16

  61

  19

  1987

  430

  13

  3

  61

  14

  74

  17

  1988

  460

  15

  3

  67

  15

  82

  18

  Total 1984–88

  1,948

  58

  3

  297

  15

  355

  18

  Average year 1984–88

  390

  12

  3

  59

  15

  71

  18

  1 Chicken, duck, goose and poultry unspecified.

  Ambulance Service
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the average time spent by an ambulance man on transporting(a) emergency cases and (b) non-emergency cases.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not available centrally.

  Nurses Grading
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the numbers of nursing grade appeals that have not been dealt with by each health authority.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Capital Expenditure
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide estimates showing the amount of capital expenditure on hospital and community health services in each financial year from 1978–79 to 1989–90.

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

  Hospital and community health services—Gross capital expenditure since 1978–79

  Year

  Cash £ million

  1978–79

  366

  1979–80

  405

  1980–81

  556

  1981–82

  671

  1982–83

  701

  1983–84

  725

  1984–85

  817

  1985–86

  888

  1986–87

  961

  1987–88

  1,008

  1988–89

  1,084

  11989–90

  1,211

  1 Estimate.

  166
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information available is set out in the table. Person-to-person transmission of chlamydia psittaci is rare: outbreaks of the disease in humans occur mainly among aviary and quarantine station workers, poultry processors and veterinarians.

  Laboratory Facilities
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any health authority laboratory facilities in the North West regional health authority area are used for veterinary purposes.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are aware of only one health authority in this region whose laboratory facilities are being used for veterinary purposes, that being Oldham health authority, which does a very small amount of specimen testing.

  Self-governing Trusts
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all the expressions of interest in self-governing trust status that he has so far rejected.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A total of 188 expressions of interests in NHS trust status have been received so far. I understand that sponsors of some 79 of these intend to prepare draft applications for NHS trust status in April 1991. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will consider all applications for trust status on their merits when received.

  Deaf-Blind People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many registered deaf-blind people there are in each local authority;

  (2) what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the current methods of recording deaf-blind people in local authorities;

  (3) what is his Department's estimate of the total number of deaf-blind people in Britain;

  (4) whether any pilot project is being carried out to identify numbers of deaf-blind people.

  Mr. Freeman
  The numbers of registered blind persons in each local authority who are also deaf or hard of hearing are published in "Registered Blind and Partially Sighted Persons at 31 March 1988: England", a copy of which is in the Library.

  The social services inspectorate has recently undertaken an inspection of personal social services for deaf-blind

  167
  people. The inspection's findings confirm that the number of people registered with local authorities as blind who are also deaf or hard of hearing cannot be used as a reliable basis for a national estimate of the numbers of deaf-blind people because registration with a local authority is voluntary and not all deaf-blind people choose to register.

  However, using a broad, functional definition of deaf-blindness, the National Deaf Blind and Rubella Association (SENSE) has estimated that there may be some 11,000 deaf-blind people in the United Kingdom.

  The Department is not carrying out any pilot project to identify numbers of deaf-blind people. However, I understand that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf has done some work in this area and will be publishing a report in January 1990.

  Profoundly Handicapped People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times local authorities have used their powers under section 43 of the National Assistance Act 1948 to assume responsibility for the care of adults who are unable to care for themselves as a result of profound handicap.

  Mr. Freeman
  I assume that the right hon. Member is referring to section 47 of the Act. This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times profoundly mentally handicapped people have been sanctioned under the terms of the Mental Health Act in order to ensure their safety.

  Mr. Freeman
  In 1987–88 there were 186 admissions, under sections of the Mental Health Act 1983, of patients categorised as mentally impaired or severely mentally impaired. Information is not held centrally as to how many of these patients were admitted for their own safety, rather than the other reasons specified in the Act.

  Severely Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he has any plans to introduce an at-risk register for severely disabled adults being cared for at home, where there is doubt as to the quality of the care they are receiving;

  (2) whether he has any plans to review the legislation available for protecting the interests of severely disabled people over the age of 18 years who are unable to look after themselves; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans to do so.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to review the procedure whereby district health authorities which fund speech therapy provision in schools should give reasonable notice to the schools concerned before withdrawing funding arrangements.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. District health authorities are responsible for determining the level of speech therapy provision for schools in their area, in the light of local circumstances, their assessment of priorities, and the available resources. We expect district health authorities to liaise closely with local education authorities over provision of speech therapy in schools.

  Wythenshawe Hospital
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the head of medical services at Manchester airport in regard to the future of the accident and emergency department at Wythenshawe hospital; what reply he is sending; if there is any action he will be taking; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received a letter from the chief executive of Manchester Airport plc about the provision of accident and emergency services in the area of Manchester airport and referring to the proposals of the South Manchester district health authority to rationalise acute and other services at the Withington and Wythenshawe hospitals. The South Manchester district health authority has invited comments on its rationalisation plans from all interested parties including the community health council. The district authority will be able to proceed to implement the plans only with the agreement of the local community health council or, if that is withheld, with the agreement of the North West regional health authority. This is the standard procedure for dealing with significant changes in the use of Health Service facilities. The planning of health services at district level is of course best dealt with at a local level. Ministers would not wish to be involved unless no local agreement can be reached.

  The Department will be replying to the chief executive in these terms.

  Health Service (Bradford)
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people are to be appointed to assist Dr. Mark Baker to prepare Bradford's acute hospital services for self-government; what budget has been agreed to meet staff costs and other costs associated with this preparatory work; who is to pay these costs; who has authorised this preparatory expenditure; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what salary and expenses will be paid to the person appointed as district general manager of Bradford health authority, to succeed Dr. Mark Baker; how long the appointment is to last; whether the person appointed will be given a contract; whether Dr. Mark Baker has the right to resume his former role as district general manager; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  These matters are for decision locally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Bradford health authority, Mr. R. G. Brooke, in the first instance.

  Benzodiazepines
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a breakdown of the number of prescriptions issued by community pharmacists during 1988 for the following benzodiazepines(a) diazepam, (b) tenazepam, (c) lorazepam, (d) nitrazepam and (e) chlordiazepoxide.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists for the drugs requested is as follows:
  169

  Great Britain

  Number of prescriptions in 1988

  Millions

  Diazepam

  4·5

  Tenazepam

  7·7

  Lorazepam

  2·1

  Nitrazepam

  4·6

  Chlordiazep oxide

  0·9

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has of the number of chronic users of benzodiazepines in the United Kingdom and what action he intends to take to reduce this number.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no precise figures to show the level of benzodiazepine dependence. A number of measures have been taken to tackle the problem, including the issue of advice to doctors on the careful use of these drugs, the promotion of alternatives to their use, and the development of services to help those dependent on them.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what grants have been made in 1989–90 under the central drugs initiative to services specifically for those dependent on benzodiazepines.

  Mr. Freeman
  The central drugs initiative was established in 1983–84 as a pump-priming scheme to provide capital and revenue resources for local projects to assist people suffering from drug dependence. Each grant was to last for three years, and the last approach was made in 1987, so that the scheme is now drawing to a close.

  Grants specifically for those dependent on benzodiazepines or other tranquillisers under this initiative totalled over £300,000. None of these grants fell into the current financial year. It is not possible to estimate the extent to which these grant-aided schemes also provide services for this group.

  The initiative is in addition to the other funds for drug dependence, in particular the earmarked money allocated to regional health authorities for drug dependence in each financial year since 1986, and which in the current year totals nearly £15 million.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why people dependent on benzodiazepines are classed by his Department as drug misusers.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is concerned with the prevention and treatment of drug dependence irrespective of whether the condition arises from illicit or prescribed drug use. Equally, the funds that the Department has made available are for the development of services both for those dependent on prescribed drugs and those experiencing problems with illicit drug use.

  Medicine Leaflets
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the European Community proposal to require leaflets to be provided with medicines has now been adopted; and when it will be implemented in the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  European Community (EC) Council directive 89/341 of 3 May 1989, among other things, introduced a requirement to provide leaflets with medicines. The content of such leaflets is still under 170
  consideration. The EC Commission has recently announced its intention to forward a proposal to the Council of Ministers early in the new year. It would be premature to make commitments about United Kingdom implementation in advance of negotiations and adoption by Council of the directive, but we look forward to playing a constructive part in discussions.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to begin consultation with local authority associations and voluntary organisations on sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are currently examining these sections with a view to identifying those provisions with significant resource implications. We will then seek the assistance of interested bodies to help us to estimate their cost.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date he expects to publish the first report to Parliament under section 11 of the disabled persons Act 1986, due to be implemented at the end of 1989.

  Mr. Freeman
  Within the next few days.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements will be made to publish on an annual basis, the total public sector expenditure on care services for disabled people, covering expenditure incurred by central Government, including social security payments, local authorities, health authorities and other statutory service providers funded from public money.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on public expenditure on care services for disabled people is currently available in a number of publications. The public expenditure White Paper analyses past and present expenditure on social security both by broad client groups and by individual benefits, some of which may be relevant to the provision of care. Expenditure on health and personal social services by broad client group is published in "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics", for example tables 2.8, 2.6 and 2.9, in the key indicators of local authority social services package; and in the local authority profiles. Information is also available from Health Service cost returns and reports of the Social Services Committee, copies of which are available in the Library. The use made by disabled people of general health and social services (for example acute hospital services and home help services) is not separately identified. We have no plans to change the present publication arrangements.

  Contraceptive Services
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those district health authorities who have(a) expanded and (b) contracted their provision of contraceptive services in each of the last three years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: The information is not available in exactly the form requested.

  The data collected cover the number of family planning clinic sessions, and attendances at family planning clinics.
  171
  The latest available figures are for 1987–88. The districts listed, copies of which have been placed in the Library, are those where:

  (1) both the number of attendances and the number of sessions held increased over the period 1984 to 1987–88. (14 districts)

  (2) both the number of attendances and the number of sessions decreased over the same period. (110 districts)

  (3) the number of attendances decreased while the number of sessions increased. (58 districts)

  (4) the number of attendances increased while the number of sessions decreased. (9 districts)

  The number of sessions offered by family planning clinics may be reduced as part of a rationalisation of services by health authorities to make more effective use of available resources. Some 97 per cent. of general practitioners provide planning services and about 65 per cent. of the women using family planning services prefer to see a general practitioner.

  Government policy remains that people should be free to choose their source of family planning advice and that health authority contraceptive services complement, rather than duplicate, those which general practitioners provide. This is reflected in current guidance issued to health authorities by the Department.

  NHS Reform
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many written comments he received on(a) the White Paper "Working for Patients" and (b) the White Paper "Care in the Community", and how many of (a) and (b) were favourable to the proposals.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: More than 13,500 written comments have been received on the Government's proposals to improve the Health Service. Many ask questions, many support all or some of the proposals, some refer only to specific aspects. It is not possible to distinguish them in the way the hon. Member requests. We have also received a number of comments on the White Paper "Caring for People". These are generally favourable, but seek clarification on a

  Table 1

  Supplementary benefit (income support from April 1988) to people in independent residential care homes and nursing homes

  Expenditure £ million (current prices)

  Expenditure £ million (May 1988 prices)1

  Number of claimants (000s)

  Number in residential care homes (000s)

  Number in nursing homes (000s)

  Average payment (£ per week current prices1)

  Average payment (£per week May 1988 prices)

  Proportion of residents receiving supplementary benefit percentage1

  December 1979

  10

  18

  12

  2—

  2—

  16·0

  33·1

  14

  December 1980

  18

  27

  13

  2—

  2—

  26·6

  43·6

  14

  December 1981

  23

  31

  13

  2—

  2—

  34·0

  50·5

  13

  December 1982

  39

  50

  16

  2—

  2—

  46·9

  61·7

  16

  December 1983

  104

  127

  26

  2—

  2—

  76·9

  92·9

  23

  December 1984

  200

  234

  42

  2—

  2—

  91·6

  107·6

  31

  December 1985

  348

  385

  70

  55

  15

  95·6

  105·8

  44

  February 1986

  459

  505

  90

  70

  20

  98·1

  107·8

  55

  May 1987

  671

  699

  117

  85

  32

  110·3

  115·0

  53

  May 1988

  878

  878

  147

  103

  44

  115·0

  115·0

  61

  May 1989

  1,105

  1,020

  176

  119

  57

  120·7

  111·5

  2—

  1 Estimated only—data on resident numbers are incomplete across all care groups.

  2 Figures are not available.

  Note: Adjusted to constant prices on basis of RPI.
  172
  number of points. The lengthy Labour party campaign produced the equivalent of about 300 postcards for each district health authority area.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Members' Staff
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many employees employed by hon. Members are paid for through the secretarial and office allowance.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  A total of 1,262 in the month of December 1989.

  The above figure relates to persons directly employed by Members, ie, paid through the PAYE system. It does not include persons who are self-employed or fee-earning, or agency and other staff provided through an arrangement with a firm or business organisation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will update the information given in tables 1 and 2 in answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central on 21 December 1988,Official Report, columns 303–6 to April/May 1989 using April/May 1988 prices and supply additional information on the proportion of residents on supplementary benefit/income support from February 1986, update table 2 in May 1989 prices and provide the figures for the categories mentioned in table 2 as per the uprating due to take effect in April 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is in the tables. All figures in table 1 are estimates. Information on the proportion of residents receiving income support is not yet available beyond May 1988. Table 2 provides information from April 1985 when the current system of national limits was introduced.
  173

  Table 2

  Residential care and nursing home limits—April 1985-April 1990 (Proposed)

  April 1985

  November 1985

  July 1986

  April 1987

  April 1988

  April 1989

  April 1990

  Residential care category

  £ (current prices)

  £ (May 1989 prices)

  £ (current prices)

  £ (May 1989 prices)

  £ (current prices)

  £ (May 1989 prices)

  £ (current prices)

  £ (May 1989 prices)

  £ (current prices)

  £ (May 1989 prices)

  £ (cash)

  £ (cash)

  Elderly

  110

  133

  120

  144

  125

  147

  130

  147

  130

  141

  140

  150

  Very Dependent or Blind Elderly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  140

  165

  145

  164

  155

  168

  155

  165

  Mentally Ill

  120

  146

  130

  156

  130

  153

  130

  147

  130

  141

  140

  150

  Drug/Alcohol

  120

  146

  130

  156

  130

  153

  130

  147

  130

  141

  140

  150

  Mentally Handicapped

  140

  170

  150

  180

  150

  177

  150

  169

  160

  174

  160

  170

  Physically Disabled under pension age

  170

  206

  180

  216

  180

  212

  190

  215

  190

  207

  190

  200

  Other

  110

  133

  120

  144

  125

  147

  130

  147

  130

  141

  140

  150

  Nursing Home Category

  Elderly

  138·60

  168

  170

  204

  170

  200

  175

  198

  185

  201

  190

  200

  Mentally Ill

  148·60

  180

  180

  216

  180

  212

  180

  203

  185

  201

  195

  200

  Drug/Alcohol

  148·60

  180

  180

  216

  180

  212

  180

  203

  185

  201

  195

  205

  Mentally Handicapped

  168·60

  205

  200

  240

  200

  236

  200

  226

  200

  217

  205

  215

  Physically Disabled under pension age

  198·60

  241

  230

  276

  230

  271

  230

  260

  230

  250

  235

  245

  Terminally Ill

  198·60

  241

  230

  276

  230

  271

  230

  260

  230

  250

  235

  245

  Contracts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many contracts over £92,500 have been let by his Department in the 1988–89 financial year and in the current financial year to date; and how many of these were(a) automatically renewed and (b) open to competition by advertisement throughout the European Community.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The number of contracts awarded by the then Department of Health and Social Security and covered by the provisions of the EC supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000, was 40 in the 1988–89 financial year. Of these 37 were awarded following advertisement in the EC Journal and one was considered to be exempt from advertising and may have been awarded to the previous supplier.

  The number of contracts awarded by the Department of Social Security and covered by the provisions of the EC supplies directive, for which the current threshold is £92,000, is 14 in the current financial year to date. All were awarded following advertisement in the EC Journal.

  Begging
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of people begging in (i) London and (ii) the rest of the country; what recent surveys have been carried out; and if he will institute a survey now so as to ascertain the up-to-date numbers involved.

  Mr. John Patten
  I have been asked to reply.

  The only statistics available are of the number prosecuted for begging each year. In 1988 there were 573 such prosecutions in England and Wales of which 512 (89 per cent.) resulted in convictions. In the Metropolitan police district there were 500 prosecutions of which 455 (91 per cent.) resulted in convictions. We have no present plans to institute a survey on begging.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has yet reached any conclusion as a result of his continued monitoring of the social fund.

  Mr. Tony Newton
  Our continued monitoring of the social fund suggests that it is generally working well. After a slow start in the first year, awareness of both community care grants and of the interest-free loan system has clearly grown. Arrangements for repayment also appear to be working well, indeed, the flow of repayments is somewhat higher than had been forecast, though this partly reflects the pattern of loans in the previous financial year.

  It is however also clear from our monitoring that, as might be expected at what is still a relatively early stage in the fund's operation, the pattern of demand varies from office to office, and the present budgets of certain offices have come under exceptional pressure. We shall of course seek to take these factors into account in setting the allocation for 1990–91, which we shall do in the early part of next year. Meanwhile, however, I intend to increase the gross budget of the fund by about £3 million in 1989–90, in order to increase the individual allocation of just under 100 offices where such particular pressures have arisen. In view of the flow of repayments, this will not entail a corresponding increase in the expected net total of expenditure in the present year.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the national allocation to the social fund for the current year as a matter of urgency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart).

  Homelessness
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Social Security what special resources have been made available to support the homeless and destitute over the Christmas period.
  175
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The social security system provides substantial help for the homeless and destitute at all times of the year. The Government are keeping under review whether special emergency arrangements are necessary to meet special problems and, if so, what form of help would be most effective.

  Benefit Claimants, Woolwich
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration his Department undertook before deciding to transfer responsibility for all benefit claimants in Abbey Wood SE12 and Thamesmead SE28 from the Woolwich to the Bexley office.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The transfer of responsibility for all benefit claimants to our Bexley office forms part of a larger scheme to improve service to the public in the Lewisham/Eltham, Woolwich/Bexley area.

  Before taking the decision a survey was carried out into the population distribution of the area and into lines of communication to the relevant offices. Another factor taken into account was that the postal districts in question were already dealt with by two separate offices. It has been our policy for some time in the London area to avoid unnecessary confusion by arranging for complete postal districts to be dealt with by a single local office.

  We are very much aware of the need for the local community to have easy access to advice and information. We believe that by drawing together all benefits for a particular area into a single office we shall improve the overall standard of service to the public. Anyone who does not wish to visit an office and who needs general advice may use the DSS freeline service on 0800 666555. In addition, we are always ready to arrange a home visit if one is needed.

  Family Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was expenditure in the United Kingdom on maternity/family social protection benefits using the European system of integrated social protection statistics depreciation for each year from 1979 to the latest available; and what equivalent information he has for each of the other European Community member states.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest statistics available were published in June 1989 in issue 1989–2 of Eurostat's "Rapid Reports on Population and Social Conditions", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Local Offices, Edinburgh
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff at his Department's offices in Edinburgh speak(a) Urdu, (b) Punjabi, (c) Bengali, including the Sylheti dialect, (d) Chinese, (e) Farsi, (f) Hindi and (g) Gujerati.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the Department's five Edinburgh local offices there are two speakers of Urdu, two of Hindi and there is one speaker of Punjabi.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the number of people on family credit immediately before the start of the recent family credit 176
  publicity campaign; what was the number of successful claims during the campaign; what was the number of unsuccessful claims during the campaign; what is the number of claims currently awaiting processing; what is the number of people now receiving family credit; and if he has plans to follow up this campaign.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 5 December 1989]: A further publicity campaign to promote awareness of family credit began on 6 November and is still continuing. A full evaluation of the effectiveness of the campaign will not be possible for some time, but in the first five weeks after it began a total of 107,000 claims were received compared with only 68,800 in the same period in 1988. Of the 107,000 claims, 62,200 were new claims from families not receiving an existing award, compared with 49,500 new claims in the five weeks before the campaign began. On 8 December, 63,600 claims were awaiting a response to inquiries (mainly from employers).

  Fuller information is available about the campaign conducted in the spring of 1989. During the nine weeks of TV publicity, nearly 260,000 claims were received. Separate information about the outcome of these particular claims is not available, but of all the claims decided in the three months following the start of the campaign over 160,000 received awards and some 134,000 were unsuccessful.

  At the end of March 1989, immediately before the spring campaign, about 280,000 families were receiving family credit. The number increased by the end of July to 313,000, and the latest indications are that by the end of September it rose further to about 320,000. (This latter figure was previously thought, as a result of a computer error, to have been reached two months earlier, thus the July figure is a correction of those published previously.) This estimate of about 320,000 is the latest available indicator of caseload prior to the start of the current campaign.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will raise the threshold of capital assets at which disqualification for cold weather payments operate; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Newton
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Following the uprating statement I made on 25 October, I am pleased to announce that today I have laid regulations which amend the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations, so that from 1 January 1990 elderly people who are receiving income support may be able to qualify for cold weather payments whilst retaining up to £1,000 in savings. The increase in the amount of capital that people aged 60 and over may have before it affects entitlement to cold weather payments will enable more elderly people to obtain help with the extra cost of heating their homes at times of very cold weather.

  The regulations also correct defects in the regulations concerning the treatment of the capital of a claimant's partner and the description of the areas covered by the national climatological message stations.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Farm and Moorland Holdings
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will list the address and location of all freehold and leasehold farm and moorland holdings of the Duchy of Lancaster, showing the different categories, stating when first acquired by the duchy;

  (2) if he will list the address, type and size of all freehold and leasehold property holdings of the Duchy of Lancaster, showing the different categories located in (a) Greater London, (b) Aldershot, (c) Bedford, (d) Bristol, (e) Kettering, (f) Leeds, (g) Leicester, (h) Lewes, (i) Northampton, (j) Hadley Wood and (k) Harrogate.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  [holding answer 7 December 1989]: It would be impractical to list the addresses and locations of all the property holdings of the Duchy of Lancaster as these would number several hundred items. However I hope that the following summary will be helpful.

  The freehold farm and moorland properties owned by the Duchy or in which the Duchy has an interest are as follows:

  Estates: Predominantly agricultural in nature in the following counties:

  County

  Acreage (approx):

  Northamptonshire and Lincolnshire

  2,865

  Staffordshire and Cheshire

  12,350

  Lancashire

  10,920

  Yorkshire

  9,318

  35,453

  In addition, the Duchy owns some fifteen thousand acres of moorland in north Yorkshire and south Wales most of which are subject to common rights.

  The estates include some 165 agricultural tenancies and 3,145 acres of woodland.

  There are no leasehold ownerships in this category.

  In all of the counties other than Cheshire ownership of part of the holdings can be established from 1267. Subsequent additions have been made.

  In Cheshire, estates have been acquired over the last 50 or so years.

  Other property ownership, all of which are freehold except for a long leasehold property in the City of London, may be summarised as follows:

  (a) Greater London The freehold of properties in the Manor of Savoy bounded by Lancaster Place, the Embankment, Savoy Hill and Strand (including the Savoy Chapel) and a building at 2/4 Lancaster Place to 137 Strand. A Substantial part of these properties are let on building lease or equivalent terms, having between twenty-nine and ninety years unexpired.

  Two office buildings, one freehold and one leasehold, are owned in the City of London, both are let on long leases without reviews.

  (b) Aldershot None.

  (c) Bedford One shop in High street.

  (d) Bristol None.

  (e) Kettering None.

  (f) Leeds None.

  (g) Leicester One shop in High street.

  (h) Lewes One shop in High street.

  (i) Northampton None.

  (j) Hadley Wood

  i. Twenty-six acres of land and twenty-nine cottages.

  ii. Two petrol filling stations (on long lease).

  178

  (k) Harrogate Miscellaneous commercial properties in Harrogate which include five shops, one hotel, and a house now converted to offices.

  These properties, in the main, are let on occupational leases. There is also the remainder of a residential estate developed over a period of one-hundred years or so producing thirty-six ground rents. The freehold reversions are sold to the lessees on terms which follow the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Acts.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what compensatory payments Customs and Excise make to traders when a court or value added tax tribunal has decided that value added tax was incorrectly charged.

  Mr. Ryder
  Section 40(4) of the Value Added Tax Act 1983 provides that, when a tribunal decides that VAT should not have been charged by Customs, a compensatory payment of interest should be made in addition to repayment of the tax itself. Interest is also payable by order of a court. In cases analogous with those where such a finding has been reached, Customs make ex gratia payments in lieu of interest.

  All of these payments fall as a charge on subhead B1 of class XIX vote 2. A recent case where the House of Lords found against Customs is considered to be applicable to a substantial number of similar cases in which Customs had previously refused full repayment. As a result, some significant costs will be incurred in 1989–90. These costs are currently being assessed and will be reflected in a spring Supplementary Estimate which will be presented to Parliament.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters have been sent out from value added tax headquarters at Southend in the current year and in each of the last two years to value added tax defaulters threatening surcharge in respect of payments which related to taxpayers who were(a) less than three days late with their returns, (b) less than seven days late with their returns and (c) less than 14 days late with their returns; and if he will estimate the cost of this administrative action.

  Mr. Ryder
  A trader is sent a notice warning of liability to default surcharge when value added tax returns or payments have been received late but records are not available in a form which enables me to provide the information requested.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the treatment for capital gains tax of shares issued under the business start-up and business expansion schemes before 19 March 1986.

  Mr. Lilley
  Up to 5 April 1988, when shares issued before 19 March 1986 under the business start-up scheme or business expansion scheme were exchanged for shares in another company on a takeover or company reconstruction, the transaction was generally not regarded as giving rise to a disposal for capital gains tax purposes. Instead
  179
  any gain or loss which would otherwise have accrued was effectively rolled over into the new share holding. The Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 changed the law affecting business start-up and business expansion scheme shares issued before 19 March 1986 so that after 5 April 1988 roll-over treatment was no longer available where incomes tax relief had been given on these shares and not withdrawn. This change in the law was not intended.

  The Government therefore propose to bring forward legislation in the 1990 Finance Bill to restore the previous capital gains tax treatment for exchange or cancellations of business start-up and business expansion scheme shares after 5 April 1988 which are affected by this change in the law. For a limited period shareholders will, however, be able to choose to have an exchange or cancellation of shares which takes place before 1 January 1990 treated under the provisions as they currently apply, if this is to their advantage.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report tables showing, for the latest years now available, identifiable general Government expenditure by function in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom expressed (a) in cash terms, (b) as a percentage of United Kingdom total identifiable general Government expenditure, (c) as an amount per capita, and (d) as an amount per capita expressed as an index, United Kingdom identifiable general Government expenditure = 100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Most public expenditure is planned on a national basis and there is no geographical disaggregation apart from expenditure which is the responsibility of the territorial Departments. However, in order to provide a more comprehensive breakdown of public expenditure within the four countries of the United Kingdom an additional analysis, covering outturn years, is carried out each year. This analysis allocates, where possible, expenditure to England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland and therefore includes within the territories a wider coverage of expenditure than that for which the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are directly responsible.

  In previous years this analysis has covered expenditure included within the planning total. Since the new planning total (announced in Cm. 441), on which outturn and plans for future years were published in the Autumn Statement (Cm. 879), includes central Government support for local authorities rather than local authority expenditure, the basis of the territorial analysis has been changed this year to cover general Government expenditure. The analysis thus covers central Government's own expenditure, finance for public corporations, and local authorities' expenditure, as it has in the past. Public corporations' market and overseas borrowing is, however, excluded.
  180
  The analysis divides expenditure into "identifiable" and "non-identifiable" expenditure. The term "identifiable expenditure" refers to expenditure that can be identified from official records as having been incurred for the benefit of people in a particular country. The coverage of identifiable expenditure has been expanded since last year's exercise to include grants, subsidies and net lending to those public corporations, mainly dealing with housing and development, where allocation between territories is possible on a consistent basis. Total identifiable expenditure accounts for around three quarters of general Government expenditure. The remainder, unidentifiable expenditure, covers mainly expenditure deemed to have been incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole, for example, defence, overseas aid and other overseas services. The coverage of identifiable expenditure is largely unaffected by the change of basis to general Government expenditure.

  Tables 1 to 5 show figures for identifiable general Government expenditure according to main function in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the years 1984–85 to 1988–89. The tables show identifiable general Government expenditure in each territory in total and on a per capita basis. The per capita figures are based on mid-year population estimates. Figures for earlier years are not available on a totally consistent basis with those given in these tables.

  Table 6 compares, for the latest year, 1988–89, expenditure by function in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland programmes with the total identifiable expenditure in the respective countries. It shows that identifiable expenditure has a wider coverage than expenditure within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales; in the case of Northern Ireland it has a slightly wider coverage than the Northern Ireland programme. The table also shows, for 1988–89, unidentifiable expenditure where this can be allocated to function.

  In some cases, expenditure which cannot be separately identified for England, Scotland or Wales can be allocated to Great Britain rather than the United Kingdom; for example, the majority of the finance provided for expenditure by the nationalised industries can be allocated to Great Britain. Tables 7a and 7b compare Northern Ireland allocated expenditure with that allocated to Great Britain over the five-year period.

  The extent to which expenditure can be identified may vary from year to year and between countries. The coverage of particular functions can also vary between countries; for example, in Northern Ireland, expenditure on arts and libraries is contained in the education category.

  The terms and definitions used for this analysis are the same as those used for the recent Autumn Statement (Cm. 879) but the figures are based on less up-to-date outturn information.
  181

  Table 1a Identifiable general government expenditure 1984–85

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom indentifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  631·5

  234·1

  103·1

  159·7

  1,128·4

  56·0

  20·7

  9·1

  14·2

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,290·6

  739·8

  385·4

  331·4

  4,747·2

  69·3

  15·6

  8·1

  7·0

  Roads and transport

  3,734·0

  503·8

  262·8

  100·7

  4,601·3

  81·2

  10·9

  5·7

  2·2

  Housing

  3,273·5

  665·9

  143·8

  336·4

  4,419·6

  74·1

  15·1

  3·3

  7·6

  Other environmental services

  3,573·5

  508·6

  270·2

  184·2

  4,536·5

  78·8

  11·2

  6·0

  4·1

  Law, order and protective services

  4,113·8

  508·1

  218·2

  433·3

  5,273·4

  78·0

  9·6

  4·1

  8·2

  Education and science

  13,489·1

  2,019·4

  840·6

  609·8

  16,958·9

  79·5

  11·9

  5·0

  3·6

  Arts and Libraries

  551·5

  69·1

  28·9

  0·0

  649·5

  84·9

  10·6

  4·4

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  15,732·9

  2,180·3

  985·4

  665·6

  19,564·2

  80·4

  11·1

  5·0

  3·4

  Social security

  32,484·8

  3,673·3

  2,085·3

  1,202·0

  39,445·4

  82·4

  9·3

  5·3

  3·0

  Miscellaneous1

  1,084·9

  232·7

  108·2

  55·9

  1,481·7

  73·2

  15·7

  7·3

  3·8

  Total

  81,960·1

  11,335·1

  5,431·9

  4,079·0

  102,806·1

  79·7

  11·0

  5·3

  4·0

  Table 1b Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1984–85

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  13·4

  45·5

  36·7

  103·0

  20·0

  67·3

  227·6

  183·8

  515·4

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  70·1

  143·8

  137·3

  213·8

  84·1

  83·3

  171·0

  163·3

  254·2

  Roads and transport

  79·5

  97·9

  93·6

  65·0

  81·5

  97·6

  120·1

  114·9

  79·7

  Housing

  69·7

  129·4

  51·2

  217·0

  78·3

  89·1

  165·3

  65·4

  277·2

  Other environmental services

  76·1

  98·8

  96·3

  118·8

  80·3

  94·7

  123·0

  119·8

  147·9

  Law, order and protective services

  87·6

  98·7

  77·7

  279·5

  93·4

  93·8

  105·7

  83·2

  299·2

  Education and science

  287·3

  392·4

  299·4

  393·3

  300·4

  95·6

  130·7

  99·7

  130·9

  Arts and Libraries

  11·7

  13·4

  10·3

  0·0

  11·5

  102·1

  116·7

  89·5

  0·0

  Health and presonal social services

  335·1

  423·7

  351·0

  429·3

  346·5

  96·7

  122·3

  101·3

  123·9

  Social security

  691·8

  713·9

  742·8

  775·3

  698·6

  99·0

  102·2

  106·3

  111·0

  Miscellaneous1

  23·1

  45·2

  38·5

  36·1

  26·2

  88·0

  172·3

  146·9

  137·4

  Total

  1,745·5

  2,202·8

  1,935·0

  2,630·9

  1,820·9

  95·9

  121·0

  106·3

  144·5

  1 Includes expenditure associated with the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Table 2a Identifiable general government expenditure 1985–86

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  632·7

  254·2

  109·3

  153·8

  1,150·0

  55·0

  22·1

  9·5

  13·4

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,484·2

  683·3

  346·4

  375·4

  4,889·3

  71·3

  14·0

  7·1

  7·7

  Roads and transport

  3,486·3

  539·5

  268·4

  101·3

  4,395·5

  79·3

  12·3

  6·1

  2·3

  Housing

  2,969·8

  620·1

  135·3

  345·5

  4,070·7

  73·0

  15·2

  3·3

  8·5

  Other environmental services

  3,663·1

  501·2

  292·2

  196·5

  4,653·0

  78·7

  10·8

  6·3

  4·2

  Law, order and protective services

  4,191·9

  531·4

  228·4

  473·2

  5,424·9

  77·3

  9·8

  4·2

  8·7

  Education and science

  14,013·3

  2,101·8

  854·8

  637·4

  17,607·3

  79·6

  11·9

  4·9

  3·6

  Arts and libraries

  581·8

  75·1

  31·6

  0·0

  688·5

  84·5

  10·9

  4·6

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  16,588·1

  2,315·3

  1,051·0

  697·8

  20,652·2

  80·3

  11·2

  5·1

  3·4

  Social security

  35,258·0

  4,072·1

  2,245·1

  1,310·1

  42,885·3

  82·2

  9·5

  5·2

  3·1

  Miscellaneous1

  1,186·9

  237·5

  108·9

  62·1

  1,595·4

  74·4

  14·9

  6·8

  3·9

  Total

  86,056·1

  11,931·5

  5,671·4

  4,353·1

  108,012·1

  79·7

  11·0

  5·3

  4·0

  182 183

  Table 2b Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1985–86

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  13·4

  49·5

  38·9

  98·7

  20·3

  66·1

  243·6

  191·4

  486·1

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  74·0

  133·0

  123·2

  241·0

  86·4

  85·6

  154·0

  142·7

  279·1

  Roads and transport

  74·0

  105·0

  95·5

  65·0

  77·6

  95·3

  135·3

  123·0

  83·8

  Housing

  63·0

  120·7

  48·1

  221·8

  71·9

  87·7

  167·9

  66·9

  308·5

  Other environmental services

  77·8

  97·6

  103·9

  126·1

  82·2

  94·6

  118·7

  126·4

  153·5

  Law, order and protective services

  89·0

  103·5

  81·2

  303·8

  95·8

  92·9

  108·0

  84·8

  317·0

  Education and science

  297·4

  409·2

  304·0

  409·2

  311·0

  95·6

  131·6

  97·8

  131·6

  Arts and libraries

  12·3

  14·6

  11·2

  0·0

  12·2

  101·6

  120·2

  92·4

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  352·1

  450·8

  373·8

  447·9

  364·8

  96·5

  123·6

  102·5

  122·8

  Social security

  748·4

  792·8

  798·5

  841·0

  757·5

  98·8

  104·7

  105·4

  111·0

  Miscellaneous1

  25·2

  46·2

  38·7

  39·9

  28·2

  89·4

  164·1

  137·4

  141·5

  Total

  1,826·6

  2,322·9

  2,017·0

  2,794·4

  1,907·7

  95·7

  121·8

  105·7

  146·5

  1 Includes expenditure associated with the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Table 3a Identifiable general government expenditure 1984–85

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  604·0

  231·2

  118·0

  159·4

  1,112·6

  54·3

  20·8

  10·6

  14·3

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,897·6

  801·4

  433·3

  387·7

  5,520·0

  70·6

  14·5

  7·8

  7·0

  Roads and transport

  3,639·6

  575·5

  292·7

  105·0

  4,612·8

  78·9

  12·5

  6·3

  2·3

  Housing

  2,863·5

  630·2

  177·8

  334·7

  4,006·2

  71·5

  15·7

  4·4

  8·4

  Other environmental services

  3,846·5

  546·7

  330·4

  209·6

  4,933·2

  78·0

  11·1

  6·7

  4·2

  Law, order and protective services

  4,592·0

  580·7

  247·4

  520·8

  5,940·9

  77·3

  9·8

  4·2

  8·8

  Education and science

  15,298·3

  2,248·5

  942·5

  730·6

  19,219·9

  79·6

  11·7

  4·9

  3·8

  Arts and Libraries

  619·1

  81·9

  33·6

  0·0

  734·6

  84·3

  11·1

  4·6

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  17,861·3

  2,444·6

  1·131·4

  748·7

  22,186·0

  80·5

  11·0

  5·1

  3·4

  Social security

  37,937·6

  4,356·6

  2,440·5

  1,423·2

  46,157·9

  82·2

  9·4

  5·3

  3·1

  Miscellaneous1

  1,332·5

  270·6

  120·8

  70·4

  1,794·3

  74·3

  15·1

  6·7

  3·9

  Total

  92,492·0

  12,7679

  6,268·4

  4,690·1

  116,218·4

  79·6

  11·0

  5·4

  4·0

  Table 3b Identifiable general government expenditure per head 1986–87

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  12·8

  45·1

  41·8

  101·7

  19·6

  65·2

  230·3

  213·4

  519·0

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  82·5

  156·5

  153·6

  247·4

  97·2

  84·8

  160·9

  157·9

  254·5

  Roads and transport

  77·0

  112·4

  103·8

  67·0

  81·3

  94·8

  138·3

  127·7

  82·5

  Housing

  60·6

  123·1

  63·0

  213·6

  70·6

  85·9

  174·4

  89·3

  302·7

  Other environmental services

  81·4

  106·8

  117·1

  133·8

  86·9

  93·7

  122·8

  134·8

  153·9

  Law, order and protective services

  97·2

  113·4

  87·7

  332·4

  104·7

  92·8

  108·3

  83·8

  317·6

  Education and science

  323·7

  439·1

  334·1

  466·3

  338·6

  95·6

  129·7

  98·7

  137·7

  Arts and Libraries

  13·1

  16·0

  11·9

  0·0

  12·9

  101·2

  123·6

  92·0

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  378·0

  477·4

  401·1

  477·9

  390·9

  96·7

  122·1

  102·6

  122·3

  Social security

  802·8

  850·7

  865·1

  908·3

  813·2

  98·7

  104·6

  106·4

  111·7

  Miscellaneous1

  28·2

  52·8

  42·8

  44·9

  31·6

  89·2

  167·2

  135·5

  142·1

  Total

  1,957·3

  2,493·2

  2,222·0

  2,993·4

  2,047·4

  95·6

  121·8

  108·5

  146·2

  1 Includes expenditure associated with the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  184 185

  Table 4a Identifiable general government expenditure 1987–88

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  639·8

  222·2

  91·0

  157·8

  1,110·8

  57·6

  20·0

  8·2

  14·2

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,699·8

  713·8

  415·0

  369·2

  5,197·8

  71·2

  13·7

  8·0

  7·1

  Roads and transport

  3,820·4

  590·4

  337·0

  108·6

  4,856·4

  78·7

  12·2

  6·9

  2·2

  Housing

  2,797·4

  715·7

  213·9

  336·6

  4,063·6

  68·8

  17·6

  5·3

  8·3

  Other environmental services

  3,751·8

  587·3

  356·8

  229·6

  4,925·5

  76·2

  11·9

  7·2

  4·7

  Law, order and protective services

  5,158·7

  649·8

  275·7

  591·7

  6,675·9

  77·3

  9·7

  4·1

  8·9

  Education and science

  16,644·0

  2,444·8

  1,046·4

  789·1

  20,924·3

  79·5

  11·7

  5·0

  3·8

  Arts and Libraries

  674·1

  86·3

  37·2

  0·0

  797·6

  84·5

  10·8

  4·7

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  19,657·5

  2,666·2

  1,256·4

  810·1

  24,390·2

  80·6

  10·9

  5·2

  3·3

  Social security

  39,364·1

  4,654·0

  2,547·1

  1,504·1

  48,069·3

  81·9

  9·7

  5·3

  3·1

  Miscellaneous1

  1,524·7

  296·0

  130·7

  72·2

  2,023·6

  75·3

  14·6

  6·5

  3·6

  Total

  97,732·3

  13,626·5

  6,702·2

  4,969·0

  123,035·0

  79·4

  11·1

  5·5

  4·0

  Table 4b Identifiable general government expenditure 1987–88

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  13·5

  43·4

  32·1

  100·2

  19·5

  69·2

  222·3

  164·4

  513·5

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  78·0

  139·4

  146·3

  234·4

  91·3

  85·5

  152·6

  160·3

  256·7

  Roads and transport

  80·6

  115·3

  118·8

  68·9

  85·3

  94·5

  135·1

  139·3

  80·8

  Housing

  59·0

  139·7

  75·4

  213·7

  71·4

  82·7

  195·8

  105·7

  299·4

  Other environmental services

  79·1

  114·7

  125·8

  145·8

  86·5

  91·5

  132·5

  145·4

  168·5

  Law, order and protective services

  108·8

  126·9

  97·2

  375·7

  117·3

  92·8

  108·2

  82·9

  320·4

  Education and science

  351·1

  477·3

  368·9

  501·0

  367·5

  95·5

  129·9

  100·4

  136·3

  Arts and Libraries

  14·2

  16·8

  13·1

  0·0

  14·0

  101·5

  120·3

  93·6

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  414·7

  520·5

  443·0

  514·3

  428·4

  96·8

  121·5

  103·4

  120·0

  Social security

  830·3

  908·6

  898·1

  954·9

  844·4

  98·3

  107·6

  106·4

  113·1

  Miscellaneous1

  32·2

  57·8

  46·1

  45·8

  35·5

  90·5

  162·6

  129·6

  129·0

  Total

  2,061·6

  2,660·3

  2,364·9

  3,154·7

  2,161·2

  95·4

  123·1

  109·4

  146·0

  1 Includes expenditure associated with the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Table 5a Identifiable general government expenditure 1988–89

  £ million

  As a percentage of United Kingdom identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  786·4

  254·0

  106·5

  171·4

  1,318·3

  59·7

  19·3

  8·1

  13·0

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,923·3

  687·2

  416·0

  1786·2

  5,812·7

  67·5

  11·8

  7·2

  13·5

  Roads and transport

  3,922·6

  616·7

  342·7

  110·9

  4,992·9

  78·6

  12·4

  6·9

  2·2

  Housing

  1,982·8

  664·1

  172·1

  335·2

  3,154·2

  62·9

  21·1

  5·5

  10·6

  Other environmental services

  4,050·2

  662·3

  364·3

  260·2

  5,337·0

  75·9

  12·4

  6·8

  4·9

  Law, order and protective services

  5,744·9

  719·5

  309·2

  639·7

  7,413·3

  77·5

  9·7

  4·2

  8·6

  Education and science

  17,930·4

  2,660·4

  1,116·3

  851·7

  22,558·8

  79·5

  11·8

  4·9

  3·8

  Arts and Libraries

  794·6

  90·2

  42·0

  0·0

  926·8

  85·7

  9·7

  4·5

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  21,768·9

  2,981·5

  1,395·5

  882·8

  27,028·7

  80·5

  11·0

  5·2

  3·3

  Social security

  40,111·3

  4,641·1

  2,701·8

  1,599·7

  49,053·9

  81·8

  9·5

  5·5

  3·3

  Miscellaneous2

  1,698·5

  313·9

  143·4

  83·9

  2,239·7

  75·8

  14·0

  6·4

  3·7

  Total

  102,713·9

  14,290·9

  7,109·8

  5,721·7

  129,836·3

  79·1

  11·0

  5·5

  4·4

  186 187

  Table 5b Identifiable public expenditure per head 1988–89

  £ per head

  Index (United Kingdom identifiable expenditure = 100)

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  United Kingdom

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  16·5

  49·9

  37·3

  108·6

  23·1

  71·6

  215·8

  161·4

  470·2

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  82·5

  134·9

  145·6

  1498·2

  101·9

  81·0

  132·4

  142·9

  489·1

  Roads and transport

  82·5

  121·1

  120·0

  70·3

  87·5

  94·3

  138·4

  137·1

  80·3

  Housing

  41·7

  130·4

  60·2

  212·4

  55·3

  75·5

  235·9

  109·0

  384·3

  Other environmental services

  85·2

  130·0

  127·5

  164·9

  93·5

  91·1

  139·0

  136·3

  176·3

  Law, order and protective services

  120·9

  141·2

  108·2

  405·4

  129·9

  93·0

  108·7

  83·3

  312·1

  Education and science

  377·2

  522·3

  390·7

  539·7

  395·3

  95·4

  132·1

  98·8

  136·5

  Arts and Libraries

  16·7

  17·7

  14·7

  0·0

  16·2

  102·9

  109·0

  90·5

  0·0

  Health and personal social services

  457·9

  585·3

  488·4

  559·4

  473·6

  96·7

  123·6

  103·1

  118·1

  Social security

  843·8

  911·1

  945·7

  1,013·8

  859·6

  98·2

  106·0

  110·0

  117·9

  Miscellaneous2

  35·7

  61·6

  50·2

  53·2

  39·2

  91·0

  157·0

  127·9

  135·5

  Total

  2,160·7

  2,805·4

  2,488·6

  3,625·9

  2,275·2

  95·0

  123·3

  109·4

  159·4

  1 Includes £390 million (£247 per head) for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers PLC.

  2 Includes expenditure associated with the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Table 6: General government expenditure1 analysed by territorial area and function 1988–89

  £ million

  Identifiable expenditure

  England

  Scotland (Total)

  Programme 152

  Scotland other

  Wales (Total)

  Programme 162

  Wales other

  Northern Ireland (Total)

  Programme 172

  Northern Ireland other

  Total

  Non-Identified

  United Kingdom

  Defence

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  18,974·4

  18,974·4

  Overseas services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,268·9

  2,268·9

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  786·4

  254·0

  199·1

  54·9

  106·3

  83·9

  22·6

  171·4

  169·9

  1·5

  1,318·3

  882·1

  2,200·4

  Trade, industry, energy and employment

  3,923·3

  687·2

  266·2

  421·0

  416·0

  186·1

  229·9

  3786·2

  3786·2

  —

  5,812·7

  2,551·1

  8,364·1

  Roads and transport

  3,922·6

  616·7

  615·7

  1·0

  342·7

  342·7

  —

  110·9

  110·9

  —

  4,992·9

  877·0

  5,869·9

  Housing

  1,982·8

  664·1

  664·1

  —

  172·1

  172·1

  —

  335·2

  335·2

  —

  3,154·2

  16·2

  3,170·4

  Other environmental services

  4,050·2

  662·3

  656·5

  5·8

  364·3

  359·2

  5·1

  260·2

  260·2

  —

  5,337·0

  727·6

  6,064·6

  Law, order and protective services

  5344·9

  719·5

  692·7

  26·8

  309·2

  —

  309·2

  639·7

  606·8

  32·9

  7,413·3

  1,372·8

  8,786·1

  Education and science4

  17,930·4

  2,660·4

  2,318·0

  342·4

  1,116·3

  946·4

  169·9

  851·7

  849·5

  2·2

  22,558·8

  133·3

  22,692·1

  Arts and libraries4

  794·6

  90·2

  90·2

  —

  42·0

  42·0

  —

  4—

  4—

  —

  926·8

  179·4

  1,106·2

  Health and personal social services

  21,768·9

  2,981·5

  2,981·5

  —

  1,395·5

  1,395·5

  —

  882·8

  882·8

  —

  27,028·7

  -32·8

  26,995·9

  Social security

  40,111·3

  4,641·1

  —

  4,641·1

  2,701·8

  —

  2,701·8

  1,599·7

  1,587·9

  11·8

  49,053·9

  798·9

  49,852·8

  Miscellaneous5

  1,698·5

  313·9

  116·3

  197·6

  143·4

  42·5

  100·9

  83·9

  47·6

  36·3

  2,239·7

  3,031·3

  5,271·0

  Total expenditure

  102,713·9

  14,290·9

  8,600·3

  5,690·6

  7,109·8

  3,570·4

  3,539·4

  5,721·7

  5,637·0

  84·7

  129,836·3

  31,780·5

  161,616·8

  1 Items included in general government expenditure but not included within total expenditure on programmes (privatisiation proceeds, general government debt interest and accounting adjustments) are treated as unidentified expenditure ad not allocated to territories.

  2 Programmes 15, 16 and 17 relate to expenditure programmes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland covered by the respective chapters of the 1989 public expenditure White Paper (Cm. 616–618).

  3 Includes £390 million for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers PLC.

  4 Expenditure on arts and libraries in Northern Ireland is included with education and science.

  5 Includes contribution to European Communities and expenditure associated with the general maintenance of government, such as tax collection and population registration.

  Table 7a

  General government expenditure1 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1984–85 to 1988–89

  £ million

  As a percentage of Great Britain and Northern Ireland total

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  1984–85

  103,494·2

  4,182·4

  107,676·6

  96·1

  3·9

  1985–86

  109,051·4

  4,444·1

  113,495·5

  96·1

  3·9

  1986–87

  115,898·1

  4,724·4

  120,622·5

  96·1

  3·9

  1987–88

  122,951·2

  4,921·2

  127,872·3

  96·2

  3·8

  1988–89

  129,205·0

  25,737·9

  134,942·9

  95·7

  4·3

  188 189

  Table 7b

  General government expenditure per head1 in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1984–85 to 1988–89

  £ per head

  Index (Great Britain and Northern Ireland = 100)

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  Great Britain

  Northern Ireland

  1984–85

  1,884·8

  2,697·6

  1,907·1

  98·8

  141·4

  1985–86

  1,980·6

  2,852·8

  2,004·6

  98·8

  142·3

  1986–87

  2,099·7

  3,015·3

  2,125·0

  98·8

  141·9

  1987–88

  2,221·1

  3,124·3

  2,246·1

  98·9

  139·1

  1988–89

  2,328·6

  23,636·0

  2,364·7

  98·5

  153·8

  1 The figures in these tables differ from those for identifiable expenditure given in tables 1–6 because their coverage is wider; in particular some of the finance provided for nationalised industries is included.

  2 Includes £390 million (£247 per head) for costs associated with the privatisation of Short Brothers plc.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the share offer price, the closing price on the first day and the current share price for each of the privatisations since 1979.

  Year

  Offer price

  First installment (pence)

  Closing price on first day dealing

  Current price1

  British Petroleum

  1979

  363

  150

  n/a

  1983

  435

  200

  n/a

  333

  1987

  330

  120

  85

  British Aerospace

  1981

  150

  —

  171

  561

  1985

  375

  200

  2345

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  168

  —

  197

  1983

  275

  100

  98

  520

  1985

  587

  300

  303

  Amersham International

  1982

  142

  —

  188

  361

  Britoil

  1982

  215

  100

  81

  3—

  1985

  185

  100

  122

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  112

  —

  138

  1984

  270

  100

  102

  612

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  185

  100

  100

  668

  Jaguar

  1984

  165

  —

  179

  845

  British Telecom

  1984

  130

  50

  93

  289·5

  British Gas

  1986

  135

  50

  62·5

  228·5

  British Airways

  1987

  125

  65

  109

  211

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  170

  85

  147

  171

  BAA

  1987

  245

  100

  146

  387

  British Steel

  1988

  125

  60

  62

  131·5

  Anglian Water

  1989

  240

  100

  4148·5

  Northumbrian Water Group

  1989

  240

  100

  157

  North West Water Group

  1989

  240

  100

  135

  Severn Trent

  1989

  240

  100

  131

  Southern Water

  1989

  240

  100

  141

  South West Water

  1989

  240

  100

  147

  Thames Water

  1989

  240

  100

  136

  Welsh Water

  1989

  240

  100

  141

  Wessex Water

  1989

  240

  100

  154

  Yorkshire Water

  1989

  240

  100

  149

  Package of 10 Water Companies5

  1989

  £2,400

  £1,000

  £1,395

  1 Current prices on 12 December 1989.

  2 Opening share price on first day of dealing; closing price on that day not available.

  3 Taken over by BP in 1988.

  4 Shares in the 10 water plcs began trading on 12 December 1989.

  5 Package of 1,000 shares consisting of shares in each individual water plc in proportion to market capitalisation at offer price.

  Warsaw Pact
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list, for each of the countries of the Warsaw pact, the terms of the grants and loans, over the last year, to which the United Kingdom has contributed.

  Mr. Ryder
  These are as follows:
  190
  Mr. Lilley
  The information the hon. Member requested is as follows.

  POLAND:

  Know-How Fund of £50 million over 5 years (grant)
  The general aim is to finance projects and training in political and economic skills that will underpin democracy and assist economic reform. There are no specific terms.

  $100 million contribution to $1 billion Stabilisation Fund (grant)
  Terms are that an economic adjustment programme

  191
  agreed with the International Monetary Fund should he in place. The Stabilisation Fund will be available to support policies aimed at liberalisation of payments and transfers for current international transactions. Its management will be agreed between the contributors and the Polish authorities.

  300 million ecu aid (for Poland and Hungary) (grant)
  Although not disbursed, provision has been included in the 1990 European Community budget. No terms are attached but it is intended that the money be used in areas such as imports of pesticides and agricultural machinery, environmental protection and training that will help with restructuring the economy.

  100 million ecu emergency food Aid (for Poland and Hungary) (grant)
  Aid agreed by Community agriculture Council last July to cover shortages of beef and cereals. Mostly from 1989 EC budget, but small part from 1990 EC budget.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the sterling value of the European currency unit at today's price equivalent for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Ryder
  There is no single definition of real exchange rates. The nominal sterling/ecu exchange rate is published in the Central Statistical Office's "Financial Statistics", table 13.1.

  Friendly Societies
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to publish either a Green or White Paper on new legislation for friendly societies following the Treasury's internal review commenced in September 1988.

  Mr. Ryder
  I hope to be able to publish the conclusions of our review early in the new year.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will bring up to date the information on the weight of council rents etc., in the retail prices index given in his written reply to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby on 29 July 1988,Official Report, columns 800–01.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following is the information:

  Rents

  Mortgage interest payments

  All items in retail prices index

  Weight in retail prices index in 1989

  32

  60

  1,000

  Weekly expenditure (in £) on which the weight is based (average over all households covered by the RPI, both tenants and owner-occupiers), at January 1989 prices

  6·55

  12·47

  —

  Percentage change in year to January 1989

  8·2

  49·9

  7·5

  Mortgage Debt
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the ratio of outstanding personal mortgage debt to disposable incomes before tax in 1966, 1970, 1974, 1979, 1983, 1985 and 1988; what was the average rate of interest payable; and what was the ratio of interest payments to disposable incomes.
  192
  Mr. Ryder
  Figures for outstanding personal mortgage debt and average building society mortgage rates can be obtained from "Financial Statistics", and figures on personal disposable incomes are given in "United Kingdom National Accounts", both published by the CSO. Figures for average mortgage rates covering all lenders are not available.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the criteria used at local Customs and Excise offices to determine whether value added tax is charged on small cycle helmets, as opposed to children's cycle helmets; if he will make it his policy to apply a zero value added tax rating on all cycle helmets; and if he will make a statement on the current variation in the application of value added tax on cycle helmets between different local Customs and Excise offices.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: There is no general relief from value added tax for cyclists' safety helmets and under European Community law no such relief could now be introduced. However helmets falling within the provisions of group 17 of schedule 5 to the Value Added Tax Act 1983, as articles designed for young children and not suitable for older persons, are relieved from the tax. While it is for the sellers of goods to determine their liability under value added tax law, local Customs and Excise offices are glad to offer advice on request. If the hon. Member has any particular problem in mind I would urge him to take it up with the chairman of Customs and Excise.

  Security Vetting
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the amount to compensate civil servants undergoing security vetting is calculated; how much it is; how often it is paid; and how much has been spent on it in the current financial year.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Civil servants are not compensated for undergoing security vetting.

  Rover Group
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which departmental Ministers and officials represented the Government in the discussions with British Aerospace on the applicability of section 768 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to proposals to be made by British Aerospace following their acquisition of Rover Group.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 18 December 1989]: Discussions leading up to the exchange of correspondence of 8 July 1988 between Inland Revenue and British Aerospace's advisers—which has been placed in the Library—were concerned with explaining how the Revenue approaches the law in this area and its possible application to possible changes in Rover Group's trade. The procedural arrangements for conveying the Revenue's formal views on any such changes were also discussed. The discussions were between British Aerospace, its advisers and the Inland Revenue. Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and their advisers were also present. Treasury Ministers were aware that the Inland Revenue were having these discussions, but no Ministers were

  193
  present at them. As the exchange of correspondence makes clear, the guiding principle throughout was that the tax treatment of anything concerning the Rover acquisition must be consistent with the law and the treatment of other taxpayers in comparable circumstances.

  Discussions since the sale of Rover Group concerning British Aerospace's tax liabilities under the law are a matter between the company, its advisers and the Inland Revenue. It would not be in keeping with the strict rules of tax confidentiality for Ministers or other departmental officials to be involved in any such discussions.

  It is not the practice of this Government or their predecessors to name officials.

TRANSPORT

  M2/A2
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list details of all accidents on the M2/A2 between London and Dover for the three months ended 10 December, giving information on causes, location, types of vehicles involved and any injuries sustained.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is currently unavailable. Details of road accidents in Kent for the period requested have not yet been provided to the Department by Kent county council. The information collected by the police and forwarded to the Department does not include an assessment of the cause of the accident.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to increase safety on the M2/A2 roads between London and Dover.

  Mr. Atkins
  The following measures are proposed:—

  A2 London Boundary to M2
  Provision of hardshoulders and lighting.

  Brenley to Harbledown
  Provision of central reserve safety fencing and lighting.

  Harbledown to Bridge
  Provision of central reserve safety fence.

  Shepardswell
  Provision of lighting.

  Jubilee Way Dover
  Alterations to road markings and removal of laybys.

  The White Paper "Roads for Prosperity" also announced a route assessment and scheme indentification study of the A2 from Bean to the M2.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to carry out a traffic survey on the M2/A2 roads between London and Dover.

  Mr. Atkins
  The next traffic count is scheduled for 17 May 1990 on the M2 at Rochester. Counts are not normally carried out between November and March because flow levels then are not representative.

  Net Safety Benefit Analysis
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has made an assessment of the benefits and drawbacks of the net safety benefit analysis development by the Civil Aviation Authority.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The net safety benefit analysis was a study by a group of four civil aviation safety authorities: the US Federal Aviation Administration, Transport 194
  Canada, DGAC France and the Civil Aviation Authority. The CAA published the results of the study as CAA paper 87017.

  I know of no reason to doubt the validity of the conclusions of the study.

  Salvage
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 1 December to the hon. Member for Fife, North-East,Official Report, column 445, what sums accrued to the Government in each case in respect of the salvage operations carried out on each ships listed.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The information requested is commercially confidential and cannot therefore be published.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of his Department's anticipated contribution to the NATO study of supply and demand for merchant shipping in crisis and war, as set out in the 1989 Defence White Paper; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department's contribution to the cost of this study is 2,248,670 Belgian francs, about £37,000 which has now been paid. The Department is also providing the chairman of the steering group overseeing the study.

  Radioactive Materials (Transportation)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what contribution his Department will make to the International Atomic Energy Agency review of regulations governing the transportation of radioactive materials;

  (2) what contribution is being made by his Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency's standing advisory group on the carriage of radioactive materials.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Secretary of State is the competent authority for the safe transport of radioactive materials. Officials from the Department's radioactive materials transport division co-ordinate national policy and lead United Kingdom delegations at International Atomic Energy Agency meetings on this subject.

  Channel Tunnel
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the decision of the Channel tunnel intergovernmental commission on non-segregation.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the letter sent today to Eurotunnel by the chairman of the United Kingdom/French Channel tunnel intergovernmental commission about non-segregation of passengers from their vehicles on the shuttle trains operating between Folkestone and Calais, and a copy of the English translation.

  Buses
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has undertaken any studies or sought advice as to whether the replacement of big bus services by mini-midi buses has an effect on congestion and pollution.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 December 1989]: The choice of vehicle type is a matter for bus operators. Nonetheless the Department's transport and road research laboratory is currently engaged on a financial analysis of urban minibus operations which will touch on fuel consumption and congestion effects.

  Air Services
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the countries which impose restrictions on the leasing and operation of foreign-registered and operated airliners.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not generally collected, although I understand that the United States does not permit its airlines to lease foreign-registered and operated aircraft.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of(a) foreign-registered and operated airliners leased by British airlines and (b) flights undertaken by those airliners in each of the last five years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The number of permits issued by my Department for the lease of foreign-registered and operated aircraft by British airlines in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Permits

  1984

  3

  1985

  1

  1986

  18

  1987

  19

  1988

  19

  Details of the numbers of flights undertaken by those aircraft are not available.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the use of foreign-registered and operated airliners; to what subjects those representations referred; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  From time to time the Department and the Civil Aviation Authority receive representations about foreign-registered and operated aircraft. In the main, these relate to the quality of service provided by the airlines and the correspondent is encouraged to take the matter up direct with the airline. Exceptionally, where poor safety standards are alleged, the Department and/or the Civil Aviation Authority will investigate, both with the airlines and the other Governments concerned.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety checks and controls are routinely required to be carried out on British airliners; and whether there is any difference in the requirements put on foreign-registered and operated airliners leased by British airlines.
  196
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority has the statutory responsibility for the safety regulation of civil aviation.

  I understand that there is a large number and a wide variety of safety checks and controls routinely required to be carried out on British airliners. Should the hon. Member have any specific questions, they should he addressed to the chairman of the authority.

  Foreign-registered and operated airliners leased by British airlines are required to comply with the safety standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  Park and Ride Schemes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the number of authorities and bus companies in local authority areas which operate park and ride schemes(a) during the Christmas shopping period and (b) at other times of the year by area.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not collect statistics on park and ride schemes. Some local highway authorities include information on these schemes in their annual transport policies and programmes (TPPs). In the 1990–91 TPPs submitted to the Department in July 1989 there are references to 27 park and ride schemes in 23 local authority areas in England. Of these, four relate solely to the Christmas shopping period, 10 to other periods of the year (but in two cases including Christmas), 11 to permanent arrangements.

  In London, park and ride cannot readily be distinguished from commuter parking. A survey undertaken in 1987 showed that 64 of the 250 London Underground stations had their own car parks, as did 538 of the 922 stations on British Rail's Network SouthEast. In addition, British Rail has a number of "parkway" stations close to motorways.

  We have no information about the number of bus companies operating park and ride schemes.

  Channel Tunnel Terminals
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received regarding(a) a Channel tunnel terminal at Kings Cross/St. Pancras, (b) a Channel tunnel terminal at Stratford and (c) a Channel tunnel terminal at locations other than the above; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The representations that I have received about the preferred location of a second London station for international passenger services have been confined to King's Cross and Stratford. I have received a number of representations for and against each of these proposals.

  Trains (Two-way Radios)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to ensure that two-way radios are fitted in all passenger train cabs by the end of 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  In its evidence to Sir Anthony Hidden's investigation into the Clapham junction accident, BR gave a commitment to complete its programme of installation of cab radios by 1992. The investigation accepted this timescale. The Government have played their part by making all the necessary radio frequencies available to BR.

  Cyclists
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account he takes of cyclists' needs in considering major new road schemes planned by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  In planning new trunk roads and improving existing ones, we consider the needs of cyclists for safe and convenient routes. Particular attention is paid to the design of junctions and consequent modifications to the local road network. Detailed guidance is published in our local transport notes series and through our traffic advisory leaflets. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Urban Development
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide estimates showing for each financial year from 1987–88 to 1990–91 the amount of actual or planned expenditure designed to support the urban programme.

  Mr. Atkins
  Each year about £10 million of the public expenditure plans for local authority transport capital expenditure are incorporated within the urban programme administered by the Department of the Environment. The amounts spent on local transport were:

  Year

  £ million

  1987–88

  10·527

  1988–89

  110·661

  1989–90

  110·822

  1 Estimated.

  Accidents involving stationary vehicles on motorways: Greater Manchester: 1984–1988

  Severity of Accidents

  Severity of Casualties

  Fatal

  Serious

  Total

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1984

  0

  5

  5

  0

  5

  1

  6

  1985

  1

  6

  7

  1

  6

  3

  10

  1986

  0

  4

  4

  0

  4

  4

  8

  1987

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1988

  2

  5

  7

  2

  6

  7

  15

  Stationary vehicles include those stopped or parked, and vehicles waiting to go ahead but held up.

  Highway Schemes (Compensation)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to make highway authorities liable to compensate owners of businesses for loss of trade and profit caused through the loss of passing trade associated with highway schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Compensation is payable where land is acquired for highway schemes. Claimants are entitled to the market value of their interest in the land acquired, disregarding any increase or decrease in its value to the scheme. They are also entitled to any other reasonable loss for disturbance, which could include loss of trade caused by the acquisition of all or part of a property. Compensation is also payable where a highway authority stops up a private means of access to the highway.

  However, where a business is affected by a highway scheme but no land is taken or access stopped up, I am advised that there is no liability on the highway authority to compensate for any loss of trade, assuming that the
  198
  For 1990–91 the amount incorporated will be £2·773 million of credit approvals and £8·320 million of central Government grants; totalling £11·093 million.

  In addition, much trunk road spending and a substantial amount of local road spending supported by transport supplementary grant (TSG), is designed to assist inner-city areas. In 1990–91 over 100 major schemes accepted for TSG will benefit inner-city areas.

  Since "Action for Cities" was launched in 1988 total expenditure benefiting inner cities on the trunk roads and local roads programmes is estimated at:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  250

  1989–90

  300

  1990–91

  300

  The Department is also supporting expenditure on the Manchester Metrolink (expected to cost £110 million) and, from 1990–91, will be spending £1 billion on the Jubilee line extension. Both schemes are designed to improve public transport in urban areas.

  Motorway Accidents, Manchester
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many serious road accidents involving stationary vehicles on the motorway network in the Greater Manchester area have been reported during each of the last five years; and how many people were(a) killed and (b) injured as a result of such accidents.

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

  works are carried out directly by it and under statutory authority. Owners of businesses have no right in law to any maintained level of passing trade. Temporary or permanent reductions in traffic flows are part of the commercial risks of running a business.

  There are no plans to seek to change these arrangements.

  Madeira Shipping Register
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how the proposals for untaxed crews on the proposed Madeira shipping register will affect the competitiveness of United Kingdom registered shipping:

  (2) what effect Portugal's proposal to set up a low-cost shipping register in Madeira will have on (a) British registered shipping and (b) European Community registered shipping.

  Mr McLoughlin
  I have no information on whether United Kingdom or other European owners will wish to register any of their ships on the Madeira shipping register.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Primary Schools (Computers)
  Mr. Allan Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken to ensure that the supply of computers in primary schools will meet the demands of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  LEAs are responsible for ensuring that schools have enough microcomputers to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. Under our education support grants programme some £25 million is being set aside over a three-year period beginning last year to assist LEAs to purchase microcomputers for educational use in schools. For 1990–91 the Department has asked the LEAs to give particular attention to the needs of primary schools.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the supply of computers in primary schools will meet the demands of the national curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).

  Professional Association of Teachers
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning recognition of the Professional Association of Teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Professional Association of Teachers has represented to my right hon. Friend that some local education authorities still do not recognise the association. The Government recognise the PAT as one of the six schoolteacher unions with which it deals.

  Opting Out
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the number of schools seeking to opt out under the Education Reform Act 1988.

  Mr. MacGregor
  To date 79 schools have embarked on the process of applying for grant-maintained status and parents at 51 of them have so far voted in favour of proceeding with an application. Forty-one proposals have so far reached me for decision: I have approved 32 of them.

  Expenditure (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money his Department has spent(a) on repair and maintenance of all schools in Nottinghamshire and (b) on the city technology college in the past year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Repairs and maintenance of schools, other than external repairs at voluntary aided schools, are the responsibility of Nottinghamshire local education authority. No figures are available for sums spent by it on these items over the past year. A total of £5·96 million has been spent on the building of the city technology college in Nottingham in the last calendar year.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will state the number of letters he has received from head teachers concerning the shortfall of resources for implementation of the national curriculum.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I frequently receive correspondence from head teachers. Some of it concerns the provision of resources for the national curriculum.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the resources being allocated next year to developing the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Development of the national curriculum will be achieved largely by the redirection of existing resources. However, we intend next year to use specific grants to support some £120 million expenditure by local education authorities expressly to help with the introduction of the national curriculum. This is in addition to general RSG support of local education authority expenditure. Some £30 million will additionally be deployed to support central expenditure on the national curriculum, including the running costs of the National Curriculum Council and the School Examinations a nd Assessment Council and the costs of developing standard assessment tasks.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many letters he has received from primary school head teachers concerning the speed at which changes within their school operation and curriculum are being made.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not readily available in the form requested. My right hon. Friend frequently receives correspondence from primary school head teachers about various aspects of education provision.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will report the outcome of the consideration of physical education and the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) on 12 December 1989 at column 555.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of parents' reaction to the national curriculum.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from parents about the introduction of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The parental awareness survey published on 4 December indicated that some 90 per cent. of parents interviewed support the introduction of the national curriculum. In particular, they welcome the broadening of provision and the setting of clear objectives. Parents also value the availability of more information from the school about the education being provided.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to ensure that there will be the required number of teachers to deliver the national curriculum.
  201
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that there are sufficient teachers to teach the national curriculum.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 12 December 1989 at column 553.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the delivery of the national curriculum in primary schools.

  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of the national curriculum.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress in the introduction of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Evidence from Her Majesty's inspectors shows that in general schools are making satisfactory progress in implementing the national curriculum.

  Rural Schools (Sanitation Facilities)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will urge Devon county council to engage in a priority programme to equip all rural schools with indoor sanitation facilities.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is the responsibility of the Devon local education authority to determine the priority given to projects included in the authority's annual capital expenditure plans. This requires detailed knowledge of individual schools and their needs as part of the whole educational provision of the area and the authority is best placed to judge these needs.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that every three and four-year-old child has the opportunity of pre-school education.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that every three and four-year-old child has the opportunity of pre-school education.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that every three and four-year-old child has the opportunity of pre-school education.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government believe that there should be a diversity of provision for pre-school children and that its scope and balance should be for local decision. We want to ensure that the educational experience offered to three and four-year-old children is as high as possible, and that is the purpose of the committee of inquiry which I am chairing.

  Under-fives
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will seek information from his Danish, Dutch and French counterparts about their policies on under-fives public education in order to improve Her Majesty's Government policies in this area.
  202
  Mrs. Rumbold
  Information on provision in these and other countries may be found in Statistical Bulletin 13/89 published by the Department last month, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his projections for student numbers in higher education over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his plans for the future expansion of student numbers in higher education.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy for the expansion of higher education.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his projections for student numbers in higher education over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on his projections for student numbers in higher education over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Jackson
  We expect to see significant growth in student numbers during the 1990s, actively fostered by the Government's education policies. The latest projection indicates full-time equivalent student numbers rising from about 760,000 in 1988 to about 820,000 by 1992. As a result of the very substantial decline in the relevant age groups, numbers are then expected to level off until 1995 before rising again to about 890,000 by the turn of the century.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of young people over the age of 18 years are in higher education in each of the 12 member states of the European Community.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information is as follows for each country for the latest year available.

  New entrants1 to higher education

  Country2(main ages on entry

  Latest year

  Participation rate3 (per cent.)

  Belgium4(18 to 19)

  1985

  39

  Denmark (18 to 20)

  1985

  35

  France (18 to 20)

  1985

  32

  West Germany (19 to 21)

  1987

  29

  Greece5

  1984

  38

  Ireland5

  1985

  35

  Italy (19 to 21)

  1986

  25

  Netherlands4 (18 to 20)

  1985

  38

  Portugal5

  1984

  14

  Spain (18 to 20)

  1985

  31

  United Kingdom6 (18 to 21)

  1987

  34

  1 Includes full-time and part-time students entering higher education for the first time, ie excluding postgraduate students and others already having a qualification in higher education. Not all other countries may adhere to this general definition.

  2 Compatible information is not available for Luxembourg since most higher education is undertaken abroad. Ireland figures partly estimated.

  3 To aid comparison and overcome the problem of the varying

  203

  lengths of courses in different countries the participation rate is the percentage of all new entrants (defined above) to a derived relevant single year group. The latter is calculated by taking the total populations for the ages providing at least 70 per cent. of the new entrants and dividing by the number of ages involved. For the United Kingdom this is the population of ages 18 to 21 divided by four. OECD recommend this procedure.

  4 Provisional.

  5 Main ages on entry unavailable.

  6 Excludes the private sector and students from abroad. Includes nursing and paramedical students at Health Department establishments.

  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many students were in higher education in the 1988–89 academic year; and how many in 1978–79.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is provisionally estimated that in 1988–89 there were 993,000 full-time and part-time students on higher education courses in Great Britain, compared with 766,000 in 1978–79.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of persons aged 16 and 18 years went to institutions of higher education in 1979, 1983 and the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  A measure of young peoples' participation in higher education is the age participation index (API). This is defined as the numbers of young home full-time initial HE entrants expressed as a percentage of the average numbers of 18 and 19-year-olds in the population. In 1979 and 1983 the API for higher education in Great Britain were 12·4 per cent. and 13·1 per cent. respectively. A provisional estimate for 1988 is 15·1 per cent. I also refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle).

  Governing Bodies
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to local authorities regarding political appointments to governing bodies.

  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to local authorities regarding political appointments to governing bodies.

  Financial year

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Average

  Lancashire

  Capital £ million

  16·0

  11·4

  14·4

  16·2

  13·4

  14·3

  Percentage increase on previous year

  22·3

  -8·5

  25·7

  12·4

  -17·4

  2·9

  Recurrent £ million

  275·9

  292·3

  305·5

  322·9

  348·7

  309·1

  Percentage increase in previous year

  6·0

  4·5

  5·7

  8·0

  8·0

  6·4

  England

  Capital £ million

  469·2

  501·3

  530·2

  574·9

  592·8

  533·7

  Percentage increase on previous year

  2·9

  6·8

  5·8

  8·4

  3·1

  5·4

  Recurrent £million

  10,111

  10,517

  11,003

  12,002

  13,021

  11,331

  Percentage increase in previous year

  5·3

  4·0

  4·6

  9·1

  8·5

  6·3

  204
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice he has given to local authorities regarding political appointments to governing bodies.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Last year the then Secretary of State made clear his view that local authorities which nominate only majority party supporters as school governors are not behaving as their electorates would expect. My right hon. Friend fully endorses that view. Choosing the best people to be school governors need not be a party political matter. However, where a number of governors are to be appointed by a local authority which does wish to act on the basis of political affiliation, they should have regard to the balance of the parties within the authority itself.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has issued any guidance to local education authorities on the appointment and training of school governors.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  On the issue of appointments, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) earlier today.

  We have issued information and guidance on the training of school governors on a number of occasions, particularly in relation to the use of education support grant funds to support LEA training schemes. The Department and HMI have also recently held two conferences bringing together governors and their trainers to discuss this important task.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the City Tecnnology College trust.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend last met representatives of the City Technology College trust on 17 November 1989.

  Expenditure (Lancashire)
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what increases in capital and revenue spending have taken place in Lancashire in each of the last five financial years; and what are the national average figures.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The figures for expenditure on education for the most recent five-year period available are as follows:

  University Entrants
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what percentage applications to enter universities have increased or decreased for 1989–90 against 1988–89.

  Mr. Jackson
  By the beginning of this month, the Universities Central Council on Admissions had received 135,600 applications from home and overseas students for admission to university next autumn, some 12·8 per cent. more than the corresponding position last year.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his latest estimate of the number of students likely to be admitted to university education in 1991–92 expressed as a proportion of the total number of school leavers.

  Mr. Jackson
  The latest projection of numbers of young, home initial entrants to full-time higher education in Great Britain in 1991–92 is 137,000. The projection of the associated age participation index—defined as the number of full-time, home initial entrants aged under 21, expressed as a percentage of the averaged 18 and 19-year-old populations—is 18·3 per cent.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities in the last six months relating to integration into mainstream schools of children with special educational needs.

  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local education authorities regarding the integration of children with special education needs into mainstream schooling.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  No such discussions have taken place.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what account he has taken of special education needs in considering schemes for local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has consistently made clear his expectation that authorities would take special care to ensure that their proposals for local management of schools reflected fully the need to ensure appropriate provision for all children with special educational need. A number of authorities believe this provision can be best made by delegating resources to schools and have made appropriate proposals in their submitted LMS schemes. Others have indicated that they wish to retain central control of such resources.

  Reforms
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the role of governors in implementing the education reforms.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government believe that governors have a central role in improving the effectiveness of our schools. This is reflected in the provisions of the Education Reform Act, including the new arrangements for the local management of schools.

  Local Management Schemes
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in reviewing local management schemes submitted by London education authorities.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The 20 outer London education authorities all submitted their schemes of local management by the due deadline of 30 September, and my right hon. Friend has to date announced his preparedness to approve six of them for implementation in April 1990, subject to certain modifications. The 13 inner London councils are not required to submit their schemes until 30 September 1991; but one—Westminster—had done so already, and my right hon. Friend has announced his intention to approve it for implementation in April 1990.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to recommend to education authorities reductions in the size of education departments and the numbers employed there in order to facilitate the release of resources for local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Under local management of schools, more decision-making and administration are being delegated to schools. There should accordingly be scope for economies in local authorities' central administration costs. The scale of these economies, and the speed at which they can be achieved, will vary. But my right hon. Friend expects authorities to secure the largest economies they can as soon as they can, in order to maximise the proportion of available resources which can be delegated to schools.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent reports he has received about the implementation of local management of schools in Norfolk.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of letters from schools in Norfolk about aspects of local management of schools. Norfolk LEA's scheme for local management of schools was the first to receive approval from my right hon. Friend, and I understand that the LEA is on course for the successful introduction of local management next April.

  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from education authorities regarding local management of schools.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received regarding local management of schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, South (Mr. Yeo) on 14 November at column 215.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions he has had with local authority associations regarding local management of schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I met representatives of the Association of County Councils and the Association of Metropolitan
  207
  Authorities on 13 September to discuss a wide range of local management of schools issues. Representatives expressed their support for the principles of local management. They also set out their concerns about the position of schools with high teaching staff costs when funding is determined mainly by pupil numbers. I made clear in response that it was open to LEAs through their formulae to enhance funding for small schools with above-average salary costs, and that we would also consider sympathetically proposals for an extended transitional period to pure LMS funding for larger schools with high salary costs.

  Physical Education Teachers
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will supply the latest figures on the shortage of physical education teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  In January 1989 there were 162 vacancies for full-time physical education teachers in maintained secondary schools in England, equivalent to 1·2 per cent. of physical education teachers in post.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress made by those schools which became grant-maintained in September 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The first 18 schools were incorporated as grant-maintained schools in September 1989. They are now experiencing the benefits of greater financial and administrative autonomy. They are proving popular with parents and pupils. I share their confidence in the future and expect them to take full advantage of the opportunities which grant-maintained status offers.

  Teacher Shortages
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what further proposals he is considering as to how industry can help to alleviate teacher shortages; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Officials from the Department are engaged in discussions with a number of industrial concerns about their future involvement with teacher shortage initiatives. My right hon. Friend acknowledges the valuable contribution that industrialists have already made in this field and welcomes new proposals.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current level of teacher shortages in primary and secondary schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 24 October 1989 at col.392–93.

  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he will take to deal with teacher shortages in Lambeth.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The employment and deployment of teachers are matters for local education authorities and schools. The Secretary of State's role is to ensure that there are sufficient teachers from whom they can recruit.208
  Government measures include the provision from next April of education support grant for local recruitment measures to attract more mature new entrants and re-entrants to teaching, and my right hon. Friend's request to IAC to look at measures to improve supply in areas where vacancy rates are highest, particularly in inner London.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the measures which he is taking to overcome the shortage of teachers.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to increase the permanent supply of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Amos) on 14 November at column 235.

  Older Pupils
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has for the future of 16-to-19 education.

  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to increase the numbers of 16 to 19-year-olds participating in full-time education.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Government are committed to increasing the participation of 16 to 19-year-olds in education and training, and believe that every young person should either be in full-time education or in a job with time off for good quality training.

  Recent examination reforms and the Education Reform Act will raise standards in schools giving more young people the qualifications and the motivation to stay on in full-time education. This is the key to improving participation. In 1988, after the first year of the GCSE examination, staying on rates for 16 and 17-year-olds rose to a record level. The Government wish to ensure that young people continuing their education at age 16 have access to a range of opportunities that will equip them with the general skills, knowledge and understanding they will need for adult and working life. Young people will have the choice of pursuing that goal through either the academic route—comprising mainly A and AS courses—or the vocational route—where they can choose from courses leading to about 4,000 qualifications. My right hon. Friend has asked the Schools Examinations and Assessment Council and the National Curriculum Council to work with the main vocational bodies to advise on the core skills that A/AS level students should develop and how work on them should be built into the A/AS curriculum.

  Expenditure
  Mr. Wall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities regarding their spending on education.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from local education authorities regarding their spending on education.
  209
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend discussed the education component of the Government's proposed local authority grant settlement for England for 1990–91 with representatives of the local authority associations at a meeting on 26 October. That was in addition to the statutory consultations about the overall settlement conducted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment following his 6 November announcement. Many of the letters and other representations which my right hon. Friend receives from local education authorities about a range of education issues also touch on spending.

  Pupil Profiling
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the introduction of pupil profiling.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on 4 December at column 14.

  Maintenance and Repairs
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much money has been allocated for school maintenance and repairs over the past 12 months.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is for individual local education authorities and, under local management, their schools to determine how much money should be allocated for school maintenance and repairs. The latest outturn data on recurrent spending show that in 1987–88 local authorities in England spent some £435 million on repairs and maintenance in primary and secondary schools.

  Research Students
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science by how much the maintenance grant of £3,725 per annum paid by the research councils to research students has increased in real terms since 1979.

  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of maintenance grants paid by the research councils to research students outside London.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the annual post-graduate award for research students living away from home outside London paid by the research councils.

  Mr. Robert Jackson
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamont).

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the annual maintenance grant paid by the research councils to research students outside London; and what estimate he has made of average lifetime earnings of post-doctoral scientists in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Jackson
  The annual maintenance grant paid by the research councils in 1989–90 to research students attending an establishment outside London and living 210
  away from home is £3,725. The Department does not collect or hold information on the lifetime earnings of post-doctoral scientists in the United Kingdom.

  Science Budget
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the science budget as a percentage of gross domestic product in 1979–80; and what he expects it to be in 1990–91.

  Mr. Jackson
  In 1979–80 the science budget was 0·160 per cent. of the gross domestic product. In 1990–91 it is estimated that it will represent 0·163 per cent.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the planned budget for pure science and the research councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 15 November at column 272–76.

  Design and Technology
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of implementing design and technology as part of the national curriculum.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on 7 December at column 313.

  Bishopshalt School
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce his decision on the application of Bishopshalt school, Hillingdon, to opt out of local education authority control.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend expects to make an announcement soon.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives from each of the research councils; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has occasional meetings with representatives of individual research councils to discuss matters of current concern. He met the heads of all the research councils at a reception he held on 14 September.

  Surrey University
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to visit the University of Surrey.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has had on his plans to introduce student loans; and if he will make a statement.
  211
  Mr. Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner).

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many banks have agreed in principle to operate the student loan scheme.

  Mr. Jackson
  Ten banks have formed Student Loans Company Limited to undertake preparatory work for the student loans scheme. Additional financial institutions will be invited to become shareholders in the company when a brochure is issued.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to advertise the Government's scheme for student loans; at what estimated cost; and over what period.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government will ensure that students and potential students are fully informed of the public support available.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the costs of the administration of the student loans scheme by(a) the public sector, (b) competitive tender and (c) the student loans company.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have nothing to add to the estimates of the costs of administration of the student loans scheme which have already been published.

  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met Lloyds bank to discuss student finance.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met Lloyds bank to discuss student finance.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met representatives of the Royal Bank of Scotland concerning student finance.

  Mr. John P. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met Lloyds bank to discuss student finance.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Clydesdale bank to discuss student finance.

  Mr. Jackson
  Ministers and officials have had a series of discussions with representatives of the financial institutions as proposals for the student loans scheme have developed. Ten banks have now formed a company, Student Loans Company Limited, to undertake preparatory work for the scheme.

  Schools Repairs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action he proposes to take to improve the state of repair of schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  It is primarily for each local education authority to ensure that the schools it maintains are kept in an acceptable state of repair. But my right hon. Friend is aware of concern that some school premises fall 212
  below that standard. Accordingly, Government plans for 1990–91 allow for capital borrowing by local authorities in respect of schools, colleges and other educational services of £436 million. For current spending, the Government's proposals for the 1990–91 local authority grant settlement allow for increased spending on repairs and maintenance relative to the levels assumed in the comparable total for 1989–90. Otherwise, the Department promotes improvements in the quality of school premises through the guidance issued by its architects and buildings branch.

  Professional Development Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will examine the professional development scheme operated by the British Computer Society as a possible model for career planning for scientists trained and supported by the research councils.

  Mr. Jackson
  The British Computer Society professfional development scheme is designed for the particular needs of professionals in information technology. It is not an appropriate model for the career planning of scientists, although aspects may be relevant to them. Responsibility for the career planning of scientists employed by research councils and by higher education institutions rests with their employers.

  Teacher Training Courses
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the joint circular on the approval of initial teacher training courses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations about DES circular 24/89 and Welsh Office circular 59/89 on the approval of initial teacher training courses. The circular was the subject of full consultation before it was issued.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the current pupil-teacher ratio in England and Wales(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools; and what were the comparable figures 10 years ago.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The pupil-teacher ratios within maintained primary and secondary schools in England in 1989 and 1979 were as follows. Corresponding figures for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Primary

  Secondary

  1989

  22·0

  15·3

  1979

  23·1

  16·7

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of modern languages taught in schools.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The Government are concerned to increase both the number of pupils continuing to study a
  213
  modern foreign language until age 16 and beyond and their standards of language competence. That is why the national curriculum includes a modern foreign language as a foundation subject at secondary level to be studied by all pupils between the ages of 11 and 16. The national curriculum working group on modern foreign languages is expected to recommend, by July 1990, attainment targets and programmes of study for modern foreign languages based on current best practice, in order to raise standards and to provide a stimulating and worthwhile challenge to pupils of all abilities during their period of compulsory secondary schooling.

  Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he last met the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has discussions from time to time with members of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council on matters of current interest.

  City Technology College, Langbaurgh
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will consider establishing another city technology college in Langbaurgh in east Cleveland.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  City technology colleges are focusing on urban areas because it is there that the aspirations and expectations of pupils and parents are, generally, furthest from fulfilment. Macmillan college, the Teesside city technology college, already provides for children in the inner city area of Middlesborough. There are no plans to establish a further city technology college in the vicinity.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the numbers of representations he has received(a) in favour and (b) against the establishment of a city technology college in Telford.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received 36 letters following the announcement by the Mercers' Company of its intention to sponsor a city technology college in Telford. Thirty-one are against the proposal and five sought further information.

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the contribution of city technology colleges to educational practice in schools and to inner-city areas in which they are situated.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is a key aim of the city technology college programme that the colleges should make a major 214
  contribution to the development of higher standards in all schools. It is too early yet to evaluate their impact in detail but it is already clear that they are immensely popular with parents and pupils. With three city technology colleges now open, and eight more with firm opening dates, we are now looking very carefully at how the good practices they are pioneering can best be disseminated.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he intends that asbestos removal from schools should be included in local schemes of management or financed by the local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under LMS it is for local education authorities to decide whether to retain responsibility centrally for asbestos removal or to delegate responsibility and funding for this within their schemes of local management.

  GCSE
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the number of GCSE passes at grade C and above by school children in Basildon for 1988 and 1989.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Figures for the Basildon area are not available centrally, but in 1988 there were 583,000 results at grade C and above in the GCSE in schools within the Essex local education authority. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Supply Teachers
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received from schools in Nottinghamshire about the adequacy of supply teacher cover for schools where teachers have to be absent on national curriculum training courses.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received one letter dealing solely with this subject from the governors of a Nottinghamshire infant school.

  Industrial Links
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress is being made in encouraging links between schools and local industry and commerce.

  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps are being taken by his Department to improve links between education and industry.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Good progress is being made in encouraging links between schools and local industry and commerce. Preliminary analysis of a recent DES survey indicates that around 90 per cent. of secondary schools now have such links.

  The Department is involved with others in a range of initiatives designed to assist in the establishment of links between schools and industry. In particular, it publishes guides to good practice and selectively funds particular

  215
  projects and organisations. Funding for teacher training in this area is made available to local education authorities through the LEA training grant scheme.

  Teachers
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps his Department is taking to encourage mature entrants, with practical work experience in other fields, to train as teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department has a range of teacher recruitment measures, one of whose main aims is to increase the number of mature entrants to teacher training recruited from other careers. The teaching as a career unit (TASC) targets older people with special publications, and through its national and local advertising. In conjunction with ICI, the Department has run a well-subscribed programme of taster courses for people considering switching to a career in teaching, and the number of courses is being increased in 1990–91. We are also funding part-time and shortened courses of initial teacher training which take account of students' existing commitments and previous qualifications. The introduction of the licensed teacher route will also facilitate the entry into teaching of mature entrants.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he plans to announce the next steps towards the introduction of new arrangements for determining the pay and conditions of teachers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering the views expressed by the six teacher unions and the employers at his meeting with them last month.

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has available for the percentage of teachers leaving the profession each year in(a) the United Kingdom as a whole and (b) Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Teachers in Scotland and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Figures for England and Wales and for Hertfordshire for the year ending 31 March 1987 (the latest available) are shown in the table.

  Percentage of teachers in England and Wales and in Hertfordshire leaving full-time service in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools (MNPS)

  Per cent.

  Year ending 31 March 1987

  England and Wales

  Hertfordshire

  Percentage of teachers leaving full-time service in MNPS

  7·7

  8·6

  of which:

  transfers to other service, full or part-time, in the maintained sector1

  1·3

  1·1

  transfers to teaching in the independent sector1

  0·3

  0·5

  retirements and deaths

  2·4

  2·3

  others2

  3·7

  4·6

  1 The Department's "Database of Teacher Records" does not provide complete coverage of the independent sector or of part-time service in the maintained sector, so these figures may be slightly under-stated.

  2 Many of these will be women withdrawing from teaching temporarily for family reasons.

  Exams
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Government's current policy with regard to the A and A/S level exams.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my hon. Friend to the replies that I gave on 14 November to the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) and for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) at column 218 and that my right hon. Friend gave on 28 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) at column 181.

  ILEA
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current state of preparations for the assumption by the London boroughs of the current educational responsibilities of ILEA.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The inner London councils are making good progress towards becoming LEAs. Most of the management posts in their education departments have been filled, and councils are developing their own packages to assist the recruitment and retention of good-quality teaching staff. I am looking forward to the operation of an efficient and responsive education service in the capil al after 1 April 1990.

  Severe Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to provide further help for schools for children with severe learning difficulties.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Responsibility for providing for pupils with special educational needs lies with individual local education authorities: this includes provision for pupils with severe learning difficulties.

  Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to visit the London borough of Wandsworth.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend would welcome the opportunity to visit Wandsworth, and plans to contact the borough about a possible date.

  School Buildings, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what level of grant he has made available to Nottinghamshire county council for new school buildings next year.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend expects to announce his decisions on the distribution of annual capital guidelines for education to LEAs before Christmas.

  History Curriculum
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the new history curriculum.
  217
  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales are waiting for the final report of the history working group, which is now expected by the end of January. When they have considered that report they will publish their proposals for history in the national curriculum.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what provision he has made for research into the greenhouse effect in 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Jackson
  I understand that in 1989–90 the research councils have allocated about £29·3 million towards research into all aspects of global climate change, including research into understanding the processes of climate change and the impact of such changes. This amount includes about £8 million by the Agriculture and Food Research Council, £19·3 million by the Natural Environment Research Council and some £2 million by the Science and Engineering Research Council. In addition, other research undertaken by the councils, especially AFRC, bears on environmental aspects.

  As stated in his answer on 15 November to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) at columns 272–76, my right hon. Friend has announced allocations totalling £18·6 million in 1990–91 and 1991–92 in respect of the construction costs of the RRS James Clark Ross, and a minimum allocation of £2 million per annum for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 to provide for a remote sensing instrument for the ERS-2 satellite. He also announced that he has sought the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the allocation of the science budget for 1990–91 and 1991–92. His decisions after receiving that advice will be announced in due course. Within the totals allocated, it will be for the research councils to decide their priorities for specific research areas.

  Teachers' Negotiating Body
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received with regard to the establishment of a new teachers' negotiating body.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has received a variety of representations regarding the establishment of new permanent arrangements for determining teachers' pay.

  Milk
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the implications of recent changes in the provision of milk in schools.

  Mr. Man Howarth
  The statutory requirements related to the provision of milk in schools are set out in section 22 of the Education Act 1980 as amended by section 77 of the Social Security Act 1986. There have been no recent changes in these requirements.

  Under certain conditions children under five years old in maintained schools may be entitled to receive free milk
  218
  provided under the Welfare Food Regulations 1988. These regulations are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.

  Student Statistics
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many full-time students are enrolled with universities and polytechnics in the current academic year; and what was the number 10 years ago.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information for academic year 1989–90 is not yet available centrally. In 1988–89 there were 318,000 full-time university students and, provisionally 310,000 polytechnic and college full-time students on higher education courses in Great Britain, compared with 293,000 and 217,000 such students, respectively in 1979–80.

  Educational Performance
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what assessment he has made of the relative educational performance in different areas of the country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what figures are published by his Department to show the comparative educational performance of each education authority in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In its annually published statistics on school leavers the Department includes information on examination attainments in respect of maintained schools in each local education authority in England. Comparable statistics for Wales are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. These figures reflect in part the different abilities of pupils resident in local education authority areas.

  Disabled Students
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many disabled students do not receive the disabled students allowance because(a) they are not in receipt of a mandatory award and (b) they have no additional disability-related costs.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make particular arrangements for the repayment of loans by disabled students and people who become disabled after graduation.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend intends that disabled people with low incomes should be protected by the standard provision for deferment of repayments. Like other aspects of the loans scheme, these arrangements will be monitored.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures his Department is taking to publicise the disabled students allowance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The availability of the disabled students allowance for mandatory award holders is publicised in
  219
  the DES booklet "Grants for Students". Bulk supplies are sent each year by the Department to local education authorities for wide free distribution among schools, colleges and other establishments. Copies are available to the public on request.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that disabled students are enabled to benefit fully from the access funds proposed in the White Paper "Top-Up Loans for Students".

  Mr. Jackson
  Each further or higher education institution will be responsible for assessing the needs of students, including any who are disabled, and will distribute its share of the access funds accordingly.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will begin consultation on reviewing the maximum level of the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  Comments on the disabled students' allowance for mandatory award holders have already been received from interested bodies. My right hon. Friend will take these and any other representations into account in the course of the annual review of the awards regulations, so that any changes made can take effect from 1 September 1990.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will begin consultation to revise guidelines to local education authorities on the administration of the disabled students allowance.

  Mr. Jackson
  Before making the awards regulations each year my right hon. Friend considers representations from a number of sources about the detail of the provisions made in them. This process is well under way for 1990. As in previous years, once the 1990 regulations have been made the Department is likely to issue guidance designed to help local authorities to put them into effect.

  Capital Allocations
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he proposes to announce the 1990–91 capital allocations to local education authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) on 14 November at column 216.

  Goldsmith's College
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what arrangements were made by his Department for the funding of Goldsmith's college, university of London, during the transitional period towards entering the University Funding Committee; what assumptions were made about the rate of inflation in such arrangements; and what shortfalls have occurred since that arrangement was made;

  (2) what arrangements are being made to deal with the shortfall that has arisen within Goldsmith's college's finances before they enter the university funding system.

  Mr. Jackson
  Since Goldsmith's college formally became a school of the university of London on 1 August 220
  1988, funding has been the responsibility of London university with the assistance of public funds, now channelled through the Universities Funding Council. With the agreement of all the parties concerned, including Goldsmith's, there was an agreed level of funds transferred from the grant-aided sector to the university sector to provide basic funding for Goldsmith's over the period from 1 August 1988 to 31 July 1991. This reflected then current assumptions including the Treasury's forecast of the gross domestic product deflator. Subsequent additions to the public funding of universities have taken account of the transfer of Goldsmith's to the university sector. The actual distribution of such additional sums is a matter for the Universities Funding Council and the university of London.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the rates of undergraduate student grants and parental contributions for 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Subject to Parliament's approval of the necessary regulations, the main rates of mandatory grant for undergraduate students will be increased in ale 1990–91 academic year by 5 per cent. for those studying outside London and for those who study from their parents' home. For those studying in London the main rate will be increased by 7·4 per cent. in recognition of their higher living costs. The new rates, which apply to students from England and Wales, and will be supplemented by the top-up loan facility subject to the enactment of the legislation now before Parliament, will be as follows (1989–90 rates are shown in brackets):

  £

  £

  Halls or Lodgings

  (i) London

  2,845

  (2,650)

  (ii) Elsewhere

  2,265

  2,155

  Parental home

  1,795

  (1,710)

  For most students, the 1990–91 main grant and full-year loan together will amount to some 25 per cent. more than the 1989–90 grant alone.

  Rates of grant for supplementary allowances, and for postgraduates, will be announced later.

  Residual income will be retained for the time being as the basis for assessing parental contributions. Consultations revealed divided views on the proposal in the White Paper "Top-Up Loans for Students" (Cm. 520), to move to a gross income basis, and further work would be needed to resolve some practical difficulties. The matter will be kept under review. Meanwhile, the threshold for parental contributions, and the points on the contribution scale at which the rate of contribution changes, will be uprated in 1990–91 to reflect the movement of earnings. Parents whose residual income is below £11,500 will not be assessed for a contribution.

  The full parental contribution scales for 1990–91 are as follows:

  Residual Income

  Assessed contributions

  £

  Scale 1 £

  Scale 2 £

  11,500

  60

  45

  12,000

  131

  98

  13,000

  274

  206

  221

  Residual Income

  Assessed contributions

  £

  Scale 1 £

  Scale 2 £

  14,000

  417

  313

  14,700

  517

  388

  15,000

  577

  433

  16,000

  777

  583

  17,000

  977

  733

  18,000

  1,177

  883

  19,000

  1,377

  1,033

  20,000

  1,577

  1,183

  21,000

  1,777

  1,333

  21,600

  1,897

  1,423

  22,000

  1,997

  1,498

  23,000

  2,247

  1,686

  24,000

  2,497

  1,873

  25,000

  2,747

  2,060

  26,000

  2,997

  2,248

  27,000

  3,247

  2,435

  28,000

  3,497

  2,623

  29,000

  3,747

  2,810

  30,000

  3,997

  2,998

  31,000

  4,247

  3,185

  32,000

  4,497

  3,373

  33,000

  4,747

  3,560

  34,000

  4,997

  3,748

  35,000

  5,247

  3,935

  36,000

  5,497

  4,123

  37,000

  5,747

  4,310

  37,210

  max 5,800

  4,350

  38,000

  4,498

  39,000

  4,685

  40,000

  4,873

  41,000

  5,060

  42,000

  5,248

  43,000

  5,435

  44,000

  5,623

  44,946

  max 5,800

  Notes:

  1. The second scale of parental contribution was introduced following the announcement on 15 March 1988 that tax relief on new non-charitable covenants would cease. Contributions assessed on Scale 2 are 25 per cent. less than those assessed on Scale 1. Scale 1 applies to parents whose student children began their courses before the 1988–89 academic year, and Scale 2 where students first entered higher education in 1988–89 or later. In 1990–91 over 90 per cent. of assessments will be at the Scale 2 rates.

  2. For 1990–91 the level of contribution will be assessed as follows:

  Residual income

  Scale 1

  Scale 2

  From £11,500 to £14,700

  £1 in £7

  £1 in £9·33

  From £14,701 to £21,600

  £1 in £5

  £1 in £6·66

  From £21,601

  £1 in £4

  £1 in £5·33

  3. The maximum contribution, which applies to parents with more than one child holding an award, will rise from £5,300 to £5,800. The minimum contribution will remain at £60 on Scale 1 and £45 on Scale 2.

  4. The contribution payable may be less than the amounts shown on the scale, particularly at its top end and where the contribution is in respect of one award holder only. This will depend on the amount of grant against which the contribution has to be set and whether any of the assessed contribution is offset by allowances for other dependent children.

  Adult Education
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what current national spending and monitoring of success levels have been achieved in relation 222
  to adult basic education programmes over the last 10 years, by year; to increase funding and provision in this area; what plans he has; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Local education authorities are mainly responsible for providing basic literacy and numeracy tuition for adults. Central Government support is provided to the adult literacy and basic skills unit (ALBSU) which is funded by the Department of Education and Science and the Welsh Office to act as the central focus for adult literacy and related basic skills in England and Wales. Grants to ALBSU during the past 10 years are as follows:

  £

  1980–81

  495,000

  1981–82

  1,000,065

  1982–83

  1,406,652

  1983–84

  1,513,000

  1984–85

  1,500,000

  1985–86

  1,723,000

  1986–87

  2,170,000

  1987–88

  2,248,500

  1988–89

  2,596,000

  1989–90

  2,889,300

  Local education authorities and voluntary organisations report that the provision of adult basic skills tuition has increased over the past 10 years. In November 1988, the latest year for which figures are available, they reported that 110,626 adults were receiving tuition. HMI monitor the quality of provision as part of their regular inspection programmes.

  My right hon. Friend is not yet in the position to announce what funds will be made available to ALBSU in the future. The Department will continue to work closely with ALBSU to increase the opportunities for adults to improve their basic skills, through initiatives such as the provision of open learning centres in inner-city areas, open learning centres supported through the ESG programme and the development of workplace tuition. The Department will also continue to co-operate with ALBSU, the BBC and the Training Agency in the basic skills accreditation initiative.

  Pupils (Per Capita Spending)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the per capita spending for pupils at city technology colleges and for secondary school pupils in the last year for which figures are available; and what is projected spending for the next year.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1987–88 average recurrent spending per pupil in maintained secondary schools was some £1,520. The estimated average spending per pupil implied by the proposed total standard spending for 1990–91 is of the order of £2,000. These figures do not include spending on central services such as administration. The recurrent per capita grant for pupils at city technology colleges for 1989–90 is based on a unit of funding of £1,825. This figure includes central administration costs, but excludes an allowance for diseconomies of scale during the start-up period, and specific grants for certain items. The comparable figure for 1990–91 will be determined by reference to LEA expenditure in 1988–89, updated to a 1990–91 base.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Bishop of Chichester.

London Youth Service Provision
2.36 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that there will be a youth service in London following the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, under the provision of the 1944 Education Act, as amended by Section 120 of the Education Reform Act, local education authorities have a duty to secure social, physical and recreational training and leisure-time activities for young people. In the exercise of this duty, all the inner-London councils' development plans propose substantial youth service provision including giving support to voluntary youth organisations.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can he say what will happen to the headquarters of the various voluntary youth organisations when the government grant comes to an end in 1993? I ask that because I understand that there is an interim government grant effective from 1990 to 1993. Does not the noble Viscount agree that such bodies as the London Union of Youth Clubs, the London Federation of Boys' Clubs, the boy scout, the girl guides and the wolf cub organisations, and so on, perform a vital function in the London youth service?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords; the Government entirely agree with the noble Lord. We have recognised the importance of the support which umbrella bodies can give to the delivery of effective youth work at the grass roots by providing, as he said, interim funding of £500,000 for each of the three years from 1990/91 for these bodies, to enable them to assist the maintenance of effective voluntary youth services while adjustment is made to new relationships between the voluntary sector and individual inner-London councils.
Ministers at the Department of Education and Science have drawn the attention of inner-London councils to the important role which can be performed by umbrella bodies and have urged councils to agree a mechanism for providing centrally distributed funding to those bodies.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, despite the very positive Answer given by my noble friend the Minister, will he agree that the statement he made is not in accord with the various organisations which
114
run the youth service in London? Will he further agree that the activities and the companionship given by the youth service contribute to the prevention of juvenile crime? If we do not have a good youth service in London, we shall have more crime in the city.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. But the replies and comments that I have received from those umbrella bodies have in fact been extremely favourable. However, the boroughs will have to increase the efficiency of the service over time if they are to deliver education at a reasonable cost to their chargepayers. It should not be a hard task to be more effective in that respect than the ILEA. However, while agreeing with my noble friend, I must say that we should all encourage these organisations to the greatest extent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that the boroughs in which the need for such services is greatest are those which will find the greatest problem in paying for them? It is not likely that the most hard hit boroughs with serious inner-city problems and with large numbers of unemployed people in ethnic minority groups will be able to finance the services required.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a view with which I do not agree. The Government consider that more explicit reference in legislation to the level and type of service provision which local authorities should make is neither necessary nor desirable. It is currently for local authorities to assess the needs of young people in their areas in relation to this provision. Those local authorities who have identified a need to make extensive and varied provision have found no legislative barriers to this, and overall expenditure on the youth service is rising.
Lord Newall: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are youth clubs which are already closing down due to lack of funds? Therefore, will he look further into the subject? It is most important as regards crime in London.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, if my noble friend will furnish me with details, I shall certainly look into the matter.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the sum of £500,000 he mentioned which is being contributed by the DES still leaves a gap in funds amounting to about £235,000? Is he also aware that it is not yet certain whether the London borough grants committee can meet the difference, because it does not know whether it will receive the 5 per cent. increase that it requires? Is he further aware that a great many voluntary bodies which ILEA supported —for example, Centrepoint Soho, to which it gave £15,000; New Horizon Youth Centre, to which it gave £49,000; and the Piccadilly Advice Centre, to which it gave £7,500 —are at risk? Are not the Government concerned that such organisations may have to close?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, in future it will be a matter for the umbrella bodies and the local authorities to decide which organisations are worth continuing and which are not. However, the Government have provided interim funding, as I said, of £500,000 for each year for the next three years. That short-term special funding is designed to enable them to sustain effective support for grass roots works, including local youth services, for an interim period until the organisation of voluntary work in inner London has adjusted to the abolition of the ILEA.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount used the neologism, "chargepayers". I take it that this is what the rest of us mean when we refer to poll tax payers. However, "chargepayers" is the expression I heard; but it is not a word in the English language that I have ever heard before. Further, will the noble Viscount also clarify the use of the word "duty"? Assuming that he is correct in saying that the Education Reform Act states that local education authorities have a duty in this connection, if they fail in that duty, will Her Majesty's Government intervene to ensure that they provide a youth service? Alternatively, is this one of those duties about which the Government will simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Well you have a duty, but it is too bad if you do not fulfill it."?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I did indeed use the words "chargepayers".
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thought I heard that.
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords; I am admitting that fact. However, if the expression is not in the dictionary, then I shall apologise to the noble Lord whose knowledge of the English language is far superior to mine. As I was saying, the youth service relies for its legal basis upon sections of the Education Reform Act 1944 relating to the duty to secure provision by local education authorities of social, physical, and recreational training and leisure time activities. The duty is there enshrined in the law.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that as he used the word "chargepayer" it will almost certainly appear in the new edition of the Oxford Dictionary? If he is lucky, the first ascription will be to the noble Viscount.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should be proud of that or not.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that although there will be considerable self-help among the organisations that I have mentioned, which is laudable, there will be a shortfall of some £200,000? That is a large sum for those organisations but a comparatively small sum for the Government. Will the Government give further thought to the matter?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as I said, the umbrella organisations which are receiving the
116
money have not expressed dissatisfaction with the amount. That is all that I can say.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I consider his responses poor and as showing a great lack of imagination and care about what is to happen after the ILEA is abolished?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no.

The Blandford Fly
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharples Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a decision will now be made to launch a full-scale attack against the Blandford Fly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the scientific sub-committee met on 6th December and will report to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides on 25th January 1990. Ministers will then decide whether to approve full-scale treatment of the River Stour.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that councils urgently need to know so as to set up their budgets if, as I hope, they receive a satisfactory reply in January? Is he aware that the product, BTI, used to get rid of Simulium posticatum, does not affect flora and fauna?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I note my noble friend's concern over this matter which is important to the people of north Dorset. With regard to whether the pesticide would affect flora and fauna, we had the test in the first place to see whether it would be acceptable.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is any information available as to a possible link between the pest and pollution of our rivers? If so, what steps can be taken to deal with the pollution, especially in view of the privatisation programme?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the Government are obviously extremely concerned about pollution. One of the reasons water has been privatised is so that we can better deal with such problems. There is no evidence to suggest that the Blandford Fly has been caused by excess pollution.

Post Office: Mail Monopoly
2.47 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are giving consideration to amendment of the monopoly in respect of mail held at present by the Post Office.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, we keep the

117
options under review but have no plans to end the letter monopoly at present. However, we have made it clear that the Post Office's monopoly is a privilege, not a right, and in the event of a cessation or serious disruption of the letter service, we would consider suspending it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that not unhelpful Answer. Have he and his right honourable friend considered the representations made by the Mail Users' Association rather nicely headed Deliver Us from the Post Office and drawing attention in particular to the fact that charges must be above a £1 limit before others can circulate mail?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, my right honourable friend has received the representations to which my noble friend refers but has not yet been able to reach a decision upon them.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister clarify his earlier Answer? I understood the Question not to be about disruption or cessation of service but about the monopoly in regard to the normal Post Office service. Do I understand, first, that the Minister's Answer means that the Government have no intention of removing the Post Office's monopoly over whatever it is one would call normal service? Secondly, is it not the case pretty well everywhere in the world that the Post Office in this context is a public monopoly?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the last part of the noble Lord's question is probably right. Generally speaking, the service is a public monopoly. We have made it clear that we do not at present plan to change the position. But if the service deteriorated for any of the reasons to which I referred in the main answer, then of course the matter would have to be reconsidered. It was, I believe, my noble friend Lord Jenkin who last changed the terms of the monopoly about seven years ago.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I might press the Minister. He has now changed the form of his words which does not necessarily mean that he is mistaken. However, does he accept that there is a distinction between the problem that might arise if there were disruption and that which might arise if the service were below what one might regard as a good enough standard? Am I not right in saying that the two problems are not the same?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, the noble Lord is right that the problems are not the same. However they may lead to the same ending, namely, that the monopoly is suspended.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as the Post Office is a public monopoly and therefore the responsibility of the Government, why should it deteriorate?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is not correct. The responsibility for the delivery service rests with the Post Office.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, the noble Lord has told the House that the Post Office's monopoly is a privilege. Does he accept that regarding certain of its duties it is a responsibility and a burden? Does he agree that there are not queues of people lined up from the private sector to take on responsibility for delivering mail in the Lake District, the Highlands of Scotland, the Yorkshire Dales, Cornwall and so on?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord has put his finger on the problem. In addition to enjoying the privilege to which I have referred, the Post Office accepts certain obligations. They are to maintain the service from anywhere to anywhere else, including sometimes very remote places.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was said nearly nine months ago when the Post Office last increased the price of stamps to 15p and 20p that it would start a weekend collection? Will this monopoly bring that into being? Is there any sign that it is going ahead with the weekend collection?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am happy to be able to tell my noble friend that Sunday collections have restarted on a trial basis in five locations: Edinburgh, Belfast, Newcastle, Darlington and Cardiff. The Post Office intends to add 10 more places by the end of February.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if anybody in the country, or particularly in London, were offered 19p to pop down to Cardiff or up to Glasgow with a letter they would think whoever asked them was stark raving mad? Secondly, one realises that the postmen get letters through to people in remote parts of the world and at this time of the year we ought to say to them, "Thank you for your services during the year".
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is quite right to pay tribute to the efforts of the Post Office, particularly at this time of the year. As for the rate to which he referred, as did my noble friend, perhaps I may add that in Germany, for example, far from being 20p the charge is 31p.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Lord therefore confirm that this important public service is being carried out efficiently and well at present in the public interest?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that I could give a blanket assurance of that kind. The fact is that there are areas where the service falls below an acceptable standard. However, the Post Office recognises that and is doing its best to put it right.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a falling off in the number of letters delivered the next day?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend saw the last report of the Post Office. Very detailed figures were given on the subject,

119
including important targets for improvement. I very much hope that they will be achieved.

Hong Kong: Passports Allocation
2.53 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford Lord Wyatt of Weeford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend that the forthcoming allocation of passports to "specially valuable and vulnerable" Chinese in Hong Kong will cover at least 200,000 families.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to make a Statement in another place shortly. I hope that the noble Lord will realise that it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the Statement today.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, will the noble Earl tell the Government at least to treble the number they first thought of in this context? Otherwise, with so many people wishing to leave Hong Kong and requiring residential qualifications elsewhere for passports, there will be a breakdown in Hong Kong before 1997. Will he ask the Government to ignore the rough element in the Tory Party who seem to have forgotten the tradition that their party once had of care for the subjects of the British Empire? Will he also tell the Government to ignore the envious element of the Labour Party who cannot bear the thought of a few industrious Hong Kongers coming here who would not be on social security and who would not vote Labour?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to have taken a pretty good swipe at everyone. I shall not give an undertaking that I will tell the Government to treble the figure, as he suggests, but I shall see that his views are made known. He asked me to ask the Government to ignore the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. The Government do not ignore anyone.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl accept that a responsible spokesman from these Benches intends to await the Statement which is to be made?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I was temporarily wondering who the spokesman would be. I now realise that it is the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, omitted to praise my colleagues on these Benches? Furthermore, is he aware that there is a substantial though not very large Indian population in Hong Kong? Is he also aware that they were almost all brought over —either themselves or their parents —as servants of the Government, as policemen or clerks, and that they will not be given Chinese nationality
120
after 1997? They are therefore in a particularly vulnerable position. Will he urge on his right honourable friend that special steps be taken to ensure the security of those people?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, had the noble Lord made his views known a little earlier I dare say the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, might have taken a swipe at him too! I shall see that his views are taken into account, as indeed they are by my right honourable friend. All views are taken into account because this is a very difficult situation.
Lord Eden of Winton: My Lords, can my noble friend assure your Lordships' House that the Government will not be deterred in any way from doing what is right by Hong Kong either by the unnecessarily alarmist views being expressed in some quarters by Members of another place or by the rather opportunistic position being taken up on the issue by the Official Opposition spokesmen in another place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government will not be deterred from doing what they consider to be the right thing.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, will the Minister give consideration to the thesis that the more Hong Kongers we import the better? Does he agree that they come from highly superior, highly intelligent, hard working, law abiding stock and that they might invigorate our decrepit economy with hybrid vigour which we badly need?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is an interesting thought. I can assure the noble Earl that the view that he puts forward is a consideration taken into account by my right honourable friend.
Lord Maclehose of Beoch: My Lords, the Government took a courageous and correct decision about non-refugee Vietnamese. Will they now take an even more courageous decision about the grant of nationality to key people in Hong Kong on a scale that would save a situation that once looked so promising?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is precisely the dilemma to which my right honourable friend is addressing himself at the moment. It would be quite wrong for me to anticipate in any way what he will say. Of course he will take the noble Lord's views into account.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will my noble friend accept the crucial importance of a sizeable allocation in this context to avoid China's inheritance in 1997 of —and I quote the article appearing in the Sunday Times of 17th December —
"Skyscrapers, an excellent metro system and an economy that has gone with the wind"?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is yet another point of view which my right honourable friend will also take into account.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the PCA report on Barlow Clowes.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Advocate (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden, I beg to introduce a Bill as respects Scotland to make new provision for the regulation of charities; to provide for the establishment of a board to regulate the provision of conveyancing and confirmation services by persons other than solicitors, advocates and incorporated practices; to provide as to rights of audience in courts of law, legal services and judicial appointments, and for the establishment and functions of an ombudsman in relation to legal services; to amend the law relating to liquor licensing; to provide as to probation and community service orders and the supervision and care of persons on probation and on release from prison, as to fines and as to imprisonment; to reduce the periods of non-cohabitation which go to establish irretrievable breakdown of marriage for the purposes of the law relating to separation and divorce; to provide a system for the settlement by arbitration of international commercial disputes; and to make certain other miscellaneous reforms of the law. 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.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
2.59 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Broadcasting: —

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Teviot, L.

Winstanley,L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have leave to confer on matters relating to broadcasting and to meet concurrently for this purpose with any Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House appointed by the Commons for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting. —(The Chairman of Commitees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. From the list of speakers who have put down their names to speak, it is obvious that we shall have an extremely interesting discussion. I wish in particular to say how much we look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byron.
Before I discuss the general purposes of the Bill, I think that it might be helpful to your Lordships if I took some time to explain why I am introducing for the third year in succession a major piece of legislation affecting legal services. This Bill is undoubtedly the most diverse, and perhaps the most substantial, of the three. I would, therefore, like to take this opportunity to explain how the Bill relates to the other work the Government are undertaking to encourage the development of the courts and the provision of legal services.
Our keynote is to improve access to justice for all who need it. There are three elements to this: a just and efficient court system; sufficient legal services of the right kinds to meet clients' needs both in relation to the courts and more generally; and an efficient and effective scheme to make public funds available to those who need legal services and cannot meet the costs themselves.
The last of these was tackled first. I have been puzzled that some critics of the present proposals have complained that they are not directed at the question of legal aid. It was made perfectly clear from the outset, when I published the Green Papers at the beginning of this year, that my present proposals were not intended to do so. They are of course nevertheless relevant to legal aid. By seeking greater choice in the provision of legal services, so that clients can get more precisely what they want from the legal profession, and by seeking to make the workings of the profession itself more efficient, I hope to reduce the occasions when the client, whether he is privately or publicly funded, has to pay for a mismatch of services to his needs or for unnecessary extras. More obviously, I am not now seeking a major overhaul of the legal aid legislation, because we have just completed one.
The Legal Aid Act 1988 made a decisive change in the administration of legal aid, by transferring its

123
management from the Law Society to the new Legal Aid Board. The board itself brings together people with skills and experience in business, management, the law and consumer affairs. That synthesis, and the enthusiasm of the board's members, have opened the way for a thorough reassessment of the systems under which legal aid is managed. I look with confidence to the board to produce the quicker, better service which the changes it has made now promise.
Of course, better management of the legal aid system will deliver only one part of the general improvement in legal aid for which I am looking. Your Lordships will know that I have instituted a review of the financial conditions for legal aid which will examine how far it is practicable to develop a more flexible system for deciding eligibility in which the individual's need can be assessed by looking both at his means and at the likely cost of proceedings. Comparisons are sometimes made with 1979. The most accurate and testing comparison, which does not use assumptions of any sort, is that in 1979 to 1980 there were 190,677 legal aid certificates issued. In 1988 to 1989 that figure rose to 247,117. And we estimate that the figure in 1989 to 1990 will be about 259,000. Over the same period, expenditure on legal aid as a whole increased some fivefold.
I have announced changes in the legal aid eligibility conditions of particular benefit to children and pensioners who need to live on their savings, and in eligibility in personal injury cases. If, as I suspect is possible, the argument that I am neglecting legal aid is brought forward again this afternoon, I would, therefore, ask your Lordships to consider it in the light of what has been achieved in this area in the past two years.
I turn now to the court system itself. What I have sought here is to enable fresh and better ways of administering justice to evolve at every level. The first step towards this was the Children Act 1989 which completed its passage only a few weeks ago. The Act, which will be amended by this Bill in some relatively small but useful respects, aims to create a single flexible jurisdiction within which all cases involving children can easily find the appropriate level of court. It may also provide a model for further development of family law generally.
The same basic approach underlies the first part of the Courts and Legal Services Bill. The proposals in this part of the Bill began with the major initiative of the Civil Justice Review, which started in 1985 and was completed last June. Our civil courts have the highest reputation for impartiality. They also have a proven track record for dealing effectively with cases of the greatest complexity. The high international standing of for example the Queen's Bench Commercial Court is proof of that. But impartiality and quality, by themselves, are not enough. There is also a need to ensure that ordinary people can use the courts to get decisions to resolve disputes on everyday matters.
The Civil Justice Review examined the ways in which civil proceedings in England and Wales could be made simpler and cheaper. Many of its proposals
124
can and will be implemented through better administration, or by secondary legislation using powers that are already in place. The review's central finding, however, was that there are too many relatively minor cases in the High Court. The results are that simple cases in that forum take too long and cost too much. Even more seriously, they reduce the time and resources available for the most complicated and sensitive issues.
The aim of the legislation I now propose is that the High Court will eventually be reserved only for specialist cases, including judicial review, and general cases of unusual substance, importance or difficulty. The measures in the Bill therefore seek to ensure that in future all civil cases can be dealt with at an appropriate level. In particular, the Bill will enable general cases to be redistributed between the High Court and the county courts according to their substance, importance and complexity. The remedies available in the county courts, and the cost regime, will be brought more closely into line with those in the High Court in order to make transfers easier.
I am well aware that concern has been expressed about the capacity of the county courts to cope with an influx of work. There are one or two points I should like to make on this. First, I must pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of both the judiciary and court staff, who have displayed unstinting energy in dealing with an ever-increasing volume of work. I am at present seeking to augment their efforts with a number of initiatives to enable a better managed and directed use of resources. These include the introduction of continuous trial centres, a summons production centre, and the curtailment of the courts' role in handling suitors' cash. These measures will give the county courts a considerable measure of relief.
Our plan is to introduce the changes recommended by the Civil Justice Review, most of which, as I have said, do not need primary legislation, at a pace that the courts and users of the courts can absorb. A number of moves have been made already. For example, the senior judiciary have taken an important initiative by issuing practice directions encouraging the transfer to the county courts of many cases which would otherwise have proceeded in the High Court. The result is that the county courts are already hearing a number of the cases which will come to them by a more straightforward route under the arrangements I am proposing.
I have also taken steps to increase the resources available to the courts. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent Autumn Statement announced that my department would be receiving an additional £70 million in the next financial year. Not all of that can go to the court service, of course, but I expect to be able to increase the number of staff in the court service during 1990–1991 by around 350 over existing levels of staff in post.
Beyond that, I accept that additional staff will be needed to deal with the Civil Justice Review improvements and the related initiatives which fall outside this Bill, including preparing for the implementation of the Children Act. Initially, that could involve a further increase in the number of

125
court staff amounting to perhaps 100, although some of that increase in work will in due course be offset by the other initiatives I have mentioned.
I announced in April that the Government would accept the Civil Justice Review's recommendation relating to lay representation in the county courts. The recommendation is in many ways a suitable preliminary to the provisions of the Bill relating to legal services, since it creates an opportunity for a natural development in the existing role of advice agencies which assist those who have particular difficulties and do not need a solicitor but who would have difficulty in making and presenting their own cases without assistance.
The part of the Bill which deals with legal services does not attempt to create a ready-made and immutable template for the way in which legal services are to be provided. Instead, I am seeking to create a framework which will foster evolution in legal services, allowing them to be more varied and better adapted to clients' needs. That is in no way to denigrate the past achievements of our judges and lawyers. Their integrity and independence is central to the maintenance of our liberties under the Crown; and we must all seek to keep that major fact clearly in sight.
That has to be seen, however, against the background of the changes and developments in the organisation of economic activity and business which have taken place in the 10 years since the last thoroughgoing consideration of the profession by the Royal Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Benson. Those changes have affected many aspects of the work and organisation of both branches of the legal profession. The Benson Report itself greatly advanced public discussion of what the profession did. Certainly it informed the deliberations of the Bar and Law Society joint committee, chaired by Lady Marre, and much other work undertaken by the National Consumer Council, the Director General of Fair Trading, and many others.
The last 10 years have accordingly seen many changes and departures from the arguments and recommendations contained in the Benson Report. On the one hand, for example, the Bar has moved away from the recommendation that fee-sharing should not be permitted between banisters on the grounds that it was tantamount to partnership. I believe that that measure has been found particularly valuable in enabling the Bar to develop areas of work where funding is at a premium. On the other hand, Parliament has changed its own general acceptance of the Benson recommendations as circumstances have developed. The most important example here, of course, was the decision in another place to give a Second Reading to Mr. Austin Mitchell's Private Member's Bill to remove restrictions on conveyancing. That led to the establishment of the Farrand Committee on conveyancing, to the establishment of the Council for Licensed Conveyancers in the Administration of Justice Act 1985, and to Parliament's decision to create a framework by which banks and building societies could be permitted to undertake conveyancing work in the Building Societies Act 1986.
126
All those considerations prompted me to take a fresh look at the way in which legal services are provided in England and Wales. The White Paper published in July proposed a new framework to operate under statutory objectives with the intention, as I have said, of stimulating development of the legal profession's standards of education and training and its rules of conduct, subject always to the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice. The Bill sets out to implement those proposals. The key aims are to ensure that the voice of the user of legal services can be heard when questions of the provision of legal services are decided; to make sure that those who take decisions are answerable for them; and that they take them with the benefit of full and considered advice. Equally, the proposals include a vital role for the independent judiciary in determining the qualifications and conduct of those who may conduct business before their courts; and they preserve the full independence of the legal profession itself.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House in discussing the detailed content of that part of the Bill, but the statutory objectives are central to the efficient working of the framework. I should therefore like to describe them at a little greater length. The formulation of the relevant clauses is —as has been remarked —rather different from that set out in the White Paper. That is not because the policy set out in Chapter 2 of the White Paper has changed in any way. It is partly because the language of statute is necessarily different from that of White Papers, but partly because we have now had to separate out which elements of the objectives relate to which areas of legal services, and on whom the duties they create should fall.
There are three elements. The first, the general objective of the whole part, makes it clear that in this legislation we are seeking to advance the development of legal services in England and Wales, particularly in the areas where there are legal restrictions on who can undertake to provide services. Those four areas are advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate. The aim is to make sure that in the future there are new ways of providing those services, and a wider choice of people providing them.
In two of the areas —advocacy and the conduct of litigation —the restrictions are particularly marked in view of their special importance. In those areas, the need for professional self-regulation, the need to promote competition, and the wishes of the client —all of which have an important part to play in governing the ways in which legal services are provided —must be subject to the needs of the proper and efficient administration of justice in the court of proceedings involved. There is there fore a special need for a clear balance to guide future developments.
Accordingly, in those areas the statutory objective is subject to a general principle that the development of legal services by granting fresh rights of audience or to conduct litigation should be determined only by reference to three tests. Those are whether persons granted such rights are appropriately qualified, in

127
terms of education and training; whether they are subject to rules of a professional or other body whose rules of conduct—including, of course, rules of practice —make appropriate provision for the interests of the administration of justice in relation to the kind of work involved; and whether the body in question can be expected to enforce its rules effectively.
There is an important third element. That is the speed with which the new regulatory framework I am proposing can give effect to attempts by the professional bodies to adapt better to the needs of clients and the courts. I hope that the framework I propose will stimulate development as well as regulate it, although no one wishes to see those important issues treated badly because of undue haste. Clause 15 of the Bill therefore imposes on the elements of the framework —the Lord Chancellor, the four senior judges named in the Bill, the advisory committee and the Director General of Fair Trading —a duty to exercise their functions as soon as is reasonably practicable, and consistently with their other duties under the Bill, and in particular consistently with the statutory objective and the overriding general principle.
I mentioned the present statutory restrictions in four main areas of legal work: rights of audience; the right to conduct litigation; conveyancing; and probate. The first two have an intimate relationship with the working of the courts and belong together. Each of the others stands alone. The Bill accordingly proposes three separate ways to encourage more choice in their provision.
The first new mechanism concerns rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. The existing arrangements under statute and common law for the granting of those rights will be abolished. Instead, a new framework will authorise professional bodies to grant those rights to their members. Barristers' and solicitors' existing rights will be preserved within that framework, with the Bar being specifically authorised by the statute to grant rights of audience to barristers, and the Law Society authorised to grant rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation.
Applications from those bodies to extend rights, or from new bodies to grant them, will be considered by the Lord Chancellor and the four senior judges named in the statute. That will be done on the basis of advice from a new body, the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct, and from the Director General of Fair Trading, and such consideration will include the question whether such bodies have rules of conduct, which will include rules of professional practice, appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice.
The second set of arrangements relates to conveyancing services. The arrangements are not quite as they were described in the White Paper, so I shall explain them in a little detail.
In order to disturb the existing position as little as possible, the White Paper proposed in essence that the work of regulating conveyancing should be
128
carried out by the existing regulatory frameworks for institutions that wanted to undertake conveyancing work. Where there was no regulatory mechanism in place, the relevant profession would need to set up a satisfactory one as a precondition of authorisation. Closer scrutiny of that suggestion has led me to decide that it would be simpler, more effective and less confusing for clients to set up a single regulatory body to deal with all those who wish to do conveyancing work under the new arrangements.
The Bill accordingly provides for the creation of the Authorised Conveyancing Practitioners Board to be responsible for authorising competent practitioners to carry out conveyancing work and for overseeing their work. The board will be required to set up and run an ombudsman scheme to investigate individual complaints about authorised practitioners, but will itself take the decision whether individual practitioners should start or continue to practise. New conveyancing appeal tribunals will be set up to hear appeals against disciplinary decisions of the board. The board will be independent of government. I intend that it should as soon as possible be self-financing, but provision is made for grants to cover the period during which the new system is being put into place.
The third system of arrangements —that for probate —is also different in detail from the White Paper proposals in the interests of greater client protection. The White Paper proposed that all trust corporations should be authorised immediately to undertake probate work and that other bodies should be enabled to seek to do so. On further thought, I have decided that this casts the net a little too widely. The Bill therefore proposes that banks, building societies and insurance companies should be able to prepare for reward, and to lodge, papers for a grant of probate or letters of administration, provided they belong to a suitable complaints handling scheme. The Bill enables the Lord Chancellor by order to extend that right to other suitable bodies on the advice of the advisory committee and after consultation with the president of the Family Division.
Proposals to widen the provision of legal services serve only to emphasise the central importance of maintaining and improving the professional quality of those services. The Bill therefore provides for the appointment of a legal services ombudsman with jurisdiction over all relevant legal practitioners. The proposal builds on the role already established by successive lay observers, but gives the ombudsman significantly wider powers. The most important of these is the power to recommend that where a complaint against a lawyer is justified, or where it has been badly handled by his professional body, the aggrieved client should be paid compensation, where appropriate.
Many of your Lordships will know about the announcement made by the Council of the Law Society on 18th December, saying that it would seek in this Bill an extension of its present powers to deal with complaints against solicitors. I can only welcome that announcement in the warmest terms. Urgent discussions are proceeding as to how the society's proposals can be fitted into the existing

129
legislation. I expect that, as a result, the society will ask me to introduce a small number of amendments to the Solicitors Act. I would very much hope to be able to do so during the Committee stage of this Bill in this House.
Part II of the Bill also removes the statutory restriction which prevents solicitors entering into partnership with any other practitioner. Henceforward, that will be entirely a matter for the professional bodies. The Law Society has recently completed a consultation exercise on the new regulatory mechanisms which would be required if solicitors were to form partnerships with lawyers in other jurisdictions, particularly within the European Community. New arrangements would have to be incorporated into the Solicitors Act. I therefore expect to introduce amendments in that area too, reinforcing provisions already in the Bill. I shall of course also listen to the debates attentively and seek to make any improvements to the Bill, in any of its parts, which these debates suggest should be made.
The Bill also amends the qualifications for judicial and certain other appointments, in the main to make qualification depend on the possession of relevant rights of audience under the new arrangements. It amends the judicial pensions legislation, essentially to put widowers in the same position as widows for pension puposes. There are amendments to enable the Law Society to regulate the solicitors' profession more effectively. There are proposals for improving the arrangements for arbitration, and a series of other changes including giving immunity from civil proceedings to magistrates and their clerks in certain circumstances; allowing lawyers to charge fees in some circumstances on a no-win, no-fee basis; and prohibiting the making of loans in connection with house purchase conditional on taking other services.
I believe that the measures contained in the Bill will make an essential contribution to improving both the court system and the development of legal services both within and outside those courts. I beg to move. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.26 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply conscious, as all your Lordships will be, that had providence not otherwise decreed a figure very much loved and respected in all quarters of the House would at this juncture be addressing us on this important Bill. It is impossible, for so many reasons, to be an adequate substitute for the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I can only hope that, with their usual kindness, noble Lords will bear with me.
We have indeed a courageous Lord Chancellor. He has ridden a course with calm dignity through a controversial Green Paper, through to a controversial White Paper, and has come through, slighty battered but completely unbowed, to introduce with his usual lucidity and eloquence the Second Reading of the Bill this afternoon.
The idea behind this reforming measure is one with which all of us must sympathise. The noble and learned Lord is endeavouring to put our legal profession and our courts and the legal services given
130
to the citizen into the next century by seeing that they have more efficiency and accessibility and that they are more economical and expeditious. From these Benches we support every one of those endeavours. That we have doubts is a normal attribute of an opposition, but our doubts are centred quite frankly and quite sincerely on the following issues.
First, because we want the reforming measures to succeed, we have our very definite doubts about whether they are sufficiently underpinned in many respects. We need some assurances in regard to certain sections of the Bill that the public will be properly protected. We must say —and we say it with dismay —that the Bill brings us very little, if at all, nearer to the goal, which I am sure the noble and leaned Lord himself has, of ensuring that equal justice is available for all, regardless of means.
As the noble and learned Lord said, Part I of the Bill implements the recommendations of the Civil Justice Review. As your Lordships know that review had four aims: first, to reduce the delay in the handling of cases; secondly, to simplify the handling of small cases —and I say immediately in parenthesis that the Bill seems to accomplish that end very efficiently; thirdly, to ensure the best use of courts' resources; and fourthly, to reduce the cost of litigation. Those aims are reflected in the main by provisions that enable the county courts to have a far larger jurisdiction and to ensure that there is the capacity to transfer from the High Court to the county court those cases which could suitably be dealt with there but which for one reason or another have commenced in the High Court.
I should like if I may most respectfully to issue one warning. When reading the provisions which relate to transfer, I could not help but feel that there was a great emphasis on convenience of administration without any very clear provision that much of that must be done for the parties' convenience. One hopes that there will be very clear procedures by which the parties will be heard before transfers are made or indeed, if they are made, as to where they are made. Clauses 1 and 2 look wonderful as reforming measures until, as I said before, one looks at the possibility of carrying them out in the practical circumstances with which we as practitioners in the law know we are surrounded at this moment.
I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord when he spoke of his aim to increase the numbers of personnel employed in the county courts. I believe that the number by which the personnel is to be increased is 300-odd —if I caught the figure accurately it was 350 —and that some of the £70 million allocated in the Autumn Statement will go to improve the working of the county courts. But the fact of the matter is that this is just impracticable unless there are to be very different salary scales and (I say this with due respect) unless there is to be a very different type of employee at the county court generally. With a due sense of responsiblity and not without having information to support my remarks, I must tell your Lordships that at this moment the county courts just do not attract or retain suitably qualified staff.

131
I get no pleasure at all from saying that a recent survey has shown that the Lord Chancellor's Department has a higher rate of resignations than any other government department. I assure your Lordships that it has nothing to do with the personality of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Indeed, if more members of the staff could meet him, I am perfectly sure that there would be fewer resignations. Nonetheless, that is the position.
With regard to the financial situation within the county courts, it is again with a sense of responsibility that I have to use the word "ludicrous". Are your Lordships aware that the London county courts have been instructed to cancel all window cleaning contracts? Are your Lordships aware that some court officials in the county courts, because of the critical financial situation, have been told not to use telephones during the morning peak hours? I do not believe that I have to give many more examples, but lastly, as I said on a previous occasion when dealing with this matter, Wandsworth County Court is running short of postage money and will shortly have to say that it can only reply to correspondents if pre-paid envelopes are sent to the court. That is literally true.
I have to make that statement with every gravity because it is so easy for legislators to walk happily away from Parliament saying, "We have now reformed matters. We have now done great things". But other people have to carry out the enactments of Parliament and the fact of the matter is that at this moment many county courts are on the verge of crisis and there are terrible delays as a result.
The noble and learned Lord mentioned, quite correctly and accurately as one would expect, that the county courts in any event and quite apart from the provisions of this Bill will have the added and precious burden (as many of us feel, not least the noble and learned Lord) of the Children Act on its implementation. That implementation is as near as autumn 1991.
I shall give only a few examples, but they are recent ones, of what is happening with regard to delays in the county courts, which will now have extra jurisdiction under this Bill. In Birmingham if one wants to make an application for a 10-minute hearing at this moment the average delay is five months. Again in Birmingham when a summons is issued and papers are sent in there is a delay of two months before that summons is received. In Bromley it takes 11 weeks for a request for directions for trial. Again in Bromley it is four months before a divorce petition can be issued, with much possibly involved in regard to family welfare. Again in Bromley it is six months before a taxation of costs can take place. I only offer the next example because I mentioned the Children Act. In Swindon it takes more than six weeks for wardship summons interim custody; a wardship order for hearing to trace a ward has taken seven weeks. Lastly, in the Swindon County Court it has taken six weeks, to get an injunction heard to protect a woman from a violent former boyfriend.
It is upon that structure that this Bill depends for many of its reforming measures. All I ask —and
132
I hope that it is not a destructive, non-positive contribution to this important debate — is for an assurance that before Part I is implemented suitable personnel are put in place and indeed that all the necessary financing will be available.
I move on to a very important provision to which the noble and learned Lord devoted a substantial portion of his remarks; namely, the provision that enables qualified solicitors the right of audience to all courts and as candidates for all judicial appointments. I say that with a sense of responsiblity as a proud member of the solicitors' profession. I assure your Lordships that members of my profession regard the privilege as one which must be earned by their conduct as advocates if the Bill becomes an Act. I believe that your Lordships will find that we shall not be lacking in service to the nation. We on these Benches do not oppose those provisions.
I now draw your Lordships' attention to the principle on which permission will be granted to act as advocates. It is contained in Clause 14. It is important that the provisions remain as they are, or almost so, without being altered in a way which will defeat their proper object; namely, that provided there is the ability, the experience and the quality, advocacy will be allowed in all our courts.
I say with the deepest of respect that I was disturbed by the attitude of some noble Lords who are revered in this House and in the nation as eminent judges. I hope that as a result of this debate, or of events afterwards, no one will gain the impression that our judges, of all people, are desirous of sabotaging the provisions of the Bill in that regard.
I know that the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls will forgive me and acquit me of any lack of respect if I say that it was with dismay that I and others read his speech of 30th September. He knows that I should not quote his words unless he was due to address the House later in the debate and, therefore, would have an opportunity of dealing with my remarks. He said:
"The interests of justice may demand special requirements such as, for example, that the preparation and presentation of the case be in separate and independent hands".
That is not the situation which now exists in our county courts or our magistrates' courts where solicitors are advocates. I know of no other country in the world that has such a rule. Sir William Goodhart, QC, said:
"It seems to me to be based on the proposition that the more you know about a case the less suitable you are to present it".
It is with pride that I identify myself with those remarks.
I should like to make two points in relation to this part of the Bill. First, the client —that is, the customer —must have the right to choose the type of advocate that he wishes to have. I ally to that the fact that the legally aided client must also have that right. We want no second-class litigants in our land.
Secondly, the advisory committee, which has such an important part to play, must, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, be completely independent of the Executive. That was his aim, and he has achieved it in the sense that, as I understand the

133
position, the expenses of the members will be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. Will the secretariat also be paid out of the Consolidated Fund? If that is not the present intention, may I respectfully suggest that it should be? The secretariat will play a most important part in the work of the advisory board.
I turn briefly to conveyancing. Obviously, I appreciate that the safeguards of the public, which must exist with regard to the provisions of the Bill, cannot usefully be included in the Bill. They must form part of regulations: I accept that. I merely ask the noble and learned Lord for an assurance that in subsequent regulations there will be no watering down of the safeguards set out in the White Paper. In my view and that of my colleagues, those safeguards are most important.
I turn to the last subject upon which I wish to comment. It is legal aid and eligibility. The noble and learned Lord was right in anticipating that criticism might be made. Legal aid is an important part of the principle of equality before the law. The noble and learned Lord said that a valuable statistic was the number of legal aid certificates that had been granted. I respectfully agree that it is important. However, a much more important statistic is the level of eligibility. I must make the comparison in spite of the fact that the noble and learned Lord suggested that I should not. In making his announcement about the three-year review —and three years is a long time —he held a press conference at which he was asked about eligibility. He said that as against the 1987 White Paper figure of 70 per cent. of the population being covered by legal aid the figure is now around 56 per cent. That represents a fall of 14 per cent. in two years.
In October last the senior lecturer at the London School of Economics department of statistical and mathematical sciences reported on his analysis of government statistics. It showed that, compared with 1979, 14 million people in 5·5 million households no longer qualify for civil legal aid and legal advice and assistance. Of that figure 2·5 million have ceased to be eligible during the past two years. That means that 14 million to 15 million people, for whom legal aid was available 10 years ago, are no longer eligible. I ask the noble and learned Lord: are those figures right or are they wrong? If they are right, or nearly right, could we not have side by side with the Bill —if it has to be by regulation and not incorporated in the Bill —an increase in eligibility so that the inflation over 10 years is fully taken into account, especially with regard to capital possessions quite apart from income?
Can we consider the tribunals before which legal aid representation and help are not available? Can we try to usher in an era not only of more convenient court administration but of greater justice for all? If we can achieve that aim in the Bill as it passes through your Lordships' House we shall have done well.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, there is much in this Bill of which I approve. But having regard to the number of speakers one must limit
134
oneself to only one aspect of a Bill of this complexity. I intend to concentrate on Part II which I suggest is the nucleus of the Bill: the supply of legal services. I wish to restrict my speech to the effect of that part of the Bill on the criminal courts where the underprivileged mostly appear and where civil liberties are most in issue —an area not referred to by the noble and learned Lord in his opening observations. The test must be this. Will the Bill provide the ordinary person seeking legal advice or representation with greater informed choice, greater access, less cost, less delay, higher standards of competence and conduct and more vigorous support of his civil rights?
As promised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his sustained and confrontational approach hitherto, the Bill faithfully applies to the institutions of the law the Government's philosophy of the market-place. I fear that yet again the result will be predictable. Only the big battalions—the top of the pile, the big firms, the top earners, the well-heeled clients —will be the beneficiaries. When one adds the tight restrictions of the new legal aid Act, the answer to my earlier questions I fear must be no. I do not think that anyone in this House who knows me could describe me as particularly establishment-friendly, or for that matter judge-friendly. But I have fought this Government on a number of civil liberty issues, often privileged to be alongside Lord Elwyn-Jones, whose absence we all so deeply deplore and whose words on our debate on 7th April should surely be remembered today. He said:
"The authoritarian regimes' first victims were the independence of the judiciary and … of the legal profession". —[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1313.]
As drafted, I suggest that the Bill will do injury to the civil liberties of ordinary citizens following on other Bills that have done just that and preceding, alas, more to come: the abolition of the right of silence and the further limitation of jury trials. It falls within the pattern.
The noble and learned Lord has convinced many that Part II of the Bill triumphantly secures the abolition of closed shops, restrictive practices and monopoly, whereas in truth, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, so clearly showed in the equivalent plans for Scotland —and where is the Scottish Bill?—it alters the structure of the legal profession and downgrades the criminal courts. Those are two areas of which the noble and learned Lord would be the first to agree he has had no experience.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, sadly is not in her place. In our debate on 7th April she stated that the present structure has,
"set British justice at the pinnacle of world legal practice". —[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1329.]
I wish to assure her, representing as she does the consumer, that any amendments emanating from the Bar will be directed, I am sure, to the terms on which those now given the exclusive privilege of rights of audience should in the public interest exercise their new monopoly.
Today the barrister advocate is a whole-time independent sole practitioner acting as a consultant

135
on referral by another professional, as in medicine. He is available to everyone through 70,000 solicitors across the country. He owes no loyalty to anyone —to firm, partners or any other client. He has minimum overheads, handles no money and is not an agent for his client. He must take cases however unpopular or unpleasant they may be. This independence, availability and expertise, wedded to standards learnt not from codes but in the Inns of Court, the circuits and the courts, have been (and I say this from my 40 years' experience) the absolute essential protection of the citizen, whoever he may be, against abuse of executive power or that of the police. In the criminal courts that now all goes. Can we secure that protection in this Bill? It is a vital question.
The solicitor's role is different. It is an honourable role. He picks and chooses his clients. He builds up the portfolio of clients. He very properly wishes to keep them. He owes loyalty to them, to partners, to his firm and to his staff. He is the general practitioner, with the high overheads involving high charges. Of that profession no one is more loved than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The Bill in due course will achieve the Government's aim to clear the Crown Courts of the Bar, reflecting, I am afraid, their dislike of jury trials. I can only say that the consumer will suffer.
The defendant will now seek a solicitor or an accountant to accept his unpopular case. The big firms, busy recruiting top barristers, will turn him away. He will not find the High Street solicitor. He will have to go to the amalgamated firm that does crime near the local courts. If accepted he will be told, "Our Mr. X will be prepared to do your case. Bring your witnesses along and he will steer them through their evidence in court. We know the local police. We can speak to our colleague about your plea, or of course we can speak to our colleague in the local Crown Prosecution Service".
Prosecutions will be conducted by the state prosecution service. For the first time civil servants will be conducting prosecutions with a strong incentive to obtain a conviction, or of course they will be conducted by the in-house solicitor from the Customs and Excise, the DTI, the Inland Revenue or whoever.
The defendant will not be told that a barrister could do the work at half the cost; nor will he be told what is the expertise of Mr. X, the in-house advocate, or what will happen when two of Mr. X's cases come on at the same time; and nor will he be told of the expense of the necessary back-up from the firm.
The American Chief Justice implored the Royal Commission not to go over to the United States system of the High Street trial lawyer. Professionalism, he said, moves inevitably to commercialism, principle to profit. That is what has happened in the United States and that is what happens when market forces bite, unless of course we can improve this Bill.
Does the Bill give the consumer any of the vital protections which the present delicate structure gives him? That protection has never been criticised in
136
Green or White Paper at any stage. The convoluted and Stygian form of Clause 14 and Schedule 4 leaves my mind unresolved. Therefore, I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord some questions. If he will be kind enough to answer them at the end of this debate, it would help us to decide whether or not amendments should be tabled.
First, do the Government support the continuing existence of a strong and independent Bar? Secondly, can the "designated judge" raise any of the following matters of principle in the public interest on behalf of the consumer under Schedule 4? In stating each principle, I quote the actual words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The reference to each one can be found in the Bar's blue book Quality of Justice, and most of what he said was in giving evidence to the Scottish Royal Commission.
First, he said that a Supreme Court case merits an independent person to review what a solicitor has found out. Furthermore, the Bar accepts an obligation to take any case from any client, and this is a constitutional guarantee. Secondly, he said:
"The measure of independence which is enjoyed by the advocate as compared with the solicitor is a valuable safeguard … especially … in the Supreme Courts".
Thirdly, he said:
"Advocates had to be independent and could not be employed nor become partners in a practice".
Fourthly, he said:
"The client wants the best advocacy going … the solicitor who fancies himself as an advocate … may not be the best person to judge his own skills … It is a crucially important decision for the client".
Those are crucial principles covering choice, availability, the Crown Prosecution Service, self-selection and independence. Those were vital protections for the consumer in the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor before he set out on the road to the Woolsack. The Law Society and the Consumer Council say that all such matters cannot be raised. I ask whether they are right.
I end by raising two other matters. First, in the White Paper the statutory objective clearly stated that any restriction on choice or access was to be measured by whether it was necessary in the interests of justice. Since then a weasel has got loose in the drafting office. The public interest has become lost on the way, jettisoned from the statutory objective now in Clause 14. That is an astonishing omission and I should like to ask the reason for that.
Secondly, in the White Paper the judges were to play "a central role". The weasel has been at it again. Following as best one can the tortuous interlocking procedures of Schedule 4 described as "the mechanism" by the noble and learned Lord, when one lights upon it it appears that the judge's role is now peripheral and neutered. This Bill fundamentally alters the institutions over which the judges preside and yet nowhere in the 35 clauses of Part II of this Bill do the great judicial offices —the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellor—appear, and yet on my calculation the Lord Chancellor is mentioned 67 times.
At page 72, Part I, Schedule 4, paragraph 5 we find a clue —the designated judges. Under Part II

137
the body which will now nominate its members as advocates must go first to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. That committee comprises 15 of his appointees including two barristers who do not even have to be practising barristers, with a majority of eight laymen. That quango is to advise the Bar on its ethical standards and on the practical training of its advocates. Indeed, if it alters its rules it must accept the advice of the quango.
We are told that the committee represents the customers' interests. In the Crown Court that would be the CPS and the defendant, their interests being diametrically opposed and in many cases diametrically opposed to the true interests of justice—market forces in the administration of the law. Perhaps I may say that it would be difficult further to denigrate a great profession.
Then the rules must go to the Lord Chancellor, then to the Director General of Fair Trading and then back to the Lord Chancellor. At that stage of the bureaucratic maze the Lord Chancellor approves those regulations. It is then and only then, when all parties have made their decisions, that on page 72 the "designated judges" come into the picture. It is noticeable, as your Lordships can see, that in the Bill, whereas we have the Lord Chancellor and the Director General of Fair Trading with capital letters, "designated judges" make their first appearance in small print. Who are they? Only by tracking back to the interpretation clause, Clause 81 on page 60, is the mystery of the designated judges resolved. Sandwiched between the definition of a court and the definition of a director we find at last the great offices of Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls.
Suffice it to say that, should they dare to disagree with the noble and learned Lord acting as a Minister of Justice and a politician, they can for the first time in the long legal history of this country be sued in their own courts for personal damages. They can be sued presumably by any little upstart solicitor, accountant, patent agent or what you will who may feel aggrieved. That is the Bill which is before this House today.
As drafted the Bill will, I fear, strip the small man of the protection that has been so elaborately given by the delicate structure of the present institutions. He will now be left to the tender grasping mercies of the market, open to the abuses against which our American friends have repeatedly warned us. I am sad beyond measure to see my profession banished from the Crown Courts where it has upheld standards so easily compromised when people fight for their liberty.
The poor liberated consumer will now be represented by a cosy lot of generalist advocates or para-legals working by the book on a strictly commercial basis and subject to a rigidly cost-cutting system of legal aid. If anything can be done during the passage of this Bill to give him or her a better deal, I shall support any such amendment. However, I fear that Part II of this Bill—subtly drafted, authoritarian, somewhat mean and certainly obscure —will be extremely difficult to amend.

Barlow Clowes: PCA Report
4.12 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat a Statement being made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the Barlow Clowes affair. The Statement is as follows:
"The report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Barlow Clowes is published today, as are the Government's observations on it. Copies of both are available in the Vote Office".
Perhaps I may add, in parenthesis, that copies are also in the Printed Paper Office of your Lordships' House. The Statement continues:
"The House will be pleased to know that, after very careful consideration, the Government have decided, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and out of respect for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, to make substantial ex gratia payments to all investors who have suffered loss. I shall give the details later. Equally, I want to make clear that the Government do not accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings; nor are the Government legally liable.
"These are important questions upon which I want to make the Government's position clear. I am therefore publishing separately today the Government's observations on the PCA's report. I hope honourable and right honourable Members will read these observations carefully. I will not rehearse the detailed arguments here.
"There are, however, a number of unusual features which taken together distinguish this case from other business failures. Although at the relevant time the Government had started on the process of overhauling the legislative background, the regulatory machinery before April 1988 was inadequate. It is also true that a large number of investors, many of them elderly, have suffered hardship. Many believed, although wrongly, that they were investing in gilts. They were led to believe that their investment was safer than it was.
"In disagreeing with the findings in the PCA's report the Government are not asserting that the conduct of the department was beyond criticism, given the benefit of hindsight. But in the Government's view the department's handling of the case was within the acceptable range of standards reasonably to be expected of a regulator.
"For the reasons I have given the Government have decided to offer substantial payments, without admission of fault or liability, to investors who have suffered loss. The Government have decided that investors who invested up to £50,000, including reinvested interest calculated at building society rates, should be able to recover 90 per cent. of their investment. It is important to maintain the principle, which the PCA recognises, that investors should bear some of the loss themselves. This is particularly so for larger investors, who must be expected to bear a greater part of the responsibility for their own decisions. To reflect

139
this the Government have decided that investors should be able to recover 80 per cent. of their investments between £50,000 and £100,000 and 60 per cent. of investments over £100,000. The detailed terms of the scheme are set out in the Government's printed observations.
"The scheme will be administered on the Government's behalf by the firms who are already acting in the liquidation and receivership of the Barlow Clowes businesses. A letter has today been sent to all investors giving them an outline of the Government's proposals. Detailed terms will be sent in mid-January, and we hope that processing of payments will be completed in February.
"The Government believe that there are others whose role in the Barlow Clowes affair deserves close examination and who cannot escape part at least of the blame for what happened. It will be a condition of payment that investors assign to me their rights in the liquidation and receivership and against third parties. I give notice of our intention to pursue vigorously any claims which show prospects of reducing the cost to the public purse of these payments.
"Parliamentary approval for this expenditure will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate in due course. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £150 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Receipts from subsequent recoveries will be credited to the Consolidated Fund.
"Mr. Speaker, both recent legislation and recent jurisprudence make it clear that regulators are not liable to investors in the exercise of their regulatory functions. The Government do not believe that it would be right for this case to be treated as a precedent, and if similar proposals are made in the future they intend to respond to them in the light of the principles set out in the Government's observations. However, because of the exceptional combination of circumstances in the Barlow Clowes affair, the Government have decided to respond generously to relieve the hardship caused to large numbers of people".
My Lords, that is the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we on this side of the House give the Statement a broad welcome in the sense that we are glad that the Barlow Clowes investors have at long last received recognition. Though I give that a welcome it does not mean that I accept that the Government have not been tried by the Parliamentary Commissioner and at the bar of public opinion and found guilty of maladministration. There is no way that any government would give away taxpayers' money ex gratia for no reason at all. If the Government are prepared to dish out such money to everybody, I can think of many candidates who would be queueing up to receive it. Unless the Government admit that they are responsible for what has happened, the basis of their Statement is without foundation.
140
I have a number of questions, of which I have given the noble Lord prior notice. I wish, first, to say that I regret the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner's report was only published at 3.30 this afternoon and that the Government have produced their response to that report before it was available to your Lordships or Members of another place. It would be normal for the commissioner's report to be published and then for the Government to give a considered response.
My first question is: does the Parliamentary Commissioner —because I have not had the benefit of his report —find that the Government are legally liable? In his Statement the noble Lord said:
"I want to make clear that the Government do not accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings; nor are the Government legally liable".
It has been pointed out to me that there is a "that" missing. Do the Government accept that the Parliamentary Commissioner has imposed legal liability on the Government or not?
My second question concerns action between intermediaries. Can we have an assurance from the Government that they will pursue as vigorously as possible in the courts action against those intermediaries who were condemned so vigorously by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in his statement to the Daily Express last Saturday? I quote from that newspaper. The noble Lord said:
"What was terrible about the intermediaries was that they were not getting rich people to put their money in, they were getting very ordinary people involved".
Does the noble Lord agree with that statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, and what action are the Government prepared to take?
My third question relates to the timing of the payments. Will they be made immediately, in January or February? Will claimants have to wait for a long period of time? My fourth question relates to those who, alas, have passed away during the period in which the Government have been dithering about the matter.
As I understand it, many of the Barlow Clowes investors were old people investing their life savings and the fruits of their pension arrangements. What will happen to the estates of those people? Will they be paid out properly and pro rata as the Government have indicated? Is there to be any distinction between those who invested through Barlow Clowes UK and Barlow Clowes International? It was part of the Government's claim that Barlow Clowes International was in some way insulated from control by the Department of Trade and Industry and that it was nothing to do with the Government whether people invested in Gibraltar or not. Are the Government making any distinction between the two companies and, if so, on what basis? If they are making no distinction what is the justification for their previous arguments?
My main point concerns government action as the result of the Barlow Clowes affair. It was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when he was Secretary of State and graced the Dispatch Box, that there would be an inquiry which was to be headed by Sir Godfray Le Quesne. It would inquire

141
into the conduct of the department. At the time the Statement was read out I say frankly to the noble Lord that in my view it was altered. That occurred between the time it came to us from the Government Whips' Office and the time when the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, read it out. It came to us from the Government Whips' Office that there would be an inquiry as soon as possible on the department's handling of the matter.
The Secretary of State of the day, in reading out the Statement, which I accept was the final version, added the words "the facts of". So the Statement became,
"on the facts of my department's handling of the matter"—[Official Report, 13/6/88; col. 8.]
As a result of that, will the noble Lord not accept that when the inquiry headed by Sir Godfray Le Quesne, put in the initial letter to the Secretary of State that it had no remit to make a judgment on the Department of Trade and Industry's conduct of the matter but that it only had a remit to discover the facts, that that was the point at which the Government made their first and fatal slip?
We learn now from the Daily Express of last Saturday that the noble Lord, Lord Young—and I quote the newspaper quoting the noble Lord —said:
"When I came to make the decision" —
This is October when Sir Godfray Le Quesne reported—
"I was told I could not actually pay the money out. So I did the next best thing—I sent the papers down to the Ombudsman. We wanted very much to do something and I was told by my department that in the last 164 cases the Ombudsman had seen, he found against the Government 162 times".
The noble Lord added, according to the Daily Express—
"I would have loved to have seen the Ombudsman come to a very quick decision. Unfortunately, I think, he has taken too long".
That contrasts with what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, said in this House on 20th October 1988. I quote from col. 1259 of the Official Report of that day:
"The facts set out in Sir Godfray's report in the Government's view provide no grounds for concluding that my department's handling of the matter was unreasonable or caused the losses experienced by investors, and therefore provide no justification for the use of taxpayers' money to fund compensation".
In the next paragraph the noble Lord said:
"I have today sent him"—
that is the Parliamentary Commissioner —
"a copy of Sir Godfray Le Quesne's report".
The noble Lord refers not to the papers, but a copy of Sir Godfray Le Quesne's report. There are several questions arising from that. Is it not the case that my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Morris, instituted the Parliamentary Commissioner's report? It was not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the day. What papers did the Secretary of State of the day send down to the Parliamentary Commissioner? Only Members of another place can refer matters to him.
Does the noble Lord agree with the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, as quoted in the Daily Express, namely, that the
142
ombudsman, unfortunately, "has taken too long"? Which Secretary of State is now taking responsibility for this matter? Why was the whole inquiry botched in the way it was? Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for government incompetence? This whole episode does no credit whatsoever to the Government and to the successive Secretaries of State.
The Government have recognised their responsibility in this matter and they have decided to dish out taxpayers' money —our money —in order to compensate for their own failings. As a taxpayer I hope very much that the Government will ensure that this kind of episode will never occur again.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I wish to restrict my observations to two matters. The first relates to the question of compensation referred to in the Statement and, secondly, the conduct of the department as the regulator. On the question of compensation, I wish to express satisfaction that a decision has been reached and that in very large measure those who have suffered from this series of occurrences will be promptly compensated and that they will also receive interest for the period during which they have suffered. I think that is very fair and proper. I am glad to note that this matter was agreed in the full report by the ombudsman.
I turn now to the question of the Government's conduct and that of the department as regulator. A number of questions arise. This matter is dealt with fully in the report and is also touched on in the Government's observations. We are living in an age where regulation is extending at a rate of knots. With every privatisation we are getting more regulators. Therefore, the whole way in which regulators operate must be under careful scrutiny. To what extent are regulators liable for their decisions? That is the big question. To what extent should consumers, or investors, consider that their interests are being safeguarded by regulators?
I agree with the qualification introduced in the Government's observations that if regulators' decisions were constantly influenced by the risk of liability it would be difficult for them to operate other than over-cautiously. I accept that. Nonetheless, we must be clear what safeguards consumers or investors have in the decisions of regulators. In the present case it is clear that since the end of 1984 there were doubts about the Barlow Clowes operation. These were referred to at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Young, made his original Statement well over a year ago.
The fact is that throughout the period from the end of 1984 until 27th May 1988, when an announcement was made of an investigation, no indication was given to potential investors that they were at any sort of risk, even though a number of doubts had been raised from various quarters —including the Stock Exchange —about the operations of this firm. The ombudsman has concluded that if the inquiries had been conducted more effectively during this period it is quite possible that the firm would have been closed down at the end of 1985. This is a contention that the Government rebut.

143
The big question is to what extent investors should be able to rely on the regulatory authority in matters of this sort. It is stated that it is the task of the regulator to establish reasonable standards in the sector; to provide a framework within which investors can make their own judgments. They have to assess as far as practical whether those who manage investments are fit and proper persons to do so. I should like to ask whether the Government really considered that in this case those conditions were met, and whether the right message was given to potential investors. I personally believe that this was not done, and I think that this whole question needs further investigation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I acknowledge the contribution made by both noble Lords in response to this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Williams —I shall deal with as many of his points as I can —asked about the timing of the Government's decision in this matter. The noble Lord will recall —he referred to it —that my noble friend made a Statement on this subject just over a year ago. We received the Parliamentary Commissioner's report about four weeks ago, in the middle of November, and have therefore responded to it promptly and effectively.
The noble Lord asked too about the Government's legal liability in this matter. The Government do not accept legal liability. That is why we have emphasised the ex gratia nature of the payments. I hope that has cleared the point for the noble Lord. He also asked about our intention with regard to third parties. I can assure him that we shall be pursuing vigorously all the action that is necessary against any third parties who may be involved in this matter. I should perhaps add that we are aware that something in excess of £60 million ought to be recoverable without legal action as a contribution to the costs of the funds that we are disbursing. Of course we very much hope that further considerable sums will be recovered by legal action in due course.
As for the timing of the payments that we now anticipate, the firms which are acting for us will send out formal letters to Barlow Clowes investors some time around the middle of January. Investors will be required to return their claims by the middle of February, and those returns will have to include their transferring to the Secretary of State all their rights in this matter. We hope that payments can be made towards the end of February; in other words, shortly after the closing date for the return of applications by investors.
The noble Lord then asked about the position with regard to people who sadly have died since their investment in this company. I can say that it is intended that the claims of the estates of those who have died should be dealt with in the same way as the claims of persons who are still alive, and therefore their inheritors will not suffer any disadvantage by virtue of that.
It is also intended that the two separate funds —that is, the Gibraltar-based and the United Kingdom-based funds —will be dealt with in exactly the same way. The reasons for that is that it has emerged that a number of people thought they had
144
invested in the United Kingdom fund, but it turned out that against their knowledge their funds were transferred to the Gibraltar-based fund. Clearly therefore it would be appropriate to deal with both of them in the same way.
Sir Godfray Le Quesne, as the noble Lord mentioned, submitted a purely factual report on this matter just over a year ago. It was on the basis of that report that my noble friend made his Statement at that time. The noble Lord will be aware that my noble friend has made certain additional observations since. The noble Lord is quite right to say that references to the Parliamentary Commissioner are carried out not by Members of your Lordships' House, even if they are Secretaries of State, but my Members of the other place. Indeed, a number of references to the Parliamentary Commissioner were made by Members of the other place.
My noble friend quite rightly made sure that the Parliamentary Commissioner had available to him all the documents that he could make available, and at that time sent the Le Quesne Report to the Parliamentary Commissioner for his further consideration. It was following his receipt of that report that the Parliamentary Commissioner himself decided to investigate this matter, and the length of time that he takes to reach his report is a matter for him.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Does he accept that my information is that the Parliamentary Commissioner agreed to investigate this matter before the Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, sent the Le Quesne Report to him?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, to be truthful, I am not quite certain about that, but the noble Lord may well be right. Certainly the decision to conduct the investigation rests with the Parliamentary Commissioner himself, upon application from honourable or right honourable Members in another place.
Turning now, if I may, to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, I was grateful for his complimentary words —if I may call them that —about the Government's decision in respect of compensation. The noble Lord asked me to what extent regulators are liable. I think the legal position is quite clear: regulators are not liable. Certainly the Government do not accept liability, as I have said. But of course the law has changed since the events we are describing took place. New legislation is now in place, and by and large the industries are now self-regulating, as the noble Lord will appreciate.
By and large too they have created funds for compensating investors in one way or another when they have misfortunes such as this, but that is now a matter for the industries themselves rather than for government. I hope that the noble Lord will accept and acknowledge the advantage of the new arrangements.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, perhaps I may now ask two technical questions which arise from aspects

145
of the Statement which I am afraid I did not understand. First, how are these ex gratia payments to be dealt with in the liquidation of these concerns? Secondly, if the Government are to get anything back from the liquidation process once the investors have been paid in full, what is the total net expected cost of those payments which are now being made after distributions in the liquidation and recoveries by the liquidator have been taken into account?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall explain the position to the noble Lord as best I can. I hope that I shall get it right. What will now happen is that investors will be reimbursed on the basis set out in the Statement from public funds. A few of them have already received some reimbursement from intermediaries who decided that they should reimburse on their own behalf and in certain cases some distributions have already been made in the liquidation. However, the very substantial payments which are now to be made are to come from public funds.
The Government propose that all the people who are now to receive those substantial payments should make over their rights in the matter to the Government so that in the future such distributions as are made will be made to them in repayment of the money which has been dispersed from central funds. Therefore, the benefit of the liquidation in the future will fall to the Government and to the reimbursement of public funds. I hope that that meets the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I should also like to put two questions to the Minister. First, what will be the position of investors who have already obtained financial restitution in whole or in part from their financial advisers? Secondly, will there be any marginal relief? From the figures given by the noble Lord it seems on the face of it as if those who have invested £50,000 will obtain £45,000 in compensation, whereas those who have invested £51,000 will obtain only £40,800. I suggest that that arrangement would seem to be extremely unfair to most people.
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords; that is not what would happen. The first £50,000 of any depositor's claim will be dealt with on the basis of 90 per cent. and the second sum of money will be dealt with on the smaller percentage to which I referred when reading the Statement. As regards the position of those who have already received some recompense from whatever source, the funds that they have received will be set against what they are to receive from public funds.
Lord Peston: My Lords, on page 1 the Statement ends with the words:
"Equally, I want to make clear that the Government do not accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings; nor are the Government legally liable".
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel asked the Minister whether the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings included the statement that the Government are legally liable. We did not hear an
146
answer to that straightforward question. I repeat: did the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings include the statement that the Government are legally liable?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Parliamentary Commissioner, with all due respect to him, is neither competent nor qualified to determine the question of legal liability. However, he has said that the Government ought to repay the money.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord yet again but he has now been asked a very simple question and has given 1.he answer to a different one. I did not ask —nor, indeed, did my noble friend —what in his view was the competence of the Parliamentary Commissioner. I asked for confirmation of what he actually said.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the Parliamentary Commissioner's report is an inch and a half thick or thereabouts. I invite the noble Lord to study that document carefully. No doubt he will find the answer to his question therein.

Courts and Legal Services Bill [H.L.]
4.44 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Lane: My Lords, I should like to make one or two general observations. I shall speak first on Part II of the Bill which your Lordships are considering. The judges are concerned about the long-term effects of the Bill, much of which, one is bound to say, is drafted in such a way as to make its outcome difficult to predict. For example, it seems, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, that the legislation will omit what is perhaps the most important objective contained in paragraph 2.3 of the White Paper. The wording of that document is not repeated in Clause 14 of the Bill. There is no repetition of the third paragraph which expressly introduces the limiting concept of the interests of justice. I am sorry that the interests of justice have gone. I hope that I shall not be accused of sabotaging the Bill if I ask what the purpose of that omission may be. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said —correctly of course —that the language of the statute is necessarily different from the language of the documents which may have gone before. But what is the necessity for that alteration?
Secondly, I wish to refer to a point which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. It concerns the role of the so-called "designated judges" among whom, to my surprise, I find myself. It is a position which is not easy to fathom from the Bill. It involves a very abtruse correlation between Clause 14 and Schedule 4. Perhaps I may ask that those matters be clarified during the course of the Bill's proceedings.
One hopes that at the end of the day, when all these arguments have seen the light of day, two matters remain clear: first, the independence of the judiciary from control by the Executive and, secondly, the

147
recognition that in the adversarial system which we operate, the judge is largely dependent upon the efficiency, the skill and the integrity of the advocates who appear before him. Of course, the efficiency and the skill will vary from advocate to advocate. Moreover, in this highly competitive field, the greater the skill and efficiency the higher the earnings will be and vice versa.
However, the standard of integrity must be the same in the case of every advocate. Under our system, when dealing with a matter which is sometimes difficult to explain and to appreciate, the advocate owes a duty to the court which in many ways transcends his duty to his client. Let us take one simple example: he must not present a case which he knows is not true; and he must not present facts which he knows to be untrue in order to assist his client's case.
There are many matters which the judge under our system must necessarily accept on trust from the advocates who appear before him. If you destroy that trust you begin to erode the whole basis of justice as we try to administer it. Much of the training of a barrister and many of the rules by which he is bound are aimed at ensuring that integrity. One would have thought it scarcely needs to be stated that it is essential that every advocate should be bound by the same set of rules enforced by the same ruling body. For centuries, so far as concerns the higher courts, that has been the case. The judges have decided who should be permitted to appear before them. They have had a controlling hand in many ways over the creation and the enforcement of the disciplinary procedures of the Bar. If that process is to change and if there is to be, as is proposed, a number of bodies able, so to speak, to authorise and promote advocates, then I respectfully suggest that the rules for all must be the same and that the enforcement of those rules must be consistent throughout.
Analogies are dangerous, but it would cause a bit of a stir in the golfing world if, in the next Open championship, those competitors from Britain were bound by the rules of the Royal and Ancient and those from other countries were bound by the different rules operating in their own countries. That would cause chaos. I suggest that the same chaos would result if there were not a cohesive body of rules governing all advocates in this country. There must be that centralised control and one would have thought that that must in the end come from the judges who are in control of the conduct of the court and therefore in control of the advocates who appear before them.
Perhaps I may mention in passing that it is important to draw a distinction between the ease of making a set of rules and the difficulty of ensuring that those rules are observed, especially when they lack uniformity. That is particularly so where the observance of the rules depends so greatly upon the integrity of each advocate.
Having said that, perhaps I may, with your Lordships' permission, turn to Part I of the Bill. Many of the proposals contained in Part I have
148
already been pre-empted by what the judges have done by way of redistributing work, where possible, from the High Court to the county court as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks. That has been achieved by using Section 40 of the County Courts Act 1984. Less important cases have been transferred down by Queens Bench masters either before or at the time of setting down. That system, to take the matter briefly, has now been extended by practice direction to the provinces. We now have, long before Part I takes effect, 45 county court trial centres in operation dealing with transferred cases. All that took place, as I say, long before the Bill's emergence.
However, it is one thing to initiate reforms of that nature and it is another thing to make them work. Whether any court operates efficiently or not will depend upon the standard of service provided by the court officials and the efficiency or otherwise of the infrastructure organised by the Lord Chancellor's Department. That was made clear in the report of the Civil Justice Review Committee at page 57, where it pointed out, if it needed to be pointed out, that if there is that shift of work from the High Court to the county court:
"Implications for staff numbers and accommodation will require to be assessed at an early stage".
Let us note those words. It continues:
"this assessment should have regard to the proposed improvement in standard of service as well as the increased volume of work".
In opening today's debate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor clearly appreciated the necessity for what one might call an adequate and efficient ground staff in his department. It is perhaps not generally understood, or may not have been understood until the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, rose to his feet this afternoon, how serious the situation is, not just in the county court but in the Crown court which of course deals with crime. To a large extent those two courts are interdependent. In many cases they share the same building.
However good the advocate, however good the judge, a court system cannot operate without an efficient administrative organisation to back it up. There must be adequate buildings in good condition. There must be properly trained, adequately paid staff in sufficient numbers. There must be an efficient filing system, properly maintained. Letters must be answered expeditiously. Cases must be listed so as to avoid overcrowding on the one hand and empty, idle courts on the other.
Let me reiterate what has already been said: the staff of the Crown and county courts, those who still remain in post at any rate, are loyal and hardworking to a degree and are doing their level best to cope with the enormous difficulties which face them at the moment; but there is a limit to the strains which can be imposed upon them, beyond which morale inevitably starts to crumble. That limit has in many cases been reached.
I have letters from a number of court centres which make the situation regrettably clear. Difficulties arise almost exclusively from a lack of sufficient resources and from underfunding. The more senior staff see the younger members disappearing away from the service as soon as they are trained into better paid

149
jobs. They themselves are overworked. They see the standard of service that they provide deteriorating. They are ashamed of it, and so the downward spiral of morale continues.
I shall give, if I may, a few examples. There is an acute shortage of court clerks and ushers, both of whom are an essential feature in any well-run court. It is no rarity these days —I now turn to the Crown court for a moment —for a judge to try a serious criminal case for three or four weeks on end without any court clerk in attendance. It is no rarity for the only member of the administrative staff present in court to be a part-time usher who does his or her best to act as court clerk, dock officer, exhibits officer and usher. That is an intolerable situation. To take one small example, it means among many other difficulties that the dock telephone and the court clerk's telephone are both unmanned and accordingly, sudden emergencies cannot be dealt with as they should be.
On 30th November last at the Old Bailey, 14 courts shared seven clerks. I understand that an embargo has now been imposed on the employment of any local, casual staff, to save money. The situation will worsen. Indeed, in some centres in the North, courts are standing unused because of a lack of staff.
Even more serious, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, is the clerical side of the county court, the very court which is at the proposed receiving end of the proposed increased workload. The shortage of staff is acute. In one large complex not far from your Lordships' House 50 per cent. of the staff have less than six months' experience. In many courts the paper work is way behind schedule. Taxation of costs and payment of fees are all in arrears. Correspondence has perhaps been the main sufferer. An increasing number of mistakes are made. In two centres —I suspect that this is a great deal more widespread —a 50-day backlog exists in dealing with general correspondence. That means that if a litigant or a legal adviser writes a letter to the court in plain language, he or she cannot expect an answer for two months. That is no way to run a court. It is no fault of the staff. It is the fault of under-funding.
In one court £30,000 is held in a suspense account. That money represents fees paid by members of the public for services which have not yet been provided to them. It has already reached the ludicrous situation, as has been indicated, where courts and windows stay filthy because the staff who should be cleaning them cannot be paid as there is not enough money. Clocks remain unadjusted through lack of funds. I shall not weary your Lordships with more examples, save to say that the supply of The Times newspaper at 30 pence per day has been cut off to most courts as a measure of economy.
It is not for me to allocate blame; indeed it does not matter who is to blame. The fact remains that it is fantasy and misleading fantasy to suggest that Part I of the Bill can be implemented when the infrastructure of the county court is already crumbling. Perhaps I may read a passage of a letter
150
written to me by a presiding judge on one of the circuits:
"The Courts in this area have always been, with, of course, the occasional exception, happy and efficient places. Within the last two years or so, morale has sunk to a record low. Staff are being poached with ease by Solicitors, Estate Agents and the like with the offer of markedly higher salaries. They are either not being replaced at all, or their replacement is so young and inexperienced as to be of no value for a year or two by which time he or she is quite likely to be lured away in their turn. This accordingly increases the burden on the competent and experienced staff who are, in my view, the backbone of the system. One of them told me a few weeks ago with misery, that they were making mistakes; they hated the idea that this could happen but the pressure of work was such that mistakes were unavoidable".
It is no good saying that it will be all right on the night. It is no good saying that by 1991 all will be well. It will not, because trained staff do not spring from the ground at any Chancellor's bidding. Morale does not rocket up at the first injection of fresh staff or the first injection of higher salaries. Once the system has been allowed to reach this pitch of inefficiency, it will take time and great effort to effect a cure.
Perhaps I may suggest that the efforts should start at once if disaster is to be avoided. One does not wish to see the same mistakes as were made with the Crown Prosecution Service, from which that organisation is only now starting to recover. Unless something drastic is done, and done soon, Part I of the Bill at best for the time being at any rate should be put on ice.
5.3 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House unduly long but there are one or two general remarks that I wish to make. In a sessional programme already crowded —perhaps overcrowded —with contentious business, we are discussing on Second Reading a Bill about 120 pages long with 13 schedules, dealing with a large number of quite separate issues generated entirely inside the government machine.
I had believed that the methodology of legal reform, to which I am deeply committed, had been reasonably clearly understood for some years now. There was the Law Commission set up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner; there was the Criminal Law Reform Committee set up by Mr. Butler when he was Home Secretary. The Home Office retains control of the criminal law with the same ferocity as a tiger preserving its cubs. The Law Reform Committee was set up I think by Lord Sankey. Underpinning that were the various types of specialist reviews like the Civil Law Review Committee to which numerous references have been made.
Apart from Part I of the Bill, to which I shall revert in a moment, the Bill as a whole has been generated entirely inside the government machine. It began with the Green Papers in January, for which about two months were allowed for consultation. The consultation, completed by the beginning of May, was followed by a White Paper, I think in July. Both Houses of Parliament were denied the possibility of debate on the White Paper. Now we are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill of these

151
proportions dealing with this important subject which was printed, I think, on 6th December. It is now 19th December. This is no way to carry out serious law reform.
I must start by saying that almost every principle of the methodology which law reform ought to attract or which ought to be followed in law reform has been disregarded by the Government in relation to the Bill. I find it distinctly paradoxical that a government of which I am an ardent if critical supporter, devoted largely to the privatisation of industry, should publish a document of this kind. The effect of the document, as I shall try to show, is the nationalisation of the legal profession and part of the judiciary.
I pass rapidly to Part I of the Bill which is separate from the rest because it is largely designed to carry out the part of the report of the judicial review body —the Civil Justice Review —which dealt with the interface between the High Court and the county court. I must say that I am wholeheartedly behind that as an objective; I wish it had been done years ago. However, I can only underline the words that have just fallen from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice about the state of the county courts. The essence of the change is to transfer to the county court a very large proportion of cases which would otherwise fall to the jurisdiction of the High Court.
To my mind, the state of affairs in the county court at the moment is exactly as described by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. I need not repeat what he said. I only add one circumstance which I think is the crux of the whole matter. The great defect of the county courts, in the course of my own rather long-past experience, was their inability to guarantee continuous hearings. I hope that the House will forgive me if I explain what is meant by "continuous hearings". That is to say, if a case is not finished on Monday afternoon it will continue on Tuesday morning. I do not wish to spend my time in anecdotes, but I can remember a situation in which an admirable county court judge failed to finish a case in which I was engaged in 1948. He could not sit on it again until three months later.
We might think that that was a thing of the past. After all, in 1948 we were dealing with the aftermath of the war. But if the present situation is anything like it was two and half years ago, it is this: out of about 280 county courts, 30 could offer the prospect of continuous hearings. But that was before the additions to the burden of work which have already taken place, as my noble and learned friend has said, and without taking into account the additional burden which will be placed upon it in the present state of the infrastructure if Part I of the Bill is put into effect. I do not know how long that will take, but if it were put into effect tomorrow the result would be a total shambles. I think it will be a matter of years rather than months before it is in place. My own view, for what it is worth, is that Part I of the Bill should have formed a separate Bill altogether and should not have been contained in this omnium gatherum piece of legislation. I believe it should have
152
taken a form in which primary legislation played a greater part. This is basically an enabling Bill which, in the nature of things, will require largely secondary legislation and regulation to bring its provisions into effect at all.
I turn from that to Part II of the Bill because it is here that I feel the greatest anxieties. The speech of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack revealed admirable ideals and objectives. They are, I suppose, identical with my own. The public interest, by which I mean in this case the proper administration of justice, must come first. However, if that is so, as more than one speaker has pointed out something has gone wrong with the draftsmanship of the Bill. The draftsmanship of Part II of the Bill is governed by Clause 14. Clause 14 is governed by what is called the statutory or general objective. In Clause 14(1) that objective is defined as:
"the development of legal services in England and Wales (and in particular the development of advocacy, litigation, conveyancing and probate services) by making provision for new ways of providing such services and a wider choice of persons providing them".
There is not a word there about the public interest, nor about the proper administration of justice. In fact there is not even a reference to the improvement of the administration of justice or to improved ways of administering. The clause mentions "new ways". Therefore, provided that they are new, the statutory objective is observed.
However, if they are only improved ways but not new, or if they maintain the standards which we have already achieved, the statutory objective is not observed. But, observe this, when one comes to the advisory committee and to the functions of the designated judges, as the Heads of Division are politely called, one notices at once that they have to observe the statutory objective in preference to any other consideration. They are bound to further it under the terms of Schedule 4 and they are forbidden to do anything against it.
It must be pointed out that whereas the advisory committee, which is appointed entirely by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor —I shall discuss the composition of that committee in a moment —has a complete immunity from being sued for the mistaken use of any of its powers, the four designated judges are liable to suit. They are liable to suit by way of judicial review and one of the remedies which can be obtained against them is a remedy by way of damages if they misuse the powers under Clause 14. Moreover, that is somewhat paradoxical in view of the fact that magistrates under a later clause are to be given complete immunity under the changes proposed by the Bill. That must be wrong.
The advisory committee has so many duties to perform that I wonder whether such committees will be any easier to recruit than the court clerks referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice a moment or two ago. Membership of the committee seems to me to constitute nearly a full-time job. As far as I can see, there is ony one judge of any kind on this committee. Certainly no circuit judge can be a member of the committee. The judge may be a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary and

153
he may be a judge of the Supreme Court, but there cannot be both. In the meantime there are two barristers, both of whom are appointed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Bar Council, whatever that may mean, and two similar solicitors. The relevant part of the Bill carefully ensures that they may be totally employed, that is to say not practising in the ordinary sense but totally employed for salaries by large corporations. It further appears that a majority of the committee will consist of laymen.
I have no objection to laymen. When I appointed the members of the Civil Justice Review I appointed a majority of laymen to the concern of some people. I appointed a layman in the chair. However, they were to constitute a consumers' advisory council to advise on the working of the courts and whether the consumer was getting satisfaction. The people on the advisory committee constitute quite a different kind of body. These people will advise on legal education, qualifications and on the ethical standards of advocates and of professional bodies. I should say in passing that there has been a certain amount of dispute between the barristers' profession and the solicitors' profession. I have been sorry to observe that dispute. I have been a member of one of those professions and I have profound respect for the other. However, the real object of Clause 14 is to make sure that neither of those professions has a monopoly of legal practice.
The real object of the statutory objective is that various other persons, some of whom were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in his speech on the Green Paper, should have the right of audience in the courts independently of barristers and solicitors. There we have to my mind the point to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice adverted. One cannot play the role of advocacy by different sets of rules. One must have a single set of rules applicable to any professional advocate appearing before the same tribunal. That is absolutely vital. However, that will be impossible if Clause 14 remains unaltered.
I have to observe now, coming back to the four designated judges who are the Heads of Division and the most respected judges in the whole business apart from the Law Lords that they —one of them is a Law Lord —are not only to be subject to suit, possibly for damages, but if they choose to exercise their veto the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his infinite wisdom will be able to publish the name of the judge who has differed and publish the reasons he has for differing. Incidentally, we do not know who the Lord Chancellor will be as we do not know how long this legislation will remain in force if it becomes an Act. If that is not inconsistent with judicial independence, I could almost say that noble Lords may call me a Dutchman.
However, I am seriously concerned about ethical standards and the administration of justice. I say little about what I still call the contingency fee, or the principle of no win, no pay. I believe that is inherently corrupting and it is inconsistent with the duty of the advocate to the court, with the duty of
154
the advocate to his opponent and with the duty of the advocate to his client.
Let us suppose that one is operating on what I gather are the enforceable terms of no win, no pay and it becomes apparent that one should settle the case early on; even if that can be called a win one will receive very little. I am not sure what win means, especially if one is a defendant and has to pay something out on account. At any rate the temptation may be to prolong the costs until the same result is obtained two years later. I cannot see that the contingency fee in the form in which it is proposed is anything but a corrupting influence on the ethics of advocacy.
I am not in the least mollified by the thought that in theory the principle exists in Scotland, because the Scots, the wily birds, have voted with their feet. I understand that in Scotland only 1 per cent. of cases are conducted on that basis. I must warn the House again that this particular device, although it may assist the problem as regards legal aid for plaintiffs —to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred and to which I shall make no further reference —may be death and destruction to defendants.
How often have we had to say to a well-heeled defendant, say a newspaper or an insurance company dealing with an ordinary running down case, when faced with frivolous, vexatious or even blackmailing litigation from an impecunious plaintiff, "if you pay this man £500 to go away you will be better off than if you fight it out and win at the end of the day"? I wish newspapers which favour the proposals would realise that they will receive the brunt. No action for defamation can be brought under the legal aid proposals; therefore they are bound to be showered with writs for defamation by impecunious plaintiffs acting in a no win, no pay basis. I hope that they will reflect upon that before they accuse lawyers —to use an absurd combination of metaphors —of being a group of fat cats seeking to feather their own nests.
I have already spoken for too long, but I hope that I have conveyed to the House that this is not a particularly happy day for me. However, I have no particular interest, so far as I know, to serve. I am an old man who has run his course and who has nothing further to hope for in this world. I hope that I may receive favourable treatment in the next.
5.22 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I am very honoured to be placed in the list of speakers following the noble and learned Lord and before a maiden speaker. That will enable other speakers on the Bill to leave the Chamber and get some tea, which I see they are proceeding to do.
I had not realised how much I should feel that it was necessary to support the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor against members of his own profession. During the debate on the White Paper I said that I had never seen so many professional people spring to the defence of their profession as on that day. I have done a little work and I find that of the 36 speakers today, 28 are trained in one branch of the law or another.

155
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, made me feel very humble. However, as an upstart magistrate perhaps I may intrude in the discussion on the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord realises that his approach is precisely the one that we lay people do not respect in a magistrate or a judge. He referred, in a very superior way, to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, pointing out that he was not experienced in one branch of the law. He referred to my noble friend Lord Mishcon —who made a superb speech —as "a much loved solicitor", with the emphasis on "solicitor". We knew exactly what that meant.
The noble Lord also referred to "these designated judges" who did not have a capital letter. It seems to me as a teacher of English that it is reasonable in a Bill not to use a capital letter when referring to a group of people. However, in the case of the Director General of Fair Trading there is only one of him, or of the Lord Chancellor, and it is reasonable to use a capital letter. It seems to me that the construction is quite correct.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that I greatly resented the way in which my profession, the teaching profession, was referred to in a particular Act —"a licensed teacher" small "1", small "t". There was a reference to the "pool", and I had visions of saying "I am come from the pit to solve all your difficulties in school". We all have to submit to the normal rules of description in Acts of Parliament.
There is one image that comes across to me every time. Perhaps the remainder of the debate will dispel that image. The judges I know convey a sense of arrogance. It may be unconscious. They give the impression of having a monopoly of words of wisdom, which they dispense to us very kindly, and that the rest of us are very lucky to have the opportunity to hear them. As I say, in this debate since there are 28 lawyers among 36 speakers I can safely leave the matter to them.
I welcome the Bill. I speak as a layman. I am very interested in all the briefing material that I have received, including some opposing the Bill. It seems to me that most of those who sent me material were happy with the Bill. They may have suggested minor amendments. We all know that the Bill will not be the answer to every problem that we have encountered in the courts but at least it represents a dent in the armour. Some of the measures which are proposed are a step forward.
I am constantly confronted by friends and other people who write to me who say that they have a genuine claim in civil law —and when one looks into it they have. They say, wearily, that they are apparently "too rich" to qualify for legal aid and too poor to engage a barrister. I shall not weary your Lordships with my own case. I have a claim against an insurance company, of which I notice the directors are all Members of this House. I hope that that will enable me to obtain justice. A barrister friend said that I had a good case and that he would take it before the High Court for me. I had to say to him, "I am not in the business of making your profession rich". I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord does not want the profession to be
156
called "fat cats", but I can only say that it seems pretty expensive to talk to anyone in the law. To walk down the street with them or even to say goodnight, seems to cost £100. They are even worse than accountants, and that is saying something.
The Bill will not change the situation as regards legal aid but it will at least give an indication that we can move on and make justice available for every citizen who wants to take advantage of it. That is what the Bill is all about so far as I am concerned.
The raising of the limit for small claims courts has already been indicated by the Government. It must be increased speedily, to a reasonable figure in today's cash terms. After all, many consumer disputes do not come below the £500 limit. If you are talking about a car, or almost any item which you can now buy in a shop, I should have said that you were talking as a minimum of the order of £2,000.
In this House we are always hearing the phrase "in real terms". I have never discovered just what that means. If people ask for more money the Government will say that, "in real terms we have already given more", "in real terms we are giving more to the National Health Service". That is why the hospitals remain empty. The same applies to the courts, which do not have the necessary staff, but in "real terms" we are all getting much more money. Therefore, perhaps I may say, let us ask for a reasonable figure in "real terms" for small claims courts.
I am delighted to see the establishment of the office of the legal services ombudsman. Law practitioners have for too long tried to dazzle and impress their clients by their importance when there has been a complaint about their advice. All professionals used to take that attitude. No one dared to challenge a doctor. People thought that he was so learned that he must know what he was doing. When a person died because of his mistake, that was quickly buried, so there was no problem. Teachers were never challenged. Surveyors were never challenged. However, we now live at a time when consumers want to know whether they are getting value for money. Even the right reverend Prelates the Bishops are challenged; if they were women they would be challenged even more. This profession is no different from any other. It is expected to give value for money.
I am delighted to see the widening of the choice of conveyancing services. Anyone who has gone through the trauma of trying to buy a house is absolutely mystified by the number of professionals whom one must consult and pay. One starts with estate agents, and they want some beating. They collect for doing nothing at all. It is quite fascinating. They say that they sell the house, but what do they do? They put up an objectionable board and perhaps introduce one or two people, but they collect a substantial amount of money. There are then the conveyance and mortgage providers, and so on. I shall not go on; there are so many of them. The provisions of Clauses 31 to 42 should provide the means for a one-stop exercise which the consumer has requested for a long time.

157
What about Clause 47? I ask quite seriously —I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken will agree with me on this point —why should a client not be able to obtain redress for an act performed by a solicitor when the procedure works the other way? A barrister may sue a client if he does not pay, and would sue him. I cannot see why a client should not be able to sue if he does not obtain value for money and the service provided is not good. It does not seem unreasonable to me, but I do not want to be accused of putting everything on a vulgar, monetary basis. I merely point that out as so many people now have to use the services of the law.
I want to see far more cases dealt with in the seemingly less remote county courts rather than in the more formal High Courts. But I want to underline what has already been said much more eloquently than I could say it; namely, that county courts must be given the proper resources to do the job. My noble friend Lord Mishcon described the state of the county courts. I remind noble Lords that access to the courts does not necessarily mean that there will be greater resources for legal aid, which will be needed if the provisions are to work properly.
Before I conclude, I must apologise that I cannot stay until the end of the debate. I have twice withdrawn my name from debates, which I do not like doing, but I felt that this was so important a matter that I had to say my piece. I have to conduct a carol service —good will to all men, which will include judges and barristers.
The opening words of the White Paper which led to the Bill were:
"The legal profession exists for the benefit of its clients, and for the proper administration of justice".
Perhaps I may add the following words: "The immunity of advocates from liability for their negligence exists for the benefit of the legal profession and results in a denial of justice to their clients".
5.34 p.m.
Lord Byron: My Lords, it is with extreme diffidence and a deep sense of privilege that I rise to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time. My sense of privilege can only be increased by the knowledge that it is 79 years since any member of my family addressed your Lordships and by the fact that I speak today before so many eminent members of the legal profession.
I am also conscious that I have chosen to make my maiden speech on a subject in which the requirement not to be controversial does not lie easily with the matters before your Lordships. If I should fail in my obligations in that respect, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.
The reason that I seek noble Lords' indulgence today is that I feel I have some small contribution to make to the debate, albeit from a much more humble perspective than the majority of your Lordships. I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips; I too was legally trained. I spent 15 years pursuing a career in the law —three years at the Bar in the chambers of the noble and learned
158
Lord, Lord Rawlinson, and 12 years in a City firm dealing with commercial and shipping matters. I have therefore seen the conduct of litigation not only from both sides of the professional divide but from the perspective of very different types of work.
I should say at once that, as a major user of the services of the Bar, I and I believe the rest of my colleagues in the City enjoy an extremely good relationship with the Bar. The fact that the Bar is almost invariably used for the conduct of commercial arbitrations must say something about the services offered by that branch of the profession. I am also well aware from the days of my practice of the vital function that the Bar performs for many smaller firms of solicitors and at very competitive rates.
However, I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I say that the Bar has perhaps clung just a little too long to some of its more arcane practices. I am glad to say that much has changed in recent years, although doubtless there is stall room for improvement. I have no doubt that there is room for improvement in the way that both branches of the profession conduct their affairs, without necessarily going in for the rather extreme measures which Dick the Butcher recommended to Jack Cade.
There are a number of provisions in the Bill which are not controversial and are very much to be welcomed. I respectfully endorse the proposal for a legal services ombudsman. I would single out one other provision which affects my practice; namely, Clause 70, which amends the 1950 Arbitration Act to allow arbitrations to be struck out for want of prosecution.
It has long been an anomaly that arbitrations, once started, can be left to linger on for years and sometimes even decades without any effective remedy for the dilatory claimant. Even now I can sense a slight stirring in the City where very old files are being dusted down in contemplation of that amendment. It is much to be welcomed, although I should put in a quiet plea that one day we may have an entirely new arbitration Act to bring together those various amendments.
There is also in the Bill much that has proved controversial. On any view, the Bill must be regarded as radical. I shall say nothing about conveyancing because I know nothing about conveyancing, although I believe that there are things to be said. As for the conduct of litigation and rights of audience, I shall offer certain observations which I hope will not be regarded as controversial but which I believe may have some relevance when the matters are considered further hereafter.
My first observation is that the Bill goes far beyond simply giving solicitors rights of audience in the higher courts. The provisions of Clauses 24 and 25 will allow other authorised bodies to grant those rights and the right to conduct litigation if they meet certain requirements. I confess that I find it extremely difficult to know how that will work in practice and what the qualifications will be. But I feel a certain sense of unease at the idea that the services of a lawyer can be chopped up into watertight compartments, and that it may be possible

159
to become a licensed litigator without a full understanding of all branches of the law.
It may be that it is a unique characteristic of this country that the division between barristers and solicitors is kept alive, but I cannot say that I know of any country where the practice of law is carried on by those who are not lawyers.
My second observation is that much has been written and spoken about the importance of the independence and integrity of the Bar, and no one doubts the importance of this. But I venture to suggest that the independence and integrity of the solicitor's profession is of even greater importance because it is in performing that role that the scope for abuse is so much greater. It is not easy to explain to a foreign client who is litigating in this country and is not familiar with the procedures here that he is obliged to disclose to his opponents a document which will almost certainly ruin his case. But if the conduct of civil litigation is to be properly carried out, that is the advice which a solicitor has to give. Moreover he has to feel confident that others will do likewise.
Finally, the provision of legal services and the administration of the law will never be cheap. That is not to say that we must not continue to strive to improve procedures that will speed up the resolution of disputes and keep costs to a minimum. I respectfully endorse all the procedural amendments in the Bill which seek to do that.
I cannot say whether the implementation of the statutory objective in Clause 14 will help to achieve that aim or not but I am sure that if the practice of law is to be undertaken with the degree of integrity, skill and professionalism which the people of this country are entitled to expect and which the administration of law requires, at the end of the day those services will only be available to all who need them if ways are found to provide adequate funding in all areas. I believe that we delude ourselves if we think that by means of simply changing the structure of the profession we can make the law available to all those who need it.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Byron, on his maiden speech. I do so with very much warmth and pleasure. I congratulate him particularly on offering us such an even-handed approach on topics which are not free from a measure of disagreement in your Lordships' House. I should also like to express the hope that he will speak more frequently than has been the family average during the course of this century.
I start with an area in which I too seek a measure of agreement. The principal complaints about the delivery of legal services rightly focus on the delay and the cost of going to law. This Bill should be judged not by the language of consumerism but by the hard practicality of asking the question: what contribution does it make to meeting these concerns? Does it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, impliedly asked, further access to justice?
The proposal to transfer many cases to the county courts, if effectively implemented, could
160
undoubtedly do much to make the law easier of access. Whether in practice it will do so will depend on the extent to which the Government commit the resources, including—I particularly emphasise this —extra administrative skills, to improve the efficiency of the county courts. I believe there is general recognition that the present position, even with the existing workload, is wholly unsatisfactory. I am glad to say that the Government clearly recognise that there is much to be done but I suspect that it will call for far more in terms of financial and human resources than they are budgeting for at present. However, if wholehearted action is not taken there will be far more in the way of disillusioned litigants than we have at present.
We all know that access to justice depends not just on the grant of legal rights. Such rights have little meaning unless they can be enforced. Hence there is the whole great concept of legal aid. In their recent White Paper the Government stated:
"The Legal Aid Scheme ensures that legal services are available to those of small or moderate means".
I believe that that is a high ambition. I believe also that it is a partial truth. There are important tribunals where no legal aid is available. Eligibility for legal aid has diminished dramatically in the past decade. In any event, the costs of litigation of any substance under our sometimes cumbersome procedures are simply unaffordable by many of those who have never qualified for legal aid.
We are told that the Government's review of legal aid will not be complete for some little time. In my view that is too measured a pace. I believe that that is a much more important priority in terms of access to justice than restructuring the legal profession. As I see it, that restructuring will not enhance access to law. In the past that has depended on two central pillars: the high street solicitor and the independent Bar. This Bill creates risks to both those pillars without compensating advantages. High street solicitors are threatened by the proposal that banks and building societies should carry out conveyancing.
I shall disclose an interest. I am the new chairman of the National Westminster Bank. My institution and other institutions theoretically stand to gain from this new source of work. But for all that, I personally as a lawyer am deeply sceptical of the proposals. I think that it will not be easy to deal with the issue of conflict of interest. Can lawyers employed by lending institutions act independently and, as the White Paper says, owe their first duty to the purchaser? How real a possibility is that?
In any event, conveyancing services between solicitors at present are highly competitive. Clear warning has been given that, if enacted, this proposal could damage the practice of high street solicitors. If that happens it will diminish the availability of legal services in the area of the greatest need.
What about the second pillar of access to justice —the independent Bar —which is available at present to all high street solicitors, so that the services of litigators are not just restricted to the large firms? The consultation process in which the Government so thoroughly engaged this summer

161
made it clear that there was an overwhelming belief that the independent Bar was vital to our legal system. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the Government attach great importance to the continued existence of a vigorous and independent Bar. However, I and I think many others consider that the proposals on rights of audience as at present drafted carry a real risk to the future of the Bar.
The general objective of the Bill focuses prominently on what is described as wider choice. As at present set out, it does not focus with equal emphasis on the importance of maintaining the safeguards that secure the full interests of justice. It may be that that is an error. The Government have often said that their objectives are not only to improve access but also to safeguard our system of justice. I hope that the objectives of the Bill can be rephrased to make that absolutely plain. I hope that they can be rephrased so that those concerned with the evolution of the profession —and I accept that there must be evolution —can take account of the declared concern to maintain a strong and independent Bar.
Indeed, this afternoon I thought that we had a ray of hope in that direction from the noble and learned Lord. He spoke of the fact that the rules of conduct which could be considered by the advisory committee and the judges would include rules of practice. I interpreted that, I hope rightly, as meaning that the rules of conduct would not simply be limited to conduct in court but would cover the general practices that govern the profession. I welcome that declaration and I hope that for the avoidance of doubt and so that we may go forward without controversy that can be written into the legislation.
I conclude with a word of unease about the role allotted to the judges. In the summer the judges responded fully and clearly to the Government's consultation papers. Based on their experience, which I as a recently retired practitioner of 28 years' standing ask the House to accept is genuinely concerned with the administration of justice, it was their belief that the most difficult cases needed to be conducted by a sole practitioner, unshackled by financial and administrative responsibility to partners, who dedicated himself to the presentation of his cases leaving the preparation to his solicitor. It is these characteristics, together with the important principle that barristers accept instructions from all, that have been the cornerstone of the strength of the services given by the Bar.
To the disappointment of many of us, the Government have never responded clearly one way or another to the response of the judges. Yet under the new structure the judges are to be allotted a role with others in deciding what are the appropriate disciplines to be accepted by an advocate practising in the higher courts. Some have expressed fears, I hope unfounded, that that will give judges a complete veto. Others have expressed the opposite fear —I hope one that is also unfounded —that the judges are being put in a straitjacket with the threat of judicial review if they seek to escape its confines. All, I believe, would agree that the judges must play a part in this process. It is, after all, they who have
162
to administer the courts. It is they who have to ensure the proper administration of justice in practice. But, when given this role, are they to be free to give effect to the views for which they currently stand, and have so clearly expressed; or are they to be precluded from applying the principles in which they believe, if they continue to believe in them?
This year has been an immensely sad one for those who care about the administration of justice and believe that there is much to be done to improve our law, and that there is much that the Government, the judiciary and the profession need to do together to improve our substantive law and procedure. The division, bitterness and distrust created during the conflict over the structure of the profession need to be ended if we are to tackle the real problems that affect access to justice. I respectfully suggest that it would greatly help if my noble and learned friend would tell us this when he replies. Do the Government accept that the interests of justice require an independent Bar? Should the legislation ensure the freedom of the judges to enforce the rules of practice that they consider right?
These are vital issues. I believe that if my noble and learned friend gives us a clear answer he will do much to lance the dissent and concerns of this year and enable us all to approach the Bill as we would wish to do: in a positive spirit.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Byron. The legally qualified consumer of legal services is a relatively rare animal, if one excludes conveyancing —upon which every sensible barrister and judge rushes at once to a solicitor for advice. However, leaving that aside, anybody who is legally qualified who has my noble friend's experience of using legal services will inevitably be able to make a great contribution in the later stages of the Bill, and indeed generally.
In April the House debated the Government's Green Paper containing their then proposals for the reform of the legal profession. Fears were expressed on every side that those proposals threatened the independence of the profession; and not only of the profession but of the administration of justice itself. Happily the Government took note of those expressions of view.
The Green Paper was followed in July by the White Paper, which adopted a wholly different approach. Under the revised proposals both branches of the legal profession, the four senior judges, and the Lord Chancellor, were to work together to achieve certain statutory objectives. In so doing they were to be assisted by an independent advisory committee. I thought, and I said, that this approach was wholly admirable. I welcomed it publicly. I welcomed it then and I welcome it now. As I understand it, it has two outstanding merits. First, it preserves the independence of the legal profession from the government of the day. That is absolutely essential to the administration of justice as we know it. At the same time it takes account of the legitimate interest of government in the work of the courts, which is after all a public service. Secondly, it recognises that

163
decidng who does what is only simple for those who have a vested interest or lack knowledge of what is involved. If one puts vested interests on one side and considers it only from the point of view of the public interest one is at once faced with problems. Perhaps I may mention a few.
How does one make legal services readily available and yet achieve essential levels of skill? How does one avoid pricing people out of justice? How does one combine speed with quality in the administration of justice? How does one ensure that justice triumphs over the client's wish to win? How does one create and maintain peer pressure for the maintenance of standards, for, as the judges pointed out, professional probity is not achieved by promulgation?
These questions give rise to other questions concerning the structure and general practices of the legal profession which will be in the minds of all noble Lords. I have been professionally involved in the law for some 43 years, 23 of them as a judge. I frankly confess that I do not know the answers. Compromises will assuredly have to be made but they must be based upon the fullest possible information, and they must result from rational discussion. As I understood it, that is what the White Paper set out to achieve.
What troubles me about the Bill, and it troubles me greatly, is that it wholly omits the most important of the White Paper statutory objectives. It reproduces the White Paper objective of ensuring competence in those who provide legal services. Your Lordships will find that in Clause 14(3)(a). It reproduces the White Paper objective of maintaining appropriate standards of conduct in advocacy and the conduct of litigation. That appears in Clause 14(3)(b) and is also reflected in the definition of rules of conduct that appear in Clauses 24(7) and 25(4).
As the White Paper intended, in Clauses 14 and 15 the Bill also calls for a wider choice of providers of legal services and requires that expansion to be achieved at the earliest possible moment. But nowhere in the Bill do we find any trace of the White Paper's remaining statutory objective. That called for the removal of all obstacles to access to justice, of all restrictions upon the client's choice of how he would obtain legal services, and of all restrictions upon what qualified providers might do, other than such restrictions as are necessary in the interests of justice. Where, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, has that principle gone? It was the key objective of the White Paper. It set both the target to be achieved and the essential qualification. Without it, I have to say that in my judgment that part of the Bill is fatally flawed.
I had hoped, and I still hope, that this omission reflects the speed with which the Bill was drafted rather than a change of policy. The Bill is about the achievement of justice for ordinary citizens. That being so, the interests of justice must not only be paramount but must be seen to be so.
There is one other omission from the Bill which is important. Paragraph 8·5 of the White Paper
164
contemplated that whatever the formal position, the Lord Chancellor, the designated judges and the advisory committee would be involved in the early stages of the preparation by the professional bodies of the drafts of rules governing advocacy and the conduct of litigation. All that we now have is a choreographed quadrille in Schedule 4. The professional body drafts qualifications and rules of conduct and then applies to the Lord Chancellor for approval. The Lord Chancellor asks the Director General of Fair Trading and the advisory committee to advise. Later, having digested that advice, the Lord Chancellor decides whether to approve. Then, and only then, do the designated judges join the dance. For my part —and I do not care whether I have capital letters or not —I do not wish to be a wallflower. I do not believe that that is an appropriate place for any of the designated judges.
During the seven years in which I have held the office of Master of the Rolls I have been required by the Solicitors Act to perform similar duties to those of a designated judge under the Bill in relation to all that branch's professional rules. There has been only one occasion upon which I found it necessary to refuse my concurrence. It would never have happened but for a failure to involve me in the preliminary discussions.
Ever since then there has been the fullest consultation at the earliest stages. A large number of new rules has been made by the Law Society during the past seven years. In the course of their drafting, the Council of the Law Society has been open to persuasion by me, and, equally, I have been open to persuasion by it. No question of any veto has arisen. In the light of that amicable and productive co-operation, I must say that I was saddened and surprised to read in the Law Society's briefing paper for this debate that my statement to the Bar conference that,
"The interests of justice may demand special requirements as, for example, that the preparation and presentation of the case be in separate and independent hands",
was no more than a transparent bid to retain the barristers' monopoly by other means. I regard that comment as being wholly unworthy of that branch of the profession. I am even more saddened that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, should have adopted it so uncritically during the course of the debate.
Be that as it may, the interests of justice may or may not require such a separation in some cases. I never said that it did in all cases. I shall go further and say that it is not required in all cases at the present time and it certainly will not be required in all cases in the future. Whether it will be required at all, and if so in what cases, is one of the matters that all concerned ought to be free to consider. For my part, I do not regard the answer as being self-evident one way or the other.
What is self-evident, and should not need to be said, is that none of the designated judges would hold their present offices if they did not have a proven track record of willingness, ability and experience in conscientiously giving effect to the expressed intentions of Parliament, whether or not they personally agreed with those intentions.

165
At various times during the debate I felt my flesh beginning to creep —or noble Lords trying to get my flesh to creep —at the prospect of what would happen if, as a designated judge, I did not concur in the Lord Chancellor's decision. I gather that the Lord Chancellor would name me and call upon me to publish the reasons for my decision. I hate to disappoint my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He will have no opportunity to do so. If I do not concur I shall make that fact public and I shall long since have published my reasons. That is precisely what I did on the only occasion on which I disagreed with the Law Society.
I am then told that I shall be judicially reviewed. I confess that that does not worry me one little bit. When I refused to concur in the Law Society's proposals it went to very expensive counsel for advice. I could have saved it the money. It asked him whether I could be judicially reviewed and the answer was yes. I knew that the answer was yes. In my defence, I must add that it asked him another question on which I should not have felt free to advise. It asked him whether I was right and he said that I was.
Lastly, I am told that I must be very careful because I may find myself being sued for damages for breach of statutory duty. I have not looked it up but I have an idea that some breaches of statutory duty can give rise to mandatory orders but do not give rise to claims on private individuals, or even bodies, for damages. I fancy that this case may come into that category. But if it does not I shall send the bill, via the Treasury solicitor, to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
In conclusion, I am in total and complete agreement with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in saying that the key to success of the very welcome reforms proposed in Part I of the Bill is the provision of adequate resources. From what I see of the way in which the courts are now being run, I am bound to say that I doubt whether the Government have yet contemplated additional resources on the scale which will be necessary to make a success of the reforms proposed in that part of the Bill. I hope that they will be a success. I hope that they will take effect at the earliest possible moment. However, it would be fatal to do anything about them until adequate resources are available.
I also support the plea made by my noble and learned friend Lord Lane for an overall disciplinary body for all advocates from whatever professional origin. I should go further and say that, in the context of litigation, I should like to see even now under the present organisation a single professional body for both solicitors and barristers. Every Wednesday morning I have what is officially known as a dismissal list in the Court of Appeal. Sometimes it is called an execution list. Either way, those who have failed to comply with the rules appear before the court. It is sad to find that there are occasions on which a barrister may indicate in the politest possible terms that perhaps the fault lies with the solicitor; and the solicitor may indicate one way or another that perhaps the fault lies with the barrister. We know very well that in the rare case in which we cannot resolve the matter and refer it to the two
166
respective bodies there will be a real risk that on the evidence before it —and probably it will be only partial evidence in each case—each body will decide that the professional member of the other body was to blame. That should be avoided.
Where two people are involved in a single process—whether as advocate or a conductor of litigation —and something goes wrong which requires investigation, it should be investigated by a single body. It is not an answer to say that that body is the court. Often the courts are not in a position to investigate because they cannot ask what instructions the client gave. It is also for those reasons that I support the remarks of my noble and learned friend. However, it is most important to be clear that the Bill incorporates the third statutory objective in the White Paper.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, I wish to mention that whether we have achieved the idea may be open to question, but it was that part of the objective as described in the White Paper now contained in Clause 14(3)(a) and (b) as the general principle. In Clause 15(2) we have provided that the general principle is to prevail. In other words, the statutory objective is subject to the general principle and therefore the idea of what is,
"appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice in relation to the court or proceedings concerned",
is to take precedence over the statutory objective. In order to make sure that that is the order of priorities we have used that method of expression.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, I am obliged. I had appreciated that the guiding principle took priority over the statutory objective. The statutory objective has a different meaning in this Bill from that contained in the White Paper.
Perhaps this is not the moment to debate a drafting point but the cause of concern to myself and many others is that in Clause 14(3)(b) the reference to standards of conduct is in relation to what is,
"appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice in relation to the court or proceedings concerned".
Those are very confining words.
At a quarter to one this afternoon I had delivered on to my table some 250 pages of Notes on Clauses, for which I am deeply grateful. However, I was unable to digest all of them. A very brief look at those Notes on Clauses in relation to Clause 14 suggested to me that my construction was correct and that that referred to conduct in court and standards of conduct in court rather than the much wider organisation of the profession. There will be time to put that right and I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, will not expect me to follow him on that last point. I join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Byron, on his maiden speech. As has

167
been said, it was so well balanced and so wise that I am sure we all look forward to the noble Lord participating with that wisdom at a later stage of this Bill.
I am a solicitor but have not practised for over 20 years and have no intention of practising again in the future. I am also a past chairman of a bank and if either of those are interests which I should declare, then I declare them.
I wish to confine myself to three points on this Bill. The first point is as regards rights of audience. I support the thrust of the Bill on that. I believe that qualifications for rights of audience should depend on the ability of the advocate to serve the cause of justice and his client most effectively. Although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is not in his place, I was rather concerned that he was implying that solicitors were adopting somewhat lower standards than members of the Bar. I hope that that is not what he meant. I believe that the factor which we must bear in mind is that there are 10 times as many solicitors as there are members of the Bar. Therefore, we are just as likely to find 10 incompetent solicitors for every incompetent barrister. That may explain some sort of imbalance in the views which the noble Lord expressed.
However, I endorse what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was saying with regard to both branches of the profession, that the same rules and disciplinary procedures should apply. I accept that from whichever branch of the profession a person who has rights of audience comes, he should be guided by the same rules and be subject to similar disciplinary procedures in order that there is a standardisation.
I had hoped that the point about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, was concerned on the criticisms of the Law Society and of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would be clarified in the noble and learned Lord's speech. However, I still remain somewhat uncertain as to where he stands on that point. Of course I shall read with care what he said but I do not understand his objection that the same solicitor should not prepare and present a case or that he should be, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, the only lawyer in the whole country with a right of audience who cannot present that case, although he is the only one who really knows all about it. That seems to me very strange. I find it even more strange when there is no inhibition on the preparation and presentation in the county court. If it is all right there, why should it not be all right, given the standards which the advocate has to achieve, in the Crown Court? I do not accept that there should be, could be or can be two standards of justice —one for the Crown Court and one for the county court.
I understand the concerns which are often expressed that the lawyer preparing a case may become too involved. However, I feel that any lawyer worth his salt must recognise the point at which he should advise his client to take independent advice and to have the benefit of that. That is one reason that I feel very strongly that we must preserve an independent Bar. I believe that a strong and
168
independent Bar is essential and I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Byron, and my noble friend Lord Alexander said on that. If the Bill does not give adequate protection to that independent Bar, then I shall be happy to support amendments tabled to achieve that.
I now turn from advocacy and rights of audience to conveyancing. I understand the superficial attraction to which the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, referred of the one-stop shop that one can visit when buying a house. This matter was considered in 1985 and was ultimately rejected by the Government —and I believe rightly so. The purchase or sale of property is often the most important financial transaction entered into in a lifetime, certainly for a young couple. It is essential that they should have independent advice. I do not believe that that can be given by those whose interests conflict with the interests of the customer. I use the word "customer" advisedly because we are talking here of estate agents and other people to whom the person is a customer. It is not the client relationship that there is with a solicitor or lawyer.
I believe that there are bound to be conflicts when the person offering those conveyancing services is the buyer, seller, lender or agent of one of those. I was somewhat surprised that the Law Society has not been more vehement in its opposition to these proposals. I believe that they are directly contrary to the trend of consumer protection.
I have an illustration, which is of course under current legislation, but which illustrates the sort of dangers which exist today which I believe could be in many respects exacerbated by the Bill. This was a reply to someone applying for a mortgage from a well known mortgage corporation —and I make it clear that it was not a bank. The letter of offer said that it would not be necessary to instruct a solicitor in connection with the further advance. All the necessary legal work would be dealt with in house. In a further letter it was stated:
"The legal work will be undertaken by the … Corporation to ensure prompt processing of the legal formalities".
That goes to the root of my objection to granting conveyancing rights to people outside the legal profession. It goes on to say that one of the terms of the offer is the requirement to take out additional life insurance cover which its sister company will be pleased to arrange. I know that that is covered by the Bill by tying in provisions and so on. This is a well known organisation. The letter was accompanied in that case by a mortgage deed and charge policy in blank which the customer was asked to sign and return without filling in any of the blanks. It also contained a clause whereby the customer undertook that he had seen, read and understood the terms and conditions applying to that mortgage, which were not enclosed. I believe that that is adopting standards which are quite unacceptable.
I am sure that it will be said that part of the intention of the Bill is to prevent that happening. However, if conveyancing services are extended to bodies outside the legal profession and licensed conveyancers, I wonder whether there is not a grave danger of that sort of operation being performed to the detriment of the consumer.

169
I have only one further point to make. I feel somewhat nervous and hesitant in making it in this company. It is in regard to the judiciary. Obviously the quality of the Bench is the most important part of the whole of our legal system. It is the guardian of our liberties and sets the standards of which the whole community is proud. Nothing in the Bill should, or, I believe, will, lower those standards; if anything, it will improve them.
However, I have one suggestion —that is to inquire whether advocacy is an essential experience in all cases. I wonder whether there may not be cases where the experienced senior partner in a large, respected firm of commercial lawyers might not make a very suitable judge in the commercial court. Some noble Lords may be able to think of other instances like that. In any case, the Bill prevents that. I believe it is a pity that that possibility should be excluded. I am not asking that the Bill should authorise such appointments but I believe that the door should be left open. I am sure that many noble Lords will know people with the sort of experience of which I have spoken who would make admirable judges in specialist courts. They would be very much better than someone who has spent 10 years on his feet at the Old Bailey; but I leave that for consideration at a later stage.
The Bill is one of great importance. I recognise that it cuts across some deeply established traditions, but if the interests of justice are to be safeguarded and possibly improved, that is a price that we should willingly pay. I support the Bill.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, perhaps I may break with convention by adding a fourth set of congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Byron, who has been a friend for many years. Like at least one other noble lord who is to speak, we understand that he crossed from the Bar to the solicitors' branch of the profession. I suspect that the Bar Council missed a trick; it could have scored a very powerful point by establishing what both noble Lords would now charge in their present opulent practices.
This Bill has been welcomed by, among others, the National Consumer Council and the Consumers' Association. It is therefore not right for practitioners to be too negative about it. However lawyers, and the Bar in particular, have now felt under scrutiny and attack for so long that they are inevitably apprehensive when looking at the proposed cumbersome statutory machinery which is to govern the rest of their working lives. They are apprehensive particularly if, like me, they wish to remain an independent advocate on the cab rank.
We can only speculate —as several noble Lords already have —as to how the Bill will work in practice. First, there is the advisory committee. Those more learned than myself have already developed the arguments and no doubt we shall hear more. I share the misgivings. On introducing the debate in your Lordships' House earlier in the year the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor spoke of broad objectives designed to further the interests of justice. I do not see those broad objectives in Clause 14. I still see the dogma of the
170
DTI largely inappropriate to professional bodies. I see no hint of a reference to specialist skills, to the cab rank rule or to independence.
Independence is not some abstract concept. It is everything that my noble friend, Lord Hutchinson, said it was. It provides a barrister with the ability to give unpalatable advice —the sort of thing one would not get from an in-house lawyer or a solicitor if one was an important client whom the solicitor was concerned to cultivate and keep. Anyone listening to this debate so far as it relates to the advisory committee —if the Bill is enacted in its present form —must now realise that it will store confrontations for the future.
Secondly, we must look with concern at the provisions in the first part of the Bill allowing the allocation of more work to the county court. The county courts developed as accessible local courts dealing with small disputes. They still have great merit as such, but being accessible does not necessarily make a court efficient. Indeed, some of your Lordships will have read of the calls for specialist tribunals for things such as housing. That suggests to me that the county courts are not properly meeting their functions. The present anxiety is the ability of the already overloaded county courts to cope with the strain of extra work.
I can only echo the powerful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who have already made my speech in this respect and made it fair better than I could hope to do. All practitioners have horror stories about county court listing. They all involve time wasted for lawyers and money wasted for litigants. In a case in which I was involved a few years ago I was one of four counsel. The county court in that particular town was required to sit in the local town hall. It was at this time of the year. The judge emerged from behind a curtain on the stage, briefly revealing the set for "Puss In Boots". At four o'clock we had about three-quarters of an hour to go to finish the case (it had been properly estimated for one day) and the judge announced that he had to rise as the local ladies' keep fit class had booked the hall. We all had to go away and come back weeks, if not months, later.
That is beyond a joke. It is beyond a joke even more so if the litigation in which one is involved is acutely anxious litigation involving children or family finances. Everything that has been said about continuous hearings being a prerequisite of a transfer of more work to the county courts must be absorbed.
One hears other stories almost every day from solicitors in litigation practice about piles of unanswered correspondence in county court offices and wastage of staff. In one London county court I was told of a 100 per cent. turnover of staff in two years, all that despite the apparent attractions of London Weighting and all before the impact of the Children Act 1989 which, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told us, will be amended by this Bill a few weeks after Royal Assent to that Act.
Paragraph 77 of the Civil Justice Review Report quite crucially stated:

171
"The proposed transfer of business from High Court to county court will depend for its success on the quality of the county court facilities".
In the excellent book entitled Ordinary Justice produced by the National Consumer Council it is firmly said at page 272:
"We do not wish to see the reforms implemented if resources are not available to make them work".
The county courts, as the Government realise, will require more manpower, a higher calibre of staff, more space and, dare I say it, the odd functioning telephone. I should like to see the legal services ombudsman —an excellent innovation in this Bill —have direct power to deal with and to compensate for complaints about court administration. If the resources are not to be made available, the Government should adhere to their principle of choice. It is a fact that the preferred choice of many people is the High Court. If that is to be the choice of the consumer, the Government might wish to respect it, increasing the supply of resources to the High Court, which is, it must be said, more efficient. If necessary that could be achieved in part at least by an increase of court fees.
I mention also in passing that in altering the financial limits of county courts this is perhaps something which should go had in hand with a reappraisal of the damages for personal injuries which have been brought into sharp relief by recent defamation cases.
In leaving Part I of the Bill, I wish to ask a question about Clause 7 because this seems to impose potential restrictions on rights of appeal. Will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor inform us what is envisaged and why these provisions are now to be demoted to secondary legislation?
I conclude by mentioning some offences created by this Bill. Clause 9 creates a quasi-offence of wasting court time by not turning up for your case. There is nothing more infuriating for the advocate who has prepared his case, possibly long into the night, and for the client who has spent good money than for the other side not to turn up. I can tell your Lordships that that happens more often than one might think. Clause 9 allows the court to summon and punish the person who failed to turn up. I only say this: in such a situation priority should be given to compensating the parties who have taken the trouble to turn up. I should like to see written into the Bill that a precondition of a penalty under this clause should be, normally at any rate, an award to the other party of costs on an indemnity basis. Furthermore, the penalty under Clause 9 should rank after any order for costs in priority for payment. There are other people whose cases are unnecessarily held up by such behaviour and they cannot be compensated even by a penalty under this clause. I hope that if Clause 9 is enacted it will be used sparingly because in its very nature it inevitably involves another hearing and the use of more court time.
Finally, I turn, not entirely seriously, to Clause 49, which introduces the offence of impersonating an advocate. We should not favour the creation of unnecessary offences. I ask whether there is really a
172
potential mischief requiring this clause and, if so, why should not Section 16 of the Theft Act suffice? Do the Government believe that legal practice will become so lucrative and attractive as a result of this Bill that bogus barristers will be masquerading in the Strand? What is more, the penalties under Clause 49 include imprisonment, which is surely excessive. I have looked at the comparable provisions in Acts regulating doctors, nurses, health visitors, midwives and the like and they seem to impose a fine only. But surely a bogus doctor or nurse can do far more damage, and/or induce a victim to a state of undress which I have never hoped to achieve in over 15 years at the Bar.
That and more important matters will need to be looked at during the Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, touched on an important point which almost justifies a debate in itself; namely, the difficult question of the immunity of the advocate. I hope that she will not mind my saying that it is perhaps a more difficult subject than she has realised. It is one that I venture to suggest needs a public airing and it may be a subject that should be debated at the Committee stage.
6.32 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byron, gave us the benefit of his experience in the City of London in the light of his training as a barrister. We are very grateful to him for his maiden speech. Perhaps I may be allowed to try to correct three assumptions which are made by lay people; we have heard mention of them today. These assumptions are fundamental to an understanding of the Bill.
The first is that barrister advocates in lower courts charge more than solicitor advocates. That is generally not so. The reason is that Bar fees are based on lower overheads than those of solicitors, who have to cover very high overheads even in cities out of London. The second assumption is that if a solicitor advocate were to appear in the High Court that would be cheaper than having a barrister. Again, that is not a correct assumption because a solicitor will always have to charge an advocate's fee in addition to the fees that his firm will charge for preparing the case. Again, the advocate's fee will be based on high overheads.
Thirdly, I refer to the Bar's monopoly on right of audience in the High Court. I suppose it is broadly accurate to say that there is such a monopoly, but it has to be looked at in the light of the fact that the Bar is a very competitive profession and, generally speaking, it is overmanned. Therefore no individual barrister could possibly be said to have any kind of monopoly of work in the High Court.
I am a keen supporter of the Government but I share the doubts expressed by noble and learned Lords concerning much of the Bill. Perhaps I may briefly be reminiscent and go back to the debate on the Green Papers. I tried then to be conciliatory and said that I did not want my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to be isolated. I believe that he is less isolated today than he was then, but I hope that he will bear in mind the very serious doubts

173
that have been expressed already in the debate and others that may follow.
At the time of the Green Papers I hoped that a consensus would emerge dealing with the problems that undoubtedly exist in our system of justice and which were well described by the dear late Lord Elwyn-Jones, who for years was a close personal friend of mine. He referred to the high cost of litigation, the lack of legal aid for millions who need it, the delays in trying cases and the need to reform procedures still further. The judges have taken a great initiative, in co-operation with both branches of the profession, in improving especially the High Court procedures in the past 20 years. But there is still scope for further improvement.
In that debate I concluded by saying that I would oppose any legislation leading to partnerships at the Bar, multi-disciplinary practices, contingency fees or the increase of government control. I ask your Lordships to bear with me for a few moments in order to consider what effect the Bill will have on each of those matters. Thank goodness that the Bill does not deal with partnershhips between barristers. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said that he wants the Bar to remain independent.
However, Clause 46 enables a barrister to enter into a contract with his client subject to what the Bar Council may have to say. Such a contract could be inconsistent with his independence as a barrister, especially if more than one barrister enters into the same contract with the same client. I therefore suggest that one way of affirming the independence of the Bar in this Bill would be to replace Clause 46 by a new clause affirming that independence.
Fusion is not mentioned in the Bill. It is not intended by the Lord Chancellor to result from the Bill; neither is it likely to happen for years. But when solicitors are given the right of audience in the High Court and the Appeal Court—and we do not object to their having it if certain safeguards are introduced—and when many young solicitors have been trained in advocacy, as is intended and as has already been planned by some of the bigger London firms, those attainments will make their branch of the profession one which, on a large scale, combines services normally provided by solicitors and barristers separately. Eventually—not soon—that will be a big step towards fusion.
In Canada and the United States they are stuck with fusion but they would like to get away from it. Once it is there it is not easy to get away from. We do not want fusion here and so I suggest that the rights of audience of solicitors should be subject to certain safeguards to be written into the Bill. We shall have to consider that matter later.
Multi-disciplinary practices are expressly allowed in Clause 48 of the Bill but both the Law Society and the Bar Council are against them. I hope that your Lordships will unite in preventing that. Thank goodness that contingency fees are not mentioned in the Bill, but, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham pointed out, Clause 44 would legalise conditional fee arrangements in a wide range of cases in England and Wales. As he pointed out, in principle there are objections to that. There is no evidence of
174
public demand for it that I know of. I must say that if it is intended to alleviate the problem of legal aid it is a very poor way of doing it.
As to an increase in government control, I share the misgivings already expressed by noble and learned Lords. There are indeed serious constitutional implications affecting the independence of the judiciary from the executive. For all these reasons I find the Bill disappointing. I am also worried by various uncertainties which result from the way in which it is drafted.
I have such admiration for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that I regret having to express these doubts about the Bill. I do so not merely in the light of long experience at the Bar but because of what I conceive to be the interests of justice to the people of England and Wales.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Benson: My Lords, I should like to speak to that part of the Bill that concerns the legal profession. Like its predecessors, the Green Papers, this Bill is an exercise in the political dogma of competition. It will damage one of our oldest professions, and in turn it will damage the administration of justice. In the future the control of the legal profession will be in the hands of 11 bodies: the Bar Council; the Law Society; the Lord Chancellor's Department; the advisory quango; the designated judges; the Director General of Fair Trading; the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal; the conveyancing quango; the conveyancing appeals tribunals, and two ombudsmen. The number of 11 will increase as each new para-legal body is approved.
It is difficult to believe that any government could devise so ludicrous an over-burden of adminstration. But what is the purpose of this administrative mountain? The sole purpose in the statutory objective in Clause 14 is to permit new bodies of persons, who will not be lawyers, to parade as para-legals and claim skills in advocacy, as litigators, and in conveyancing. There is no mention of the public interest; of the need for independence; of the integrity of justice; or the obligation to service the legal aid scheme. All of these qualities are presently in the legal profession.
The designated judges have been imported into this massive superstructure, but I do not believe that they can be effective as the Bill is drawn. They are not in a position to impose those qualities on the new entrants. Still less are they able to satisfy themselves that those qualities are maintained in the future. If they ever attempted to do that, their efforts would be the subject of political football. Anybody who has ever had contact or knowlege of a profession knows how difficult it is to maintain consistent quality and integrity even in a single body that is well co-ordinated. I know from bitter experience that if there are several bodies it is quite impossible.
For 30 years now the Government have been pressing my profession to reduce the number of accountancy bodies, and we are doing so. This Bill goes in exactly the opposite direction; it multiplies the number of bodies. It is difficult to hold in respect a government policy that sustains one profession on

175
sound principles, and abandons those principles to make obeisance to a populist clamour for reform.
The consenquences of this are easy to see. The legal profession will be a confused mess of legals and para-legals; a multiplicity of bodies where the ethical standards will be different, and the rights, obligations, and disciplines will be different. If your Lordships look at Clause 50(3) of the Bill you will notice that no fewer than six different types of qualification are envisaged for advocacy alone. The result will be that the service to the public will be ragged and uneven. The public will not be able to distinguish between lawyers and para-legals. They will not know the quality of person they are dealing with. The judiciary will not know whom they can trust and whom they cannot trust.
When I was chairman of the Royal Commission on Legal Services I was shown the unofficial list of lawyers who could not be trusted to conduct any litigation honestly. I take the liberty of warning the House that if this Bill becomes an Act—and I say this also to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as head of the judiciar—that black list will become a library.
Let us look at some of the other provisions in the Bill. A strong and independent Bar is a necessary component of the adversarial system under which we operate. In recent months the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has acknowledged the need for this over and over again. There is no such provision in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill to sustain a strong and independent Bar in the future. The reason is that, whatever may be the intentions of the Bill, the fact is that the Bill will impair the position of the Bar.
The Bill leaves open the question of partnerships between barristers and solicitors. The result of that will be that there will be a continuous lobby within and without the profession, some rooting for fusion and some not. This internecine strife has damaged the legal profession for years past and will continue to damage it in the future.
The Bill makes provision for certain conveyancing services, but the provisions are so complex and so incomplete that it is impossible to devine what the effect will be. The solicitors' branch of the profession has so far decided that it will not be to the public advantage. The Bill proposes contingency fees in a certain form, but once the principle of contingency fees is breached it will be an open door to malpractice and corruption.
All these defects stem from one cause only: a determination to impose competition on a playing field that is as uneven as the Canadian Rockies. The consequences will be a huge over-structure of administration; a debasement of quality at every level, including the judiciary; the confusion of the public; damage to the administration of justice and to the legal profession.
On 7th April this year we saw the degrading spectacle of the Lord Chancellor and virtually the whole of the judiciary in open conflict. That cleavage of opinion is still evident today. The Government may be able to square their conscience and scorn the
176
independent, dispassionate advice of the judiciary, but the knowledgeable public are satisfied that the judiciary are right and that there are a great many things wrong with the Bill—dangerously wrong—which need to be put right.
6.49 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I share the misgivings that we have just heard expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Benson, For me this is an occasion of much sadness, brightened only, if I may say so, by the graceful and lucid speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byron, which made me feel how clever I was at picking people some years ago. I know that he will add greatly to the quality and to the style of our debates. However, as I said, that to me is the only aspect of brightness on this occasion—an occasion which, as a Tory and as a traditionalist, I never expected to witness, especially in the time of a Tory administration in three of whose predecessor governments I had the privilege to serve. I have also been a Conservative Privy Counsellor for nearly 25 years. I was bred to the Tory principles of Disraeli: that the purpose of a Conservative administration should be to improve the conditions of our people and to maintain our institutions.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Benson, I am convinced that the measure we have before us today will inevitably lead to the ultimate destruction of one of those unique British institutions; namely, an independent Bar. It will also hasten a change in the practice of what has been over the centuries the anomalous but effective office of the Lord Chancellor.
Neither of those changes will happen overnight. But when the Bill becomes enacted, the seeds of decline will have been sown making an eclipse of both those institutions inevitable. The motive for this, as has been pointed out by speaker after speaker, is the application of that catch phrase of the present Government; namely, market forces. Apparently this must apply to everything, including the professions, and, I presume, to the behaviour of the surgeon in the operating theatre and certainly now to the pleader in the courts.
I consider the maintenance of both institutions to which I have referred to be far more important than that philosophy which, admirable though it may be as a general economic theory, could never be appropriate in the administration of justice. That assessment of the ultimate eclipse of the two institutions is the reason I have made clear my hostility to the leadership of the present Government. I admit that that attitude has seemed to some of my political friends to be extravagant and not worth, in terms of practical politics, a severance from former associations. But I have spent a lifetime—in fact, 40 years—as a member of the first of those institutions and a lifetime under the shadow of the other. Regard for them is, to me, of greater importance than that of party.
I have no personal interest in the consequences of these proposals. I passed a lifetime as a barrister, but I retired from practice four years ago and I shall never practise in a court of law again. Moreover, no member of my family is in the profession. The effects

177
of the Bill matter not to me in any sense of personal advantage or disadvantage, although my judgment of these proposals is that lawyers in the future will hugely profit at the expense of the public.
Why do I believe that this Bill will have so great an effect? In my view, unlike my noble friend Lord Renton, it is because the proposals in Part II can only be a first step on the road which will lead to the establishment in this country of a system whereby the practice of the law will be conducted by legal factories which, while bringing rich returns to the practitioners, will restrict competition and increase the volume of litigation at a vastly increased cost to the public.
The Bar of England and Wales was founded and has existed for centuries upon the principle of the single practitioner owing nothing to any other person, save to the court before whom he appears; owing nothing to any partner or employer, but owing a great loyalty to a single and strict disciplinary authority which has monitored the integrity of conduct and the standard of behaviour under formidably stern rules of conduct. In what has been a small profession, this authority has been able to police its membership closely and carefully so that comparatively few have transgressed.
The duty to the public was ensured by the professional rule that any barrister must accept any brief, whatever the view the individual barrister may personally take about the client or the cause in which he has been briefed. All that will now be changed. The present barristers will face competitors who will be members of a legal firm and who will be licensed to enjoy the right to audience. The Bar should find no problem in meeting such immediate competition.
But such firms with their scores of partners will be able to provide the financial support and offer such a level of starting salaries to the new entrant into the profession that young people wishing to follow careers as advocates will realise that in future the only practical route for them to achieve their ambition must be by joining a law firm. By that means they would be comfortably nurtured through those early days when as tyros they have to learn the skill of advocacy. The potential new entrants and the tutors at the universities are already understanding this change. Therefore the flow of young barristers will soon dry up.
It is said that the changes proposed are modest and that only a few solicitors will take advantage of them. That may be true at the beginning, although already certain large firms are planning to apply for a licence under the Bill for all of their partners who were once barristers. They are also planning to establish full-scale litigation departments staffed by those eligible under the Bill to plead in the courts.
As the flow of recruits to the barristers' profession ceases, barristers in practice will be tempted to secede and will accept the advantages of practising under the umbrella of the large law firm with all the sweets of salary, share of profits, pensions and expenses. In the result, competition, presently so acute at the Bar, will decrease as the large firms seek out and then absorb batches of the leading barristers and form them into litigation teams. The cost of
178
litigation, deprived of the individual barrister with his low overheads, will enevitably rocket.
The Bar, especially the specialist Bar, may take a little time in the dying. Some of the present generation may survive; but die it will. Once the great leap is taken—a leap which is taken by this Bill—to abandon the principle of the single practitioner, further change must follow leading, inexorably, to the creation of the American legal factory system. It could be said that: that is an exaggeration and that the inclusion of just a few solicitors in the system will never cause an independent Bar to cease to exist. Well, to anyone genuinely taken in by that view, all I can say is that that is the triumph of hope over reason.
However, I believe that many have genuinely been taken in by that view. I say this because I am quite sure that those who conceived this Bill—far, far back—and who have left it sitting on the shelves, know that it is just the first step along the road which will end not with a legal profession like that in Australasia with its small populations, but with one like that of the United States.
I am an honorary member of the American Bar Association and an honorary fellow of their trial lawyers' association. Therefore, I know something about their practice in America. I also know about the complaints voiced by leading members of the profession in that country—complaints about how their profession is organised and about the quality of some of the judges it produces, many of whom are very fine but some are deplorable. They will tell you frankly that in the United States the law is no longer a profession but rather a business, like the marketing and sale of pots and pans. Moreover, it is a system in which all kinds of litigation are rampant, the costs enormous and the lawyers very rich indeed.
Therefore, whatever is said over the protections that the Bill provides to ensure that only well-qualified lawyers plead in court, once the development is introduced the ultimate result in the next generation of lawyers will, I predict, be the fusion of the two branches of the profession into the all-embracing role of the practice of law by large groups of attorneys. That will come if only because of the decision of new entrants who will have no practical alternative but to enrol in the large law firms.
To extend their Americanisation, the designers of this Bill have introduced the principle of, no win, no fee, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone referred. I agree with what he said: nothing could be more harmful to the litigation climate. It is not as deplorable as the full contingency fee where the lawyers take a hefty percentage of the damages won; but it is, nevertheless, an introduction to that American practice where the lawyers descend like vultures upon the scene of every disaster, soliciting clients.
The introduction of a no win, no fee policy in England and Wales would be an objectionable development in our larger jurisdiction with its vastly greater amount of litigation than in Scotland. I presume that it has been introduced only as a kind

179
of figleaf to disguise the Government's poor record in failing to extend legal aid.
It would have been more open if the Administration had bluntly thrown open the right of audience to all lawyers, for that, in a few years, is what will occur. But no, we are proceeding in the English way, so beloved of Whitehall, the professional as well as amateur, the permanent as well as the ephemeral. We are proceeding to radical change by stealth and pretence under the banner of "the market place".
There is no halfway house between the single, independent practitioner system, obedient to a rigid disciplinary code, and the full scale American system of the litigator who is a member of the firm. That will be the eventual epitaph of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who was once a proud Dean of the Faculty, whose words we have heard quoted today, must sadly accept his responsibility in his role as the undertaker who buried an old and effective British tradition.
The second institution which I believe will suffer is the office of the Lord Chancellor himself. First, it must be axiomatic that it cannot be acceptable for the Minister, who is in effect responsible for appointing the judges, to have in effect, the ultimate say through his appointees over who may appear in the courts to plead before those judges. Nowhere in the civilised world—certainly nowhere outside the fading Marxist societies—does a Minister have such powers.
As the Lord Chancellor has now chosen to take from the judges the power to rule who may appear before them in their own courts, then he will surely have to surrender his power to recommend the appointment of the judges. The time has therefore arrived to establish a statutory judicial appointments board to take over that duty. That could lead to an examination of the constitutional position of the office of Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is, after all, a political Minister who is also the head of the judiciary and who sits in the judicial committee of the House, the ultimate Court of Appeal, deciding individual cases, but who at the same time sits opposite the Prime Minister in Cabinet, a party to every political decision.
To those who believe in the separation of powers, that has always seemed odd; but it has worked, because the office of Lord Chancellor was designed for a Minister beyond political ambition to whom the Prime Minister and every other Minister deferred. In the past he was drawn from the ranks of those who had practised in the English and Welsh courts and who knew and could assess the practitioners in those courts. Because of that knowledge, he was given the power to recommend for advancement to silk (the rank of Queen's Counsel) from whom, in the main, the judges are appointed. That is an important duty.
When that much loved and, alas, now sorely missed Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, finally left office in 1979, that was five years only since he had been in practice in the courts. During his time in office he was well able to make recommendations based upon his knowledge of the people involved.
180
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, distinguished as he undoubtedly is as a great Scottish jurist (a legal system different from that of England and Wales)cannot, through no fault of his own, know the English profession. He is therefore obviously obliged to leave appointments to judges and his civil servants, and the English law to commissioners. That cannot be satisfactory.
Modern Lord Chancellors, with the ever increasing legal aid bill, have been obliged to develop into Ministers responsible for substantial public expenditure, as they never were in the past. However, the Lord Chancellor is not answerable to the House, which is the House with responsibility for Supply. His department has no Minister who is a Member of the other place to answer for him there. He has to employ the Attorney General, who is not in his department, as his agent. That was acceptable when the Attorney General had to answer about matters of law only, but it is not when the Attorney General has to try to answer for public expenditure by a department of which he is not a member. How long in modern times will the other place tolerate that constitutional anomaly?
The Lord Chancellor is the guardian of the interest, powers and independence of the judges. Yet in the Bill he seeks to remove from them one of their most important powers, one which concerns the citizen who is often in dispute with government. Now, he has removed that power, apparently without their consent, and taken it in the last resort to himself as a member of the Executive and to those appointed by him. I do not see how that can be reconciled with his historic duty to withstand the encroachment and interference by the politicians with the powers and role of the judges. If the Lord Chancellor no longer stands for the judges and cannot personally exercise the important task of recommending judicial appointments; if he is now responsible, as he was not in the past, for a large public expenditure and has no presence in the other place; and if, like all his recent predecessors, he has little time ever to sit judicially, what remains of the traditional characteristics of his office, whose combination of judicial and political duties has, as a matter of principle, always offended some constitutionalists? Those who call for a Ministry of Justice will be encouraged.
This is an occasion of sadness for me. The Bill, with the substitution of one of the important powers of the judiciary by a system dominated by the Lord Chancellor as a Minister, will eventually serve to accelerate the cause of those who seek to change the office of Lord Chancellor, just as it will serve radically to change the practice of the law before our courts.
Those are the reasons which cause me to protest at the Bill which in another place I would have voted against on Second Reading. Forgive me, because I have spoken at length. I should explain why I now differ so vehemently from those who have been my political friends. As I see it, the Bill heralds inevitably the eventual end of the tradition of the English Bar which has for so long played a part in our liberties. It emphasises the decline in the independent authority of the Lord Chancellor; independent, that

181
is, of the politics of the Administration, and whose proud duty it was to protect the role and power of the judges. All that is coming about by the political will and decision of those whom I always believed were dedicated to maintaining this country's institutions. It is that which has brought me to my personal despair of the Administration and its leadership.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, looking at the list of speakers, I see that I am No. 15 and yet I am only the third non-lawyer to speak. I shall be taking a line different from the last non-lawyer to speak. I have in mind the noble Lord, Lord Benson. I was brought up as an inarticulate civil servant. I cannot hope to match the eloquence of the noble Lords who have spoken hitherto. However inadequately, I should like to speak in warm support of the Bill and the steps that it is taking to improve access to justice, to give the consumer a greater choice and to do something to make justice quicker and less expensive.
I look at the measure merely from the consumer's point of view: the ordinary citizen who for one reason or another is obliged to have recourse to the law or to legal services. If, to improve his prospects, the legal profession has to surrender some of its privileges and traditions, so be it. I like Clauses 14 and 15 which have come in for so much criticism. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will stick firmly to the Bill's main principles, not that he needs any great encouragement from me, as I well appreciate.
In doing so, the noble and learned Lord will earn the gratitude of the Consumers' Association and the National Consumer Council and also that of a great many ordinary people. It happens that they are not perhaps so well represented in the speakers' list today as is the legal profession.
I am a firm believer in the findings of the Pearson Royal Commission, which I suppose after all these years will remain for ever undebated, and am somewhat of a heretic in finding it so difficult to understand what there is so special about this country which makes it essential to preserve the split profession which exists hardly anywhere else. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, on that point. I should have liked to have gone rather further but the Bill is an important step forward on the right road.
One point about the Bill seems to me to be rather striking and worthy of comment. That is the proliferation of provisions for the creation of what loyal supporters of the Government used to dismiss as "quangos". They spring up all over. I see not the slightest objection to this. I have always thought that these bodies are a useful way of getting work done on the cheap by knowledgeable people. However, it is interesting that the Government have gone in on quite a scale for creating these bodies which they once criticised so trenchantly, admittedly before the noble and learned Lord joined the Cabinet.
182
In a natural transition from that comment I wish to say a word about the Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct. In making these comments, I am well aware of the functions entrusted to that body. Clause 16 gives barristers, solicitors and law teachers a direct right to representation. But in filling the eight majority vacancies, although regard is to be had to the desirability of appointing persons with experience of a number of listed activities, there is no guarantee that all these interests will always be represented. Seeing that the interests of the consumer come so high, I should have thought that there was something to be said for specifying in the statute that in addition to the two barristers, two solicitors, and the two academic lawyers who are there by right, there should be provision for two persons experienced in consumer affairs.
I turn to quite a different point. I understand why the Bill does not touch on legal aid for the reasons clearly explained by the noble and learned Lord at the outset. But whatever provision might be made elsewhere on that topic, there are always bound to be people who are too well off to be entitled to legal aid but not well enough off to litigate at their own expense. For that reason I wish to say how pleased I personally am that in spite of all the criticisms—and we have heard enough of them tonight, and I think there are perfectly good answers to them—the noble and learned Lord has decided to keep in Clause 44 a provision whereby lawyers will be able to agree with their clients that a case will be conducted on the basis that if it is lost the lawyer will receive nothing or a reduced fee, whereas if it is won, he will be able to charge an extra amount on top of his normal fee.
I agree straight away that the power may not be widely used, at all events at first. The legal profession is not marked for its quick adaptation to novel arrangements. But it could help in a modest way. We shall have to examine the regulations carefully in due course, but the proposal avoids the objections which are usually advanced against the American contingency fee system. My only doubt is whether, in view of the inevitable limitations to legal aid, it goes quite far enough. I may have suggestions to make at a later stage about the possibility of extending the Lord Chancellor's potential responsibility in this context.
I go along with the suggestion that the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the original ombudsman, should be extended to court administrators. Part I of the Bill seems to some extent to be geared to the interests of the administrators rather than to those who use the courts. Although I am aware of the technical problems, I think it would be consistent with the general tenor of the Bill if they were to be made answerable to the ombudsman for complaints of maladministration.
For my last point, I turn to Clause 47 about barristers' immunity. This has been touched on by previous speakers and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston, who said very properly that it is not quite as straightforward as it might appear. The

183
explanatory note to the Bill says simply that Clause 47,
"extends barristers' immunity from liability for negligence or breach of contract arising in connection with services in relation to proceedings or contemplated proceedings to others providing such services".
However, as I read the clause, it does rather more than that. In particular, it seems to me to extend the present immunity. I thought that that immunity was confined to the conduct of advocacy and matters immediately attendant on that. But it now seems to me that under the clause it will be applied to practically anything that has to do with litigation.
Does it mean that the immunity is now to apply to proceedings before tribunals? That is a matter on which I have always thought there was some doubt. Will the immunity apply to the lay representatives who will now be able to operate in small claims cases under Clause 8? I suppose that it must. Whether that will delight the lawyers I am not quite so sure. I think that rather than extend the immunity it will be better to do away with it altogether. It strikes me as quite extraordinary that if an advocate is genuinely negligent by failing to call a vital witness, by carelessly missing a date or by simply failing to turn up, there is no legal remedy for a client, even though as a result he may get himself sent to prison or suffer some other dire consequence.
Disciplinary proceedings are not enough. I am not aware of any other profession with such an immunity. I used to think that the reason for it was that there was no contract between the barrister and his client. I understand that this is not so and that the justification advanced is mainly one of public policy. I am sorry to say that I have difficulty in understanding that. It is not a privilege which exists widely outside this country. When our advocates practise in Europe after January 1991, they had better bear in mind that they may not find any similar immunity there.
I know that it is argued that an advocate must put his duty to the court first and that a client may be aggrieved if by so doing an advocate disadvantages the interests of that client. But it is ludicrous to suggest that a court would ever find an advocate guilty of negligence in such an event.
Again, it is objected that there might be a risk of all the issues having to be litigated again. But relitigation—if there is such a word—seems to me less of an evil than that someone who has suffered an injustice should have no redress. The suggestion that a liability to be sued for negligence would tend to diminish the advocate's ability to act fearlesssly and independently is something which a surgeon, an accountant, a surveyor or indeed a French Advocate would find it very hard to understand. I have even seen it argued that, under the "cab-rank rule", a barrister may have no choice about accepting a client and therefore it would be unfair if he could then be sued by that client who had in effect been thrust upon him. However, in practice, the "cab-rank rule" is, shall we say, somewhat intermittent in its application. If a cab driver negligently runs into someone, he is not immune from being sued. I cannot help thinking that it is inconsistent with the
184
fine ideals of this Bill to preserve and extend an immunity which exists for the benefit of the legal profession and which may result in the denial of justice to its clients. I can foresee that we may have an interesting time on this matter at a later stage.
I have some other points and some point of detail that I wished to raise; for example, the possibility of lawyers from certain Canadian provinces qualifying as solicitors here. I had thought that point would be covered in the Bill. However, I shall limit myself tonight to the four points that I have briefly discussed. I end as I began by welcoming the Bill and by expressing the hope that it will find its way to the statute book without any watering down of its major provisions.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in the course of a debate which has not been without some elements of bitterness it was agreeable to hear the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, speak as he did. I find myself in full agreement with a great deal of what he said. I was also in agreement with the reasonable tone in which he put forward his arguments.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Benson, is no longer with us because he made a statement which, even in his absence, I propose to challenge. He said that public opinion was against the Bill and that it was all frightfully unpopular. However, he cited no authority whatever for that proposition and I do not believe it to be true. On the contrary, the Consumers' Association, which is representative of ordinary consumers, has circulated a document which begins:
"This is a good Bill and should be supported".
I hope that just because a large number of members of the profession affected have spoken in your Lordships' House in this debate the illusion will not be created that this is, outside that rather specialist interest, an unpopular Bill. I believe, on the contrary, that certainly when it is fully understood it will be thought to be an excellent measure and a real measure of social reform of the kind which this Government have been responsible for for some years and which is now carried into this difficult area.
I see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not moved from the Woolsack since the debate began. I pay tribute to him for that effort of both good will and sheer physical stamina. However, there is one area of difficulty. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will deal with the somewhat disturbing statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on the dangerous understaffing particularly of the county courts and related bodies. As one of the major effects of this Bill will be and is intended to be to transfer a considerable amount of business from the High Court to the county courts, quite obviously its whole purpose and effect would be frustrated if those bodies proved to be so understaffed as to be ineffective.
I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will either deal with the

185
allegations of fact which have been made—although I think he may find some difficulty in that—or, more hopefully, will indicate that Her Majesty's Government as part and parcel of this whole operation are taking urgent steps to improve the staffing arrangements in the county courts. It is no use setting up an excellent system in theory if in practice it is inadequately manned and people experience the horrifying delays of which we have heard.
The merits of the matter seem to me to be plain. Our legal system is in many ways a fine one of which all of us in this country, including those of us who like myself have had some connection with it in the past, are very proud. However, it has two major defects in present circumstances. First of all, it is very expensive, and, secondly, it is pretty slow. As regards expense, your Lordships know that it is an act of rash courage for anyone to go to law in the civil courts unless he is either a rich man or a member of a rich company, or poor enough to come within the provision of legal aid. The intermediate class of people do so at their peril.
Your Lordships may have seen the rather pathetic case which appeared in The Times of, I believe, two days ago of a distinguished elderly retired soldier, General Leakey, who became involved in litigation with a fishing club on the River Test, which adjoins his house in Hampshire. General Leakey lost the case after a three-day hearing and a result of his liability for costs has to give up the house in which he has lived all his life and sell up all his assets. He may not have been wise to indulge in the litigation but the affair affected his house as it affected the movement of people close to his house. Therefore his attempt to go to litigation was understandable. A system which is so expensive as to have that kind of effect must be subjected to some considerable measure of review.
I suggest to your Lordships that, provided the county court foundation is properly provided, the proposal to transfer a considerable amount of litigation from the fairly high cost High Court to the somewhat cheaper county courts must result in cheaper litigation. I know that some noble Lords will say that we need not bother to do that and that all that is needed is a massive expansion of legal aid. I believe that was the phrase used. Legal aid is indeed an excellent social service, but it has to take its place with all our other social services. It is a rather expensive social service and it is really no answer to the high cost of proceedings in our courts to say, "Put this on the taxpayer and no one will be any the worse". That would be an irresponsible attitude for any government, who must consider public expenditure and weigh up its effect in different directions. Therefore to suggest that one should go on operating an expensive legal system because hardship could be prevented by charging it to the taxpayer is not a practical proposal.
It seems to me that by transferring some of the business to the county courts the process will be made somewhat cheaper. I do not wish to exaggerate that aspect because one does not litigate in the county courts for nothing. Nevertheless, there will be a tendency in that direction.
186
However, I shall now turn to what I consider, from listening to the debate, to be the most controversial issue in it. That is the question of admitting solicitors to the right of audience in the higher courts. When this is discussed I often look across at the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I feel there is no Member of your Lordships' House who would dispute for a moment the noble Lord's capacity to undertake advocacy before any tribunal. I hope the noble Lord will not take it amiss if I say that if I were in trouble, and particularly if I did not have a good case, I would have enormous confidence in the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. After all, he has such wonderful experience in the argument of cases of doubtful validity that he would be effective.
There are many members of the solicitors' branch of the legal profession who are perfectly capable of and suitable for the right of audience in the higher courts. Perhaps I may take a personal example. Because I was called to the Bar many years ago and practised for four or five years I still have the right of audience in any court if anyone were fool enough to employ me. However, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose legal practice is right up to date and very considerable, has not. That is extremely difficult to justify.
An ingenious attempt to justify it was made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, who I see is no longer in his place. He said, quite rightly, that integrity in advocates was very important. I do not know why he said that it was more important in the higher courts than in the lower courts; the noble and learned Lord did not explain that. It seemed to me that his whole argument based on integrity—that therefore only one profession should operate in the higher courts—was a complete non sequitur. It is not to be suggested necessarily that a solicitor's standard of integrity is any higher or lower than a barrister's. The Law Society possesses effective machinery for securing the good conduct of its members. There is no need to say that from the point of view of integrity they should not be allowed to practice and only members of the Bar should be allowed to do so. That seemed to me to be really muddled thinking which I was extremely surprised to hear from the noble and learned Lord.
That argument does not apply only to solicitors. Integrity in a profession is vital throughout our system. It is vital with doctors; it is vital with teachers; it is vital with accountants—perhaps particularly with accountants. It is perhaps a little self-righteous for members of the Bar to think that they alone have high standards of integrity. I hope and believe that most of our professions have and operate high standards of integrity. That is not an argument for denying solicitors who are otherwise capable of advocacy the right of audience in higher Courts.
It is late so I shall not go over the other matters. I was delighted to see the adoption of the Scottish proposal on conditional fees. I am also pleased to see the proposal, which I do not think has been mentioned this afternoon, concerning the eligibility of members of the solicitors' profession for appointment to high judicial office. Many of us know

187
solicitors who would be just as capable of fulfilling high judicial office as our other friends who happen to be members of the Bar. I do not believe that it is right to prevent that or to prevent the right of audience.
I should like to add one further point, particularly in reply to my noble friend Lord Renton. He suggested that if one allowed a solicitor to appear by himself in the higher courts instead of appearing with a barrister whom he had briefed, that would be more expensive because of the solicitor's higher overhead costs. I thought that, suprisingly for him, my noble friend missed the point. The point is that under the present system not only is the barrister in court, enjoying his fee, but he is attended by the solicitor with the overhead costs which anyhow fall upon him. Therefore surely it must be the case that employing one man will be somewhat cheaper than employing two. The public would expect that.
I say to my noble friend Lord Renton that if that is wrong and he is right—and until the system has started who can tell? —the client will put the matter right. If it is really cheaper to employ two men than one the public will employ two men. The one man will find himself driven out by competition.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: With the greatest of pleasure, my Lords.
Lord Renton: My Lords, my noble friend may have overlooked the fact that the solicitor advocate, like the barrister advocate, will need a member of the solicitor's firm in court with him. He will need the services of such a person. That person sitting behind the solicitor advocate will also have to be paid for by the lay client.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend is simply making an assumption. There is nothing whatsoever in the Bill to compel the solicitor advocate to have another solicitor sitting with him. My noble friend says that he always does, but we are talking about a situation which has not yet arisen—the right of audience in the higher courts. Because you want to prove that it will be more expensive, it is nonsense to assume that that will happen. There is not a scrap of evidence in support of it and the Bill does not so provide. As I have said to my noble friend, if he is right it will come out in the wash. If it turns out to be more expensive the ordinary client will adopt the cheaper alternative. There is therefore no need for my noble friend or any other noble Lord to worry about it.
This is a good Bill. I think that it is a historic Bill. It will go down in history as one of the major reforms of a government who, despite the rather acid comments of my now absent noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, have for years conducted major reforms in various parts of our society and improved it out of all recognition. I believe that the Bill is a great contribution to that process. I believe that your Lordships owe a debt of
188
gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for introducing the Bill and for making clear that he will soldier it through.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, perhaps I may start by adding my congratulations to those tendered by others to the noble Lord, Lord Byron, on his maiden speech, in which he made some telling points both in favour of and against various provisions in the Bill before us. We hope that he will pursue those matters in more detail at the Committee stage.
The Bill is a complex and technical piece of proposed legislation. It starts with a sugar coating by suggesting that transfer of causes to the county court will reduce the costs of litigation to the party. It then proceeds to contain the main kernel of the establishment of a larger pool of advocates. Finally, it deals with a number of subsidiary matters.
I have spent some 25 years at the Chancery Bar dealing with company law and City finance, followed by some 15 years administering a tribunal system and sitting in various different courts, including the Crown Court. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will bear with me for a short time if I make a few comments on the proposals.
First, it is not doubted that our present system of courts and tribunals dispenses justice of the highest quality. However, if one has a Rolls-Royce one must expect its upkeep to be costly. It is run by qualified and tested professionals. So in looking at the proposals I submit that we should consider whether they will reduce the costs and difficulties of litigation without lowering the quality of the judicial services provided by the Bench and the representatives of the litigants.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has pointed out, the right of all, both rich and poor, to pursue justice was initially guaranteed by the legal aid system. That has proved too costly for successive governments to maintain at an acceptable level. In addition, many technical matters have now been entrusted to tribunals, which have proliferated but for which no legal aid is available. This latter problem is in no way ameliorated by the provisions of the Bill.
Secondly, the sugar coating on the pill offered to us is the rehabilitation of the county courts to take cases now heard in the High Court. The county courts were an excellent forum in the days of rent control, which were their hey-day. Since then they have been allowed to deteriorate. They are disliked by litigants as being second-class courts. If they are to be enabled to take even a small proportion of the work which we are led to believe will be put down to them, the costs of their rehabilitation will run into many millions. In addition, there is no reason why a case which would take half a day or a number of days in the High Court would take any less or be cheaper for the litigants in the county courts. Any savings will be in the salaries of the judges and the administrative staff. It is important that there should be no lowering of the standards of justice by down-grading the court to which the litigants must now have resort.

189
Thirdly, it is inherent in the proposals—this is the second kernel—to widen the number of lawyers with rights of audience. That will reduce the costs of litigation to the public. I see it implied in the statutory objective that members of the public will then have a wider choice of persons providing the advocacy services. To my mind, that is a fallacy. If one travels on a Clapham omnibus and asks a fellow passenger whom he would choose to represent him in an action against his neighbour, in nine cases out of 10 he would have no idea whatever where to start. In the one remaining case where he was able to give a positive reply, he would most likely be a member of the criminal fraternity with recent experience in the Crown Court or a fan of Horace Rumpole.
So, instead of the present system in which few, if any barristers do not have regard to the highest standards of integrity, we are to have a pool of advocates approved by an advisory committee with a lay majority. We can envisage that pool consisting of barristers and other professional people—solicitors, accountants, surveyors and the like. I am unable to accept that their services would be any cheaper than those of a barrister.
In the course of my work in the tribunals I have had to tax many bills of solicitors and accountants providing services as representatives before tribunals. In determining whether the losing party should pay the whole of the charge costs of the solicitors or accountants, I have had to apply the test of what fee a reasonably competent barrister would have obtained for conducting the hearing. I cannot remember a case in which the solicitor or accountant working on a basis of the rate for his status as a partner or senior executive was not higher than the test which I was required to apply.
Finally—a brief point—I should like to refer to the long-term effect of the proposals. We should bear in mind, first, that the number of barristers in practice varies with the amount of work available. If the amount of work available increases, the Bar increases in numbers; if it contracts, the number of barristers in practice will fall. In considering that aspect we should also bear in mind the fact that the income of the average barrister is lower than that of the average solicitor partner or accountant.
Then, against those considerations, we should consider the proposal to allow multi-disciplinary partnerships. If they are allowed, the big City firms will soon establish in-house litigation departments to which they will direct their clients. The smaller country firms will establish litigation associations to which they will direct their clients. Promising young lawyers will be selected with offers of salaries, bonuses, shares of profits and the like to man those departments and associations. As they see their solicitor clients retiring, older established barristers will also be attracted by those departments and associations. As a result, the work for an independent Bar will wither, as will the whole profession. It will be simply a matter of time and supply and demand for those outside departments and associations to take over. But the standards of justice will tend to be under attack as the members of those concerns will be concerned as much for their bonuses and profits as for other considerations.
190
The present system is far from perfect and in my time I have made numerous suggestions for its improvement. But professional expertise is expensive. The present proposals, presented as a method of keeping down the costs of providing justice, are in my view based on fallacies and will not in the end achieve that objective but tend only to lower the standards of justice in the courts and tribunals.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, at the outset perhaps I may thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for introducing the Bill, which is broadly welcomed in the White Papers, by both Houses, by the electorate and indeed in the press. In view of certain things that have been said from my Front Bench this evening, perhaps I may also acknowledge the good intentions of the Government which I support.
I only speak personally and I declare an interest and concern as a practitioner of some long standing. I have now been 50 years on the cab rank and am still on it. I do not wish to argue against the principle of the Bill—against the principle of the abolition of the Bar's monopoly or the appointment of solicitors to judicial office. In my opinion—it has not been shared by my colleagues; my views are very often not shared—that is long overdue. I welcome the Bill as affording a rescue operation for both branches of the legal profession stranded on the rocks of internecine dispute over rights of audience—a dispute as yet unresolved—and as an acceptable framework for constructive reform.
The heads of main concern—and I have serious concerns—have been covered by many other noble Lords and I have left the Chamber only totally to recast my speaking notes in the light of the contributions of other noble Lords.
Let us deal first with Part I. I support the very serious concern, so well expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if I may say so, as regards the absence of the appellate procedure concerning transfer and the court of transfer which may cause great inconvenience to the general public. I take on board the administrative problems with regard to duly qualified staff and the provision of adequate finances and respectfully ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to give us the comfort of some assurances in the public interest that before these provisions are put into effect those problems will have been resolved by appropriate and urgent action, at all events to the satisfaction of the Government and both branches of the profession. That measure of concern was enlarged upon by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham as well as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. To those contributions nothing further need be said.
With regard to the second matter of concern I again refer to the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about millions of people taken out of legal aid. Again I most respectfully point out that resort to conditional fees (Clause 44, I think) cannot begin to come to grips with the essence of

191
the problems of accessibility of justice to all. I ask my noble and learned friend to give consideration to the setting up of the contingency legal aid fund along the lines proposed, which I know my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor knows all about.
One cannot sail under a false flag, certainly not in your Lordships' House, and I take the same ethical stand—the same ethical objection—as to conditional fees as expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. It would not be right to say otherwise. But whether that be right or wrong, the point is that conditional fees cannot come to grips with the essence of the problem, which is the accessibility of justice to all.
As to the third head of objection, which concerns rights of audience—when I say "objection" it is in my book not an objection in principle at all, as I have made clear; it is a matter of concern and a matter for clarification of the drafting—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon (I took it down) that ability, experience and quality are all factors which must be taken into account in the grant of rights of audience and the conduct of litigation.
But with the greatest respect I question whether Clause 14 as drafted provides an adequate or flexible evolutionary framework—and here I use the concept of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—and whether that evolutionary framework as drafted is sufficiently flexible and sufficiently adequate to afford due and efficient administration of justice in the public interest as envisaged by my noble and learned friend. Surely, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham suggested, something has gone wrong with the drafting of Clause 14. There is no reference to the interests of justice.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, the White Paper approach was admirable at paragraph 8.5, and so indeed I thought. Then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to what appears to me to have been a flight from the White Paper and Clause 14, stating truly that the interests of justice was the key objective. Then in a most interesting intervention my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—and certain things have been said so that I wish to make it plain that on all sides of the House his integrity surely is wholly accepted and there is no hint that it is in question—suggested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in effect had got his interpretation wrong. Well, I had got it wrong too and so had my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. So had many of those at the Bar. There has been a general misunderstanding. Therefore, with respect, it remains a serious question of construction.
That is easily dealt with, because if there is nothing between the Government and those who are taking that point, it is a matter of clarification of the drafting to take on board the point and to get it right beyond peradventure. That is the whole object of a Committee stage in your Lordships' House. If that is clarified, it would meet the force of objection—I am using shorthand to save time—to what the noble
192
and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls referred to as a Schedule 4 "quadrille" and the impact in particular of paragraph 5(5) of Schedule 4, which was the very point that led the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, who also shared my misunderstanding and the misunderstanding of others, to suggest that the role of the judges was now peripheral and neutered. That is going it a bit. But the point is clear. It was being suggested, and it is part of the understanding of those of us who take a different view of the construction, that the role of the judges would become all but a cypher.
As I understand it, that is not the intention of the Government. It is now evident that the speech of the Master of the Rolls, which was reported under the heading "Judges veto" and so forth, has been wholly misunderstood in many quarters, including of course in good faith (I mean that) by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. This should now substantially clear the air.
It is also perhaps now plain that there is a strong case for centralised control, a single set of rules and consistent enforcement as advocated by the noble and learned Lords the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman. With respect to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, he slightly slipped the point here. This has nothing to do with integrity; it has to do with enforcement and centralised enforcement.
There is no objection to judicial review. Reasons are given as a matter of course and breach of that type of statutory duty would not sound in damages any way. But if I am wrong about that and if it is not the intention to make the judiciary liable in damages, an amendment to clarify the situation would be wholly reasonable and indeed welcome.
It is respectfully suggested that, although the statutory objective in Clause 14(1) is subservient to the general principle in Clause 14(3) as drafted, in conjunction with Clause 15(2) it may well not afford adequate or appropriate safeguards according to the intentions of government, having particular regard to Schedule 4, paragraph 5(5) to which I have referred under which the judges' power to refuse is limited in a curious and very effective way; that is, only if the application is incompatible with statutory objective or general principle. Because that ground of refusal is the only ground and such a narrow ground, it is important that Clause 14 should be widened to become sufficiently flexible to allow the appropriate discretion at all levels with those concerned with granting rights of audience.
Part of the problem of construction arises because of the emphasis on width of choice which distorts the true picture of public interest and due account of relevant experience, as expressly acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as well as qualifications and expertise which practitioners must have in the interest of the consumer in the rendering of legal advice.
I should like to suggest one rider: that in criminal cases there is a special case. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, with respect, surely has a point. He was a most distinguished criminal practitioner with a wealth of experience in our courts. He has stated that

193
the lawyer who has the conduct of the preparation should not have the conduct of the case in court. I undertake a certain amount of criminal work even now. I wholeheartedly support the suggestion that he made. I do not think that it would be in the interests of justice for the person —be he barrister or solicitor—who takes the instructions in a criminal case, certainly in a jury trial, also to prepare and present the case.
Another point arises only on criminal law. I suggest that consideration is given to whether it is right that the CPS representatives should conduct prosecutions in court. We are coming very near to the American system of the state prosecution service. As a lifetime practitioner I should find that unethical and abhorrent. Other noble Lords may conceivably feel the same. It applies only to criminal cases.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me —is he applying the same argument to the magistrates' courts? Surely one must expect the same standard of justice in those courts. Does he believe that the person who takes instructions should not conduct the defence in magistrates' courts?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it was only in the interest of trying to save time that I did not deal with the anomaly. I take my noble friend's point. That is the practice in the magistrates' courts, and it seems to work reasonably well. However, I do not know whether he has experience as a solicitor of undertaking heavy criminal cases. He indicates no. Those who have experience of heavy criminal cases —conspiracy, drugs, corruption and such other cases —will know of the blackmailing of juries and pressures on juries. In his grand practice my noble friend has never come across such things. People like myself have to deal with them now and then. Those of us who know about it are worried about the very close relationship between the lawyer —a member of the Bar or the solicitor —who takes instructions from the client and then represents the case in court before the jury in a very important criminal trial. It may not sound logical to my noble friend, but I hope that I have made myself plain to your Lordships.
There is no time to deal with any other issue or questions that have been raised. It will take time for the new regime to settle down and many years before any objective assessment can be made of its impact either upon the public interest or upon the legal profession. I do not see this as a radical change by stealth; nor do I see the impact as it is envisaged by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson; and nor can I share his criticism of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack or of his appointment to office; and nor can I share any expression of personal despair of this Administration or of its leadership. Quite the reverse, my Lords. No Bill fails to be improved when it goes through your Lordships' House in its revisory role. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already indicated that this Bill will be no exception.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Byron, has already received the well deserved
194
congratulations of this House. I hope that I shall not therefore be breaking with the tradition of the House by giving him a very warm welcome as a participating Member of your Lordships' House in particular during the passage of the Bill. Thus far during the debates on these proposals —we had a debate in April —I have been the only practising solicitor in the Square Mile (although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is not very far away) to speak to the House and to represent the views of those who have the same professional experience. I therefore welcome the noble Lord, Lord Byron, for helping the House to have a greater understanding of those large City law firms upon which certain adverse comments have been made in the debate.
In the Report of the Committee on Legal Education, presented to Parliament in March 1971, chaired by Mr. Justice Ormrod (as he then was), there is an interesting historical account of the education, training and structure of the legal profession. We learn from this report that at the end of the 16th century there were six Inns of Court, including the two Serjeants' Inns, and eight Inns of Chancery which took on responsibilities for training and education of those who sought instruction in common law and in law of equity. All the inns worked to some extent in co-operation with one another, the Inns of Court taking responsibility for students, graduates and "practisers" of law while the Inns of Chancery were chiefly furnished with officers, attorneys —those practising in the King's or Queen's Bench —solicitors —practising in the Courts of Equity —and clerks. It was not unusual according to Snow's Survey of London: 1598 for students to progress through from the Inns of Chancery to the Inns of Court, a process which took seven years before the student was judged to be properly educated and trained in law.
Unfortunately in the 18th century the Inns of Chancery fell into decay. In about 1800 in a rather unfriendly act the Inns of Court decided to bar attorneys and solicitors from their membership. Thereafter members of my profession have had to rely upon Acts of Parliament for our professional existence. Therefore for the past 200 years the public has not been served by a single legal profession but by two professions, each of whom has been anxious to protect, sometimes from the other, its areas of practice: for example on the Bar side, litigation; and, to take an example, on the solicitors' side, conveyancing.
That contrasts with the medical profession which for many years has practised as one profession with common education and training whatever specialisation may later be acquired. The failure to hold together or achieve a single legal profession has not been in the ultimate best interests of the legal profession as a whole, nor in those of the public which we serve. That is not to state that there should not be a separate and independent discipline of advocates with, also perhaps, on Her Majesty's gracious grant, a Royal College of Advocates similar to the Royal College of Surgeons or the Royal College of Physicians which are the domus of two of the many separate disciplines within the medical profession.

195
The Bill does not attempt to fuse together both sides of the legal profession, nor has the time come for such an event. But at long last, with the co-operation of the Law Society and the Bar Council, the Bill should bring about common education, common training, common rights of practice and —in view of the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice —a common and cohesive set of rules for all advocates in courts. In the light of the words of the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls, I also add a common professional body for setting up and monitoring the rules of advocacy.
Not only should the Bill bring about those virtues but, in time, a deferment of the decision of a young aspirant to the profession upon the side which should benefit from his or her talents. That must be all to the common good. Neither the interests of the public nor those of the young aspirant to the law are served by forcing those men and women to make their decision about whether to be a barrister or solicitor when they are only 20 years of age, in the second year at university, with little knowledge of law, no practical experience of it and, above all, no way of truly knowing where their real talents lie.
It is therefore with great regret that, upon the issue of rights of audience, the Bill —and before it the Lord Chancellor's Green and White Paper proposals —should be, and has been, considered by the Bar, and I fear some quarters of the judiciary, with such hositility.
It is necessary to describe in a little detail my side of the profession because that has not yet been done in this debate. Currently there are just over 53,000 solicitors with practising certificates, of which 80 per cent. are in private practice. Judging by last year's figures the new entrants were 3,244 of whom 46 per cent. were women. Altogether the practising solicitors provide about 90 per cent. of the practising lawyers in England and Wales, perhaps in reverse proportion to those who are speaking in this debate. Recent entrants —to state nothing of older members who grace these Benches such as the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Coleraine, and perhaps myself—are of the highest quality no lesser equipped to serve the public in the practice of law than entrants of the same age to the Bar. Furthermore, they are subject to rigorous training, a continuing education and the full discipline of the Law Society and the lawyers to whom they are articled and under whom they train.
While not all those 53,000 practising solicitors are knocking at the doors of the High Court demanding rights of audience —although noble Lords may be forgiven for thinking that that is the case after having heard some of the fears expressed by the Bar —there are some among them who have sufficient ability and experience to appear in the High Court and who aspire to do so. I have to state, therefore, it is not acceptable to them, and nor is it in the public interest, that, when fitted to do so, they should be barred by statute or court practice from carrying their skills to the highest ranks of the legal profession and the judiciary.
196
Therefore, those who oppose the modest and cautious proposals contained in the Bill for rights of audience to be extended to solicitors must make out their case in the public interest explaining why those who have the necessary skills should be barred from using them in the highest court in the land. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will accept the comment that I was thoroughly unconvinced by his hyperboles and apocryphal accounts of solicitors in the High Street in the future—
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will have noticed that during my speech I never opposed solicitors' rights of audience in certain courts.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, I shall not delay the House by debating further at this time with the noble Lord. If noble Lords did not hear his comments, they can read them in the pages of Hansard.
Alas, the answer is not provided in asserting that the young men and women entering the profession should start at the Bar or later seek transfer. The reasons are that, despite active steps now being taken by the leaders of the Bar, there have for some time been insufficient pupilage facilities, insufficient accomodation for pupils and tenants and insufficient financial support. Although a few solicitors later transfer to the Bar that is not an easy step to take and, as family men and women, it is often impractical if not totally impossible. I speak of present times when, as regards examination and training, the transfer from one side of the profession to the other is comparatively easy.
I do not wish to answer in detail the reasons put forward by the Bar for the retention of its rights of audience. I wish to take up only two points because I believe them to be of importance. The first has already been touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but because I believe it to be of particular importance I mention it again. I refer to the argument about independence of advice and action. The suggestion is that the integrity of advice on matters of litigation can be obtained only from members of an independent Bar. Since I left the Bar 13 years ago I may constantly have been giving my clients bad and wrong advice, possibly carrying on from my days at the Bar when, doubtless, I also constantly gave bad and wrong advice. However, in giving this advice I have been no less independent or honest because I am a partner in a large law firm with 75 partners or because I have big and powerful clients. Other noble Lords, such as the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon, Lord Nathan and Lord Coleraine, will endorse that statement. Professional integrity is as important for me now on my present side of the legal profession as it was when I was a member of the Bar.
I should like to mention one further point raised in the argument put forward by the Bar for the retention of its rights of audience. It is the issue of cost. One can argue figures in all directions. However, at page 10, paragraph 4.7 of its latest yellow commentary, issued after the publication of the White Paper, the Bar puts forward the following assertion:

197
"This process has already begun, in anticipation of the Government's changes, with some large city firms deliberately doing work in-house whenever possible despite the better and cheaper services available to their clients from the junior Bar".
That statement is competely wrong and totally unsubstantiated. It also fails to understand the needs of our clients and ourselves. Cost is a factor which is of concern to our clients as is the provision of effective legal services. For that reason my law firm, and I am sure those of other noble Lords in practice, regularly uses members of the Junior Bar and delight in the value of the use of these younger members of the profession.
In summary, I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who took some responsibility for my legal education long ago, do not see that there will be the destruction of the Bar, if the proposals in the Bill are accepted, provided that it does not lose confidence in itself. That point was raised by the noble and learned Lord in April. Nor do I believe that there will be a drop in the quality or standards of advocacy. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, is not here to receive my words of comfort; but I can say that in my large City law firm there are no plans to build up a full-scale litigation department. There are no mass plans for applications for advocacy licences or for recruitment of members of the Bar. Senior members of the Bar are far too expensive for us and for our clients to contemplate taking such a course.
The real point is that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, after the professions recently failed to agree in the Marre committee, had to find some solution to the problem, or else the dispute would have continued. It was, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, just now, a rescue operation.
I am sure that the judiciary will commit itself to these changes, once enacted; but I have some concern about the timetable. An examination of Schedule 4 Part 1 informs us of the extensive process of submissions and consultation. The proposed rules of conduct with effective mechanisms will have to go from the professions to the advisory committee. The advisory committee then reports to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor, armed with the advice of the advisory committee, goes to the Director-General of Fair Trading. The Lord Chancellor then, armed not only with the advice of the advisory committee, but also that of the Director-General of Fair Trading, takes the matter for the opinion of the designated judges. The whole process could take years. There is need for some speed, or at least a timetable. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could help me on that.
I ask for that because it is in the interests of the professions that the rights of audience issue should finally be resolved as soon as possible. Until it is, recruitment on both sides will be difficult, and if we do not move quickly we shall be in the incongruous position of having lawyers from other member states within the EC having the right of audience in the High Court where solicitors have not yet achieved that because the process is not complete.
There are a number of other points which can be taken up in Committee concerning judicial
198
appointments, transfer of business to the county court, and so on. I believe that we should give this Bill general support. In my closing words, I should particularly like to thank all those who have sent to me, as they have to other noble Lords, most helpful briefs, including the Bar Council, the Law Society and consumer societies.
I look forward to working together in Committee in a constructive manner. This morning I was reading Professor Michael Zander's book Lawyers and the public interest which was published in 1968. On reading that book, I was reminded of how much change has taken place on both sides of the profession, and change to the good. It is also heartening to hear that further changes are proposed by the Bar on the structure of pupilage and even, with a committee chaired by Mr. Justice Phillips, the provision of really adequate financial support for the younger entrants to the Bar.
Again, looking at Professor Zander's book, in my view nothing during the past 21 years has been more damaging to each side of the profession than defending the indefensible. My Lords, let us cease doing that.
8.24 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, some satisfaction has been expressed in various quarters this afternoon that this Bill is an improvement on what was foreshadowed in the Green Paper. To my mind that is rather like saying that a man who was threatened with two black eyes should be pleased if he gets only one. As at present drafted I think that this Bill —and I say this with respect —:is bad in some respects and is dangerous in others. In so far as there is a popular hope that its introducton will lead to better, quicker and cheaper justice, I think that that popular hope may well be disappointed.
At best this Bill will require considerable amendment, both in its drafting and in its content in the many ways which your Lordships have explained this afternoon. In this debate, in which there are many speakers, I should like to comment on just one aspect of the legislation; that is, that in essence it is an enabling Bill with ill-defined criteria giving the Lord Chancellor of the day, whoever he may be, excessive powers to control and regulate the legal profession and the judicial process by orders, rules and regulations.
From time to time during the Committee stage of much recent legislation, the increasing tendency to take powers to flesh out skeleton legislation by rules and regulations has been a matter of considerable criticism. Again and again we find that power is taken to amend or even repeal primary legislation. Indeed that practice has now become so habitual that I believe it needs to be debated as a matter of general principle. I believe that it is particularly reprehensible when it is found so extensively in a measure presented by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself.
I have no doubt that the objectives of Part I of the Bill, which might well have been the subject of separate legislation, are wholly admirable. All I say on Part I is that it is, as the noble and learned Lord,

199
Lord Hailsham, pointed out, entirely enabling. Your Lordships will note that Clause 1(1) provides that the Lord Chancellor may by order make provision for the allocation of business between the High Court and county court. All that is essential in that regard is for the future. Furthermore, Clause 1(4) states that such an order may:
"amend or repeal any provision made by or under any enactment relating to the jurisdiction, practice or procedure."
in the courts
"so far as the Lord Chancellor considers it to be necessary, or expedient".
I shall not take up your Lordships' time by detailing all the other rule-making powers except to draw attention to Clause 82. That clause contains the usual so-called safeguard of parliamentary rights in that regulations or orders made under Clause 1(1), Clause 23(1) and Clause 34(9) must be approved by both Houses. Of course, others are only subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House. In neither case, as we all well know, are those regulations or orders capable of amendment. I have already referred to Clause 1. Clause 23(1) enables the Lord Chancellor by regulation to extend the jurisdiction of the legal services ombudsman.
We then come to a rather important provision in Clause 34(9) which provides that the Lord Chancellor may by order amend the provisions of the authorisation of practitioners by imposing any additional requirement or by varying or removing any requirement. In other words, he can amend the guts of the provision as to the regulation and authorisation of practitioners to such an extent that it would amount, in effect, to repeal. A similar power to amend its provisions is to be found in Clause 44 relating to conditional fees.
As it is not the custom of your Lordships' House to refuse a Second Reading to any Bill or indeed to vote against any of the subsequent rules, regulations or orders, it is evident that in practice your Lordships' control over Ministers and the Executive is becoming weaker with every passing year. The other place, as we know, or certainly I know, is almost equally acquiescent in the acceptance of the constant erosion of its powers. We need to focus attention on the way in which primary legislation increasingly provides for clauses, as in this Bill, enabling the Minister to amend or at times even repeal it.
The defence of all these provisions —and it is made time after time by one Minister after another —is that they are now common form and are simply designed to give flexibility. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his speech spoke of framework. These days that is increasingly the concept of legislation; that there must be a framework in which there is flexibility. I find such a defence particularly inadequate in the case of a Bill such as this, which is of considerable constitutional importance affecting, as it does, the rule of law, the independence of the legal profession and the judiciary, and the administration of justice. It needs to be widely understood that this way of drafting legislation has become common form only in comparatively recent times.
200
In the 1920s and early 1930s severe criticisms were made of this so-called Henry VIII clause; named, it has been said, in disrespectful commemoration of that monarch's tendency to absolutism. In those days its use was both rare and severely limited. The first instance was in the Local Government Act 1888 when the power to amend was given simply to change, if necessary, the date of the first election of councillors to the newly created authorities. It was then extended in later Acts to general powers of amendment in order to remove difficulties in bringing an Act into operation; for example the National Insurance Act, 1911.
Up to 1932 —the date of the famous report of the Donoghmore Committee —it appeared in just nine Acts, but in each case the scope was severely limited and its validity was also limited usually to 12 months from the coming into force of the Act. Your Lordships will recall that the Donoghmore Committee was set up in 1929 to examine and report on the whole question of ministerial powers following upon the publication that year of a book called The New Depotism, written by the then serving Lord Chief Justice. It may be that the present Lord Chief Justice might consider a more up to date version of that admirable work.
Without proposing the total abolition of the Henry VIII clause, the Donoghmore Committee recommended that it:
"should be abandoned in all but the most exceptional cases and should not be permitted by Parliament except upon special grounds stated in the ministerial memorandum to the Bill."
In the event it was never used again up to the Second World War. It was demonstrated in Acts of considerable importance and complexity, such as the Local Government Act 1933 and the Public Health Act 1936, that its use could be avoided —in spite of all the arguments put forward by departments —if sufficient forethought was given to the drafting and preparation of the legislation. It may be noted that those Acts stood the test of time rather better than most recent legislation.
It is, therefore, very misleading to believe that there are good precedents for what has been brought before us today. There are certainly some recent bad precedents. In effect what we are doing is continually giving a fair wind to legislation which virtually permits governments to make new law as they go along. The time has come to consider the case for a Select Committee of the kind which they have, for example, in Australia; a Select Committee to scrutinise all Bills coming before Parliament and to report whether such Bills contain insufficiently defined administrative powers or propose any inappropriate delegation of legislation powers. If such a Select Committee existed today this Bill would not survive without very severe restrictions being put upon the powers which are now sought by the Government.
8.34 p.m.
Lord Griffiths: My Lords, I was much saddened to hear the confession of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that in his career as a solicitor he has constantly given wrong advice. I wish emphatically to repudiate his attribution of this lamentable development in

201
his career to the fact that he started life as a barrister as my pupil. I accept no responsibility whatever.
I was the judicial member of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee which, I am very happy to see, has given birth to Part I of this Bill. It is very refreshing for those of us who have laboured on so many committees to know that the recommendations of at least one have not been destined to moulder, gathering dust in some ministerial pigeon-hole. Naturally, I welcome the proposal to implement our primary recommendation, which was that much of the litigation in the High Court was suitable to the talents of the circuit court judges and should be tried in those courts.
My principal purpose in putting my name down to speak in this debate has been pre-empted by other speakers —principally the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice —because I wish to draw attention to the fact that this central proposal cannot possibly effectively be carried out in the present unhappy state of lack of staff, lack of resources and low morale in the county courts throughout the country.
I welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tells us that there are proposals to make substantial increases in staff; but I doubt the wisdom of pouring more water into the bucket until you have plugged the hole at the bottom. I have in my hand a sad document. It is the Resignations Study 1988 published in August by the Lord Chancellor's Department reviewing the rate of resignations from the county court service. Putting it broadly, they are almost double the rate in the rest of the Civil Service. I am convinced that the cure for the disease is a liberal application of golden ointment. I do not believe, unless they are paid salaries which are commensurate with those they can obtain in the legal service that they are in fact servicing, that there is any hope of retaining them. I do not propose to labour this point any further as it has been fully covered with so many examples in earlier speeches.
There are only two further points I wish to make in this debate at this late hour. I had the good fortune on the advisory committee to sit under the outstanding chairmanship of Sir Maurice Hodgson, a layman. I am the first to acknowledge the debt that the legal profession owes to those laymen who sat on that advisory committee. However, we were carrying out a very different function from the advisory committee set up under this Bill, which is concerned with technical matters.
I should like to make a suggestion. It is essential that the advisory committee should include a circuit judge, because judges are going to be at the sharp end of the new proposals to extend rights of audience. I also doubt the wisdom of having a majority of laymen on the committee. However, that will be a matter for further debate.
I also want to refer to the drafting of Clauses 14 and 15. I am afraid that until I heard the opening speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in this debate I had fallen into error. Having read Clause 14, I thought the statutory
202
objective was paramount to the general principle. That is the construction placed upon it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It is also the construction placed upon it by one of the most powerful firms of commercial solicitors in the City of London, which has widely circulated its views to many, including me. Now I accept the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that that is not so. Having read Clause 1 and Schedule 4 more carefully it sounds like lèse-majesté to say that I think he may well be right. Be that as it may, it is ill-drafted at the moment and it must be clarified.
In order to clear my own mind about the scope of the discretion that will be vested in the designated judges, I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider the answer to the following question because I like to focus on practical examples when I am testing construction: would a designated judge be acting in breach of his statutory duty if he refused to approve the rules of conduct of a professional body unless those rules provided that an advocate who wished to practise as a Queen's Counsel should do so as a sole and independent practitioner? I wish to know whether, under the present drafting, that discretion is vested in a designated judge. Of course, underlying that is the assumption that the judge was convinced that it was in the interests of justice that such a rule should exist.
8.41 p.m.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I intend to be very brief tonight. Indeed, I should not speak about English law at all. I am here more to get a view of what may eventually be done to Scotland. That is why I am interested in hearing what noble Lords have had to say.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, said. In Eastern Europe everyone is screaming out for democracy though they have not much idea what it is. But what have we got? We have government regulations by the pile. That is a strong example of how bureaucratic dictatorship is likely to be extended. I believe that to be a very real danger that we are approaching. In any future period of history, I cannot think anyone will look on the laws of the latter part of the 20th century in the same way as they regard Justinian. It is a terrible period when a quantity of law is being poured out.
I was very interested to note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, was interested in Clause 14. I find it extremely difficult to understand what it means. There are the words "objective", "general objective" and "statutory objective". What does it all mean, and what is being got at by the use of these words? I do not know what is being got at. Perhaps I may put it this way: anybody who is a solicitor and who has ever belonged to a company that had any discipline at all is very nearly entitled at least to have authority in court.
That is a very odd situation. I suppose any member of the Grenadier Guards who had a university degree would be a perfectly suitable candidate for admission to the Bar at the present time. I do not know what

203
is intended by these measures; but no doubt there is probably a better meaning than there is shown to be. This clause is quite an impossible one and I doubt whether it represents what anyone says.
The common law of England is generally regarded with great respect, but nobody regards practically any of the statutes we have made in the past four or five years or longer with any respect. They will disappear in due course and will be forgotten. We in this House should try to bring a little more sense into the statutes and let them be what they are and not just let them be the background from which regulations are built up.
I am not going to say any more because this has been a long debate and I am not really qualified to pass judgment on the quality of the statutes.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, it is always a great privilege to address your Lordships' House. My first occasion as a young barrister was over 41 years ago. My last occasion was last month on the debate on the report of the Select Committee of which I was member on murder and life imprisonment. Looking back over those many occasions, including even those appearances before my learned and very distinguished predecessors who on occasions I thought were distinctly carnivorous, it has been not only a privilege but a pleasure. It will continue to be a great privilege to address your Lordships' House on this Bill in all its succeeding stages. But I am bound to say that it will be no pleasure.
That is because I shall be strongly criticising the proposals of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I find that a distinctly disagreeable function to perform. He and I were colleagues together as Law Lords for a period of two years during which I developed a very great respect for his judicial judgment and, personally, much affection for him. We fell out on only one occasion and that was hardly an earth-shattering subject matter; namely, the liability of Hamley's toy shop to pay rates during a period when sadly it was closed.
The late Lord Chancellor, Lord Simmonds, said:
"It remains the supreme truth that the safeguard of liberty lies in the independence of a judiciary which fears not nor favours the Executive".
If I speak with more feeling than some of your Lordships may think appropriate, I do so because I feel that this truth has been so dangerously disregarded. First, I refer to the proposals for the major transfer of work from the High Court to the county court which is, when analysed, the only key in the whole of this Bill to reducing delay and costs. This proposal was first publicly mooted when the Lord Chancellor's review body —of which my noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths was a distinguished member —some two years ago made this suggestion.
In its final report 18 months ago it came out firmly in favour, but the report contained this vital paragraph 77:
"The proposed transfer of business from the High Court to the County Court will depend for its success on the quality of County Court facilities".
204
Your Lordships have heard from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice how abysmally inadequate is the present quality of the administrative services of the county courts and indeed of the circuit courts in general. That is despite having had two years in which to make them ready to receive this major transfer of work.
It is of course axiomatic that an efficient administrative framework is a condition precedent to what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is seeking; namely, an efficient legal service. But unfortunately he is powerless in relation to the Treasury. That department does not allow him to achieve his object in just the same way as the Lord Chancellor is prevented from paying fair and reasonable remuneration for legal aid work actually and reasonably done. That was why he removed from the statute that very statutory provision which had been there for years and years. That is why he is not allowed to raise the monetary qualification for legal aid in line with current values and why some 10 million to 15 million persons no longer qualify for legal aid as they did 10 years ago.
In the light of that situation, surely one is entitled to ask whether Parliament is being treated with proper respect by being asked to give power to transfer a large proportion of High Court work which currently is being dealt with with ever-increasing expedition to the county court where the system is in such disarray. Tragically, this is but one aspect of the air of unreality, make-believe and self-deception which permeates this Bill.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the philosophy —some would call it dogma —upon which the Government rely to justify the revolution (because it is no evolution) which they now propose. The latest incantation was pronounced on 23rd November this year on the occasion of the third day of the debate in your Lordships' House on the Address. The formula reads:
"Free competition through market discipline will ensure the most efficient and effective network of legal services at the most economical price.".
The Government's refusal themselves to submit to market discipline and properly to fund the court services is, I venture to suggest, an excellent yardstick against which to measure the sincerity of their protestations that they are deeply concerned that a more efficient and cost-effective legal service be provided.
Part I of the Bill should have been a separate Act, but it sets the scene for the evaluation of the merits of Part II, which deals with legal services. I am convinced that the probable long-term —and not all that long—collective effect of this Bill as it now stands will be to inflict serious damage on the quality of justice in this country. Over that term it will Americanise, if I may use that word, the English administration of justice. The small firms, the high street solicitors who form the greater bulk of the solicitors' profession —80 per cent. of the profession having partners of four or fewer —will be crippled by the twin effects of the loss of conveyancing work to the money-lending institutions and the lack of access to the specialists —that is, the 6,000

205
independent members of the Bar —that they now enjoy.
'The ever-increasing megafirms, with their growing litigation departments, growing both in size and cost, with full rights of audience in all courts, will cause the Bar to wither away. The district attorney system will take over the criminal prosecutions, and the corrupt philosophy of the contingency fee will pervade the whole system. The strong and independent judiciary, acknowledged by the Government in the Green Paper to be one of the central supports upon which our liberties are based and upon which the rule of law depends, will be weakened by the diminishing quality of available recruits and the growing political influence in their appointments. We will in fact out-America America by permitting laymen to act as lawyers, and indeed their appointment at all levels to the judiciary.
Since we are to espouse the American system it is surely appropriate to quote the wise warning of that internationally respected judicial giant from the United States, the late Chief Justice Cardozo, who identified four specific dangers which may well be particularly relevant to the present position. Let me quote what he said:
"We must always take care to safeguard the law against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles."
Let me take the first factor, the assaults of opportunism. Consider the history of this proposed legislation. Its genesis, the Green Paper upon which this legislation is largely based, was the subject matter of a historic debate in your Lordships' House on 7th April. As we all know, the Green Paper was produced in a rush in a matter of two or three months. It required responses in a similar limited period, and when in that debate so many of your Lordships asked my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to pause awhile for mature reflection on the many criticisms, his answer was that law students must within the next three months —that is, by July —know the Government's intentions so that they could make their appropriate decisions. I found that answer totally inadequate, and I was not alone. It illustrates my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham's comment that this was no way to carry out law reform.
I believe that it is very significant that the following still remain unanswered questions. I list them under three main headings: first, the unseemly haste. Why no prior consultations before embarking on what is proudly asserted to be the most radical changes in our legal system in centuries? Why have the Government failed to identify any specific defects in the legal system which their proposals are intended to cure? Expense and delay are endemic in every legal system, and it is accepted that Part II will touch none of those defects.
Why were there no studies or research to bear out the wisdom of their proposals? It was exactly a fortnight ago that I happened to hear on the Radio 4 "Today" programme the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary say:
"The Government does try and look at the consequences of what it proposes."
206
True, that was a reference to the government's policy in relation to Europe.
Finally under this heading: if a large proportion of High Court work is to be transferred to the county court, thereby considerably extending solicitors' rights of audience, why not wait and see how this reform works before experimenting further? Instead of such an evolutionary process, we have the statutory pressure in Clause 15 to hurry, hurry, hurry.
The second heading is the Royal Commission. Why were the recommendations of the Royal Commission, arrived at after three years of prolonged study and which contradicted the Government's proposals, suppressed from the Green Paper? More serious still, why was there no mention in the Green Paper of the Government's own White Paper in 1983, adopting after four years of mature thought the very recommendations of the Royal Commission, which they decided to reverse? Why were no reasons given for these U-turns?
My final heading is: why the elaborate provisions for laymen to do lawyers' work, even to the extent of appointing them to the highest judicial appointments? I invite your Lordships' attention to Clauses 8 and 50 and the grotesque Schedule 7 running to some 20 pages in order to consider who will be our future judges. Perhaps we are to have People's Courts! The hostages which this Bill gives to an ill-disposed minister of justice are incalculable.
All these questions lead to the ultimate question: are these proposals, in the words of Chief Justice Cardozo, "the assaults of opportunism"? The word "sinister" has been used by more than one critic of the Government's proposals. Such a word would aptly describe legislation which essentially plays politics with the administration of justice. See how the combined effect of the straitjacket provisions of Clauses 14 and 15 and Schedule 4 prevent the judges from having regard to what is, after all, their speciality, the public interest in the maintenance and improvement of the quality of justice.
My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths has just repented, he said, in the face of the advice of one of the most powerful firms. Let me read out what that advice was:
"The intentions of this Bill would be seriously jeopardised if as the Bar wish those concerned with granting rights of audience were to be required to have regard to the interest of justice".
Understandably the Law Society has referred to those clauses as providing the judges with only a nominal veto.
But what of the second danger factor,
"the expediency of the passing hour"?
I am not concerned, nor should I be, with the merits of other legislation proposed or in contemplation at the time of the issue of the Green Paper. Such other legislation is, however, an essential part of the context in which the Green Papers and subsequently the White Paper and this Bill were brought into existence.
A large proportion of that other legislation was expected to be and has proved to be highly unpopular. Was this Bill perhaps a heaven-sent

207
opportuntity for the Government to stem the loss of popularity by projecting themselves as the party of streamlined efficiency, deprofessionalising the profession, and thus winning back the electorate? Was the illusion of cheap conveyancing to be achieved through the one-stop shopping process, the false analogy of the market-place and the populist appeal of attacking the so-called restrictive practices of lawyers? Were these together to provide a much-needed boost for the Government's morale?
Certainly the fourth factor of Chief Justice Cardozo—
"the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles" —
must include a significant proportion of the media and could be relied upon to achieve that end. There is little or no time to deal with Chief Justice Cardozo's remaining factor; namely,
"the erosion of small encroachments".
Small they may seem initially, but their cumulative effect is frightening. I have already referred to one—namely, the contingency fee. This was proposed in total disregard of an extensive memorandum produced after the Green Papers by the Law Commission strongly criticising the shallowness and superficiality of the Government's approach to this deeply worrying suggestion. The proposal is clearly designed to provide a basis for resisting the much-needed extension of legal aid.
I have, I hope, in the very limited time available drawn attention to the grave anxiety which all who are concerned to safeguard the rule of law are bound to experience in relation to this Bill. I fully appreciate that the nature of my rhetorical questions and the clear inferences which can well be drawn from the Government's failure hitherto to answer them will not make many new friends and may influence few people. But of all things I would not wish it to be said of me that, having once attained the upmost rung,
"he then unto the latter turns his back, looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees by which he did ascend".
9.4 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, most noble Lords, and especially noble and learned Lords, have based their remarks on their very wide experience in the legal profession in this country. As a member of the Bar, and also now serving as counsel for a Belgian law firm in Brussels, I should like to look at the Bill from a different angle.
One of the major planks of the Government's policies is the completion of the single European market which will mean free movement of people throughout the Community and the right of professionals to exercise their profession in another member state. In European Community law, the rights of lawyers are covered by the Services Directive of 1977. Moreover, by January 1991 they will be covered by the Mutual Recognition Directive which was adopted in Secember 1988. That document was studied for several months by the committee which I had the honour to chair in the European Parliament.
208
As closer economic and commercial integration takes place, there is a continuing increase in cross-border cases and in the need for consultation and representation by United Kingdom lawyers, whether in the United Kingdom or in other member states. British lawyers are held in high regard by the Continental Bars and have justifiably a well-earned reputation for ability and integrity.
Perhaps I may recall a personal experience which took place recently. Professor Tunc, who will be well known to international lawyers, said to me quite without any encouragement, "When I came to give expert evidence to the English courts, I went back to French lawyers and told them that this was the standard of advocacy we should seek to achieve". Such a remark coming from that particular professor is high praise indeed.
Therefore it must be asked, in the light of developments in the legal professions throughout the Community, whether there are any provisions in this Bill which would allow foreign lawyers and clients to cast doubts in future on continued confidence in this high reputation with consequent loss of work coming to British lawyers. I think that that is one of the criteria by which we must look at this Bill.
It does not appear, at first glance, that Her Majesty's Government have considered the consequences of the Bill in the light of European and Community law and practice. Indeed, there is only a brief mention of the submission by the CCBE —that is, the Council of the Bars and of the Law Societies of the European Communities and the body on which the lawyers of all the 12 member states are represented —in the White Paper. Many views appear to have been either overlooked or rejected by the drafters of the Bill, although they are of importance within the European Community context.
I should like to raise a few preliminary questions, though no doubt other matters will arise during the passage of the Bill in Committee. I have given notification of those questions to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but I do not expect him to reply to them this evening in view of the many questions which have been raised with him during the course of the debate. At this point I should like to express my supreme gratitude for the fact that he is still sitting in the Chamber at this stage of the evening listening to every speech in the debate.
In relation to advice on conduct to be received by the Lord Chancellor from the advisory committee in Clause 16, will the noble and learned Lord take into consideration the code of conduct adopted unanimously by the CCBE at its conference in 1988 in Strasbourg? It is stated in the code as the first general principle,
"that the many duties to which a lawyer is subject require his absolute independence, free from all other influence".
If that principle is not recognised and sustained, it could affect the willingness of foreign lawyers to come to United Kingdom lawyers for advice and representation in the courts not just of this country but those of other member states and the European Court of Justice. It is that principle which encourages, as I can confirm from my present

209
position in Brussels, foreign lawyers to come to English chambers.
Under Clause 16 the proposed list of members of the advisory committee should surely include at least one member who has specialist knowledge of European Community law, procedure and practice. The increasing importance of European Community law cannot be ignored in the training and education of British lawyers. It must also be said, with the greatest respect to my noble and learned friend, that the Government, with their many declared principles of decentralisation and deregulation, would be the first and, I believe, the only European Community member state to place the control of the legal profession into the hands of the Executive. That was a point mentioned by my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who is not in his place.
Further concern is raised by the provisions of Clause 24(2)(a) which refers to an appropriate authorised body. Opening up the rights of advocacy to non-lawyers leads to the questions: first, would those non-lawyers have the right to practise and have audience in the courts of other member states; and, secondly and perhaps more seriously, would United Kingdom courts, on grounds of non-discrimination, have to be open to non-lawyers from similar appropriate bodies from other member states? That is a matter to which serious attention should be paid, particularly in view of the judgments coming from the European Court on non-discrimination in regard to members of the professions.
Competition rules under Article 85, which surprisingly have been quoted in various documents connected with the Bill, are applicable to trade and trading practices. Is there any other example in the European Community where those rules have been applied to the regulation of any of the liberal professions, such as the legal profession? At any rate on the Continent a profession is termed "liberal" because it is independent and identifiable. Competition rules do not apply. That leads me to a further subject: the provision in Clause 48 to abolish the ban on MDPs. I believe that to be a dangerous proposition and one which, again, could harm the standing of the United Kingdom legal profession and lead to a decline in work coming to United Kingdom lawyers.
Mr. John Toulmin, QC, in a speech to the Westminster and City programmes, questioned,
"whether safeguards can properly be achieved to preserve the independence of the lawyer to avoid conflicts of interest, to preserve the personal and fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client".
It would appear incontrovertible that lawyers practising in MDPs would be prohibited from practising in most of the other member states, if not all. Only Germany and the Netherlands permit MDPs, but in a limited form. Would it not be wiser to defer this question of permitting MDPs, in whatever circumstances, until further consideration of the implications of the mutual recognition directive when that directive is being implemented into national law?
With regard to multinational practices, is my noble and learned friend willing to be consulted by representatives of the CCBE to ensure that the rules
210
governing those practices will be if not identical at least not incompatible with rules which are being, or may be, introduced in other member states? No one seeks harmonisation, but if we are to have MNPs, which will include citizens of other European countries, it would be sensible to try to achieve some form of co-ordination in the rules governing such practices.
Whatever conclusions may be reached on MDPs and MNPs, surely they go to the root of the profession of advocacy. Are they not matters which should be dealt with by the Lord Chancellor rather than the Director General of Fair Trading?
No one doubts the need for better, cheaper, more efficient and prompt service to the lay client, as has been said on all sides of your Lordships' House. It must be provided by an efficient, cost-effective and competent legal profession and an efficient, and appropriate administration. Considerations contained in the Bill cannot totally ignore developments and standards in other member states of the Community. The United Kingdom is not alone in looking at its legal profession. So are other member states in relation to wider opportunities as a single market is achieved. It is hoped that the Bill's provisions will ensure the maintenance of the high reputation of British lawyers and United Kingdom courts as well as being in accordance and in co-operation with the obligations of lawyers throughout the other member states.
9.13 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, in considering whether to speak in this debate today, I decided to talk about our legal aid system. It has interested me and I feel very strongly about it. As it turns out, a large number of speakers have already dealt with it but I can do two things: first, I can reinforce what they said; secondly, I may be able 10 produce the odd new idea myself.
We are now faced with a situation where, as far as concerns the High Court, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor, with no possibility of legal redress for the large number of citizens who cannot possibly afford the immense potential costs of a High Court action. We sometimes talk about the rule of law. This effective denial of recourse to the law in the High Court is intolerable and raises a major matter of principle. Fairly recently, the BBC was sued for a serious matter of defamation. It managed to spin out the proceedings until the plaintiff could no longer afford the costs of continuing the action. Fortunately somebody agreed to underwrite the costs and the BBC immediately settled out of court. A sorry tale, I think.
When legal aid was set up 40 years ago, civil legal aid —I emphasise "civil" —was available to more than 80 per cent. of the population. The cut-off for a family of four was 37 per cent. above the average male earnings. Now the figures are 50 per cent. of the population and 6 per cent above the average male earnings. The Government's new proposals for the franchising of the green form scheme are useful, but the effect will be small as only £5 million more will be made available. This represents less than 1 per cent. of the legal aid bill.

211
I believe that, apart from simply increasing the level of income where legal aid is paid, other possibilities should be looked at. We now have a legal aid board which screens applications to ascertain the litigant's means and the merit of the case. It would surely be possible to give the board greater powers and for those above the legal aid limit to pay graded fees to the legal aid board for a preliminary hearing on the merits of the case before granting legal aid.
One result which must be avoided is the encouragement of unnecessary litigation. It should be a last resort. The graded fee could be pitched at a level which would discourage this. Such fees might possibly be returnable if the action was successful. I understand that in Germany it is possible to take out insurance to cover those wishing to initiate actions in their higher courts. But I believe that this is open to several objections and does not cover the principle which I mentioned at the beginning of the speech.
The conditional fee agreement in Clause 44 of the Bill is helpful but has several limitations. First, it may not be at all easy to find a solicitor who is willing to help in this way and on reasonable terms. Secondly, I think that the litigant would still be saddled with the opposition's costs if he lost the case. I know the objections to the proposal. Nevertheless I support it as a brave attempt by the Government to help in a small degree with the problem which I have outlined.
Although I intended to confine my speech entirely to legal aid, I shall end briefly by emphasising some of the problems of our legal system which ought to be solved. They are: inordinate time delays; the inefficiency of the too poorly paid prosecution service; the difficulty of obtaining legal aid solicitors, again because of inadequate fees; the barristers' time-wasting approach and sometimes extreme adversarial tactics; finally, as has been said many times in the debate, the quite inadequate funding of our civil courts.
I must end by making this point. I have listened to many speeches and there is no doubt in my mind that our legal system needs some change. I fear that whatever the change —and I am not entirely in favour of all that is proposed in the Bill —there will be those barristers, solicitors and others who would oppose whatever is suggested. It is time that various actions were taken.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, it is sometimes claimed that our legal system is, to use a hackneyed phrase, the envy of the world. I do not believe that that is true. The relative parsimony of the expenditure which the administration of justice at present imposes upon the Exchequer may well be the envy of Finance Ministers of other nations, but I doubt very much whether, for instance, the citizens of those countries whose system of trial is inquisitorial are much troubled by a desire for the adoption of a system of adversarial pleading. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of value and a great deal that is indeed admired in a system which
212
only 10 years ago was subjected to a most searching scrutiny by a Royal Commission —a commission which was conceived in hostility and whose considered report therefore carries all the greater strength.
Before we throw the baby bodily out with the bath water, we should just consider for a moment what are the fundamental criticisms of the existing administration of justice which the provisions of this Bill, and in particular Parts I and II, are designed to meet. They are broadly that it is too slow and that it is too expensive. As regards the former, the provision of enabling machinery for the transfer of run-of-the-mill cases from the High Court to the county courts is, in principle, something which I think we should welcome, although it will need to be recognised that the process will necessitate the most careful preparation of the necessary infrastructure if it is not to result in an even greater chaos in the county courts than exists already.
The somewhat artless reference in the Notes on Clauses to "some" additional resources being needed is perhaps something of an understatement. If the reports that we have received today of the present state of county court administration are even remotely correct, I confess that I view the prospect of an efficient and orderly transition within the budget figures which have been indicated with, if I may borrow a phrase from a respectable judicial source, all the cheerful optimism of a clairvoyant who has taken a return ticket on the Titanic. But here, in principle, I for my part would have no quarrel with what is proposed; indeed I welcome it.
It is in those provisions which are directed to the second major criticism —that of expense and the restriction of choice which expense imposes —that I feel the gravest cause for disquiet. It may be thought that the simplest and most effective way of rendering justice accessible to the needy is by an appropriate extension of the currently very restricted financial limits imposed as a qualification for the receipt of legal aid. But that has not been done and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not merely admitted but asserted, there is no hint of this in the Bill. Instead, the solution is being found in the theory that by commercialising the learned professions so that their exercise becomes merely a facet of business, one can somehow discover a crock of gold from which will flow cheap law. However, I say with respect that that is the optimism of the alchemist.
I confess that like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, I am dismayed that these fundamental changes are being forced upon us at breakneck speed and I am concerned that the widely expressed fears of the probable results of throwing open conveyancing and probate to the lending institutions and of multi-disciplinary partnerships have simply been ignored or swept aside.
As for rights of audience, for my part I have never entertained the view that the admission of solicitors as advocates in the superior courts, by itself and in the right conditions, will be the end of the world for the public or for the Bar. I am encouraged that the Bill recognises the necessity for the approval of the senior judiciary. However, I should like to see more

213
provision in the fourth schedule for their being consulted at a rather earlier stage. It would be nice if they could at least appear on the stage a few minutes before the final curtain came down.
If solicitors feel an urgent desire to assume the mantle of the advocate, that in itself and by itself is not something which, subject to proper professional restraints, I should oppose, although I do not believe for one moment that that will make litigation any cheaper. Such researches as have been undertaken show that there are very strong grounds for believing precisely the opposite.
It would therefore be an overstatement to say that the changes proposed are likely to be welcome to many members of the judiciary. It may be questioned whether the changes envisaged in Part I of the Bill, which will clearly involve the appointment of a number of new judges and the assumption by existing judges of further and heavier responsibilities, provide a suitable climate for the introduction not just of one but of several apparently new breeds of untried and, by definition, inexperienced advocates.
It is clear that the Government are determined to introduce those changes. I say with all sincerity that it must be the responsibility of us all to do our best to ensure that they are made to work, that they are made to work smoothly and that they are made to work in a way that will not damage the administration of justice.
It is clear that in this the new advisory committee will, as it is intended to do, play a vital part. It is in the composition and terms of reference of that body that I find the principal cause for disquiet. Taking the composition first, I accept of course the need for substantial lay representation. However, many of us will be concerned at the dominance of the lay membership. It may be perfectly true that war is far too important an undertaking to be left to generals, but if we are to have a war most of us would sleep easier in our beds if we could be assured that the general staff contained at least a preponderance of people who knew something about military problems, just as an instruction manual for engine drivers might command greater confidence if it were written by somebody who knew something about driving engines.
This, after all, is the body which is to determine and to keep under review education and training and, most importantly, the codes of conduct of those who assume the important responsibility for assisting and guiding the courts in administering the law fairly, impartially and correctly. Indeed, it is that aspect of the advocate's function which is underplayed in the White Paper and which finds no place in the Bill.
The second cause for concern lies in the stated general objective of Part II and the general principle by which the functions of inter alia the members of the advisory committee are to be regulated. New ways of providing legal services and a wider choice are not desirable objectives in themselves. Novelty in itself is not a virtue. Nor is width of choice, unless it produces an improvement in the condition of the chooser. The legalisation of the supply of dangerous
214
drugs would provide the public with a greater freedom of choice but few would say that it was a desirable or benevolent object. I am bound to say that the statement of the objectives of the Bill in these terms without reference to quality or values merely fortifies the suspicion that many have expressed that the Bill is unconcerned with anything beyond inspired innovation and pandering to the populist appeal of the marketplace.
That is not just a semantic point because the statutory objective, however it is defined, is brought into the regulatory principles by which those concerned with advocacy rights are to be governed. This debate is no time for proposing amendments, but I would regard a statutory objective defined simply by reference to novelty and choice and without regard to any of the wider considerations of the importance of independent advice, of probity and of the fair administration of justice as a debasement of the values which are embraced by both branches of the profession and which I should like to think that the legislation was promoted to preserve and enhance.
The same applies, though perhaps to a lesser extent, to the statutorily defined "general principle" where the restrictions of the criteria for audience simply to training, education, qualification and membership of an approved body appear designed to preclude any consideration of the wider effect of the grant of rights in any individual case upon the quality of justice.
As to the appointment of judges, I have no comment save that, from what we have heard today, I wonder whether the Bill should not be amended to include perhaps a training course in acting as court usher, clerking, window-cleaning and clock-winding as an essential qualification.
Those are specific points, but what I and I think many others find most alarming in general about the legislation is the precipitancy with which a whole package of simultaneous measures is being forced on without any apparent consideration of the overall effects of the package taken as a whole. The extension of rights of advocacy may be all very well on its own, but what consideration has been given to its effect not just on the professions, but on the administration of justice when it is combined with a massive transfer of litigation to the county courts, with conveyancing being thrown open to the lending institutions and above all, perhaps, with multi-disciplinary partnerships?
Noble Lords may recollect that, on the occasion of the debate on the Green Papers, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon —a leading proponent of the extension of advocacy rights —sounded, among many others, a note of caution with the words,festina lente. The Bill seems to have been introduced with all the emphasis on the festinare and none on the rallentare. In the course of that same debate I ventured to raise a number of questions which I subsequently repeated in a written submission to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about the nature and extent of the inquiries and research conducted before formulating the proposals there outlined. I expressed —I hope moderately —a widely

215
felt concern that our legal system —which, whatever, form it takes, is an essential foundation for any civilised state —was about to be subjected to a hasty, ill-considered and therefore a most perilous experiment from which, once accomplished, there could be no retreat should it prove to be a disaster, as many predicted it would.
I was not alone in raising those questions. I understand that they were also raised by, among others, the Bar Council. I have never received an answer and I understand that the answer to the Bar Council's similar inquiries has been equally negative. Sometimes silence is the most eloquent response and the failure of the Government not only to furnish a direct answer to the questions asked but even to suggest the undertaking of even the most rudimentary research into the likely results of their
216
proposals must prompt the conclusion that none has taken place. The White Paper certainly does nothing to dispel the fear that that is the case.
So what the Government are embarking upon in the Bill is not just a perilous and hasty experiment. It is an uninformed experiment and, because the efficiency and availability of justice form part of the essential sub-structure of our society, it is an experiment which potentially touches to some degree the lives of all citizens of this country. So it is not just the courts, the judges or even just the lawyers, but all of us who are cast in the role of the hamsters.
So many of the military and administrative fiascos of history, from the fall of Troy to the collapse of the groundnut scheme, have been due to an insufficiency of prior intelligence. I most earnestly hope that we are not in for another.
9.34 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, much of what I would have wished to say has been said a great deal better by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. However, I should like to approach the Bill from a point of view different, I think, from that of anyone who has spoken so far; namely, that of someone whose career has not been part of the legal profession but the teaching of British government and the British constitution.
Whatever one may think of the details —and I am not against the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, appearing in any court in which he chooses to appear—it seems to me that this Bill represents a major change in the relations between the executive branch of government and the law, the judiciary, the Bar and the solicitors' profession. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, gave us a perspective on that from the point of view of the Continent of Europe. Looking back over the history of this country, we have developed over the centuries a series of institutions of which the learned professions form one and the universities, which are also under attack from this Government, form another. It is in the interplay of those historic institutions and professions and in the interstices of their activities that our constitutional and legal rights have emerged.
I believe that reference was made by an earlier speaker to the dramatic events in Eastern Europe. One thing that has come clearly out of those events is the strong desire of the nations and the peoples concerned to obliterate to some extent 40 years of tyranny and foreign rule and to try to get back, to seize again, their national roots and symbols. It will be a very hard task at which some may prove more adept than others.
But for us, a country which, through the gallantry of its fighting men, has been spared any such experiences of foreign occupation and the domination of an alien ideology, voluntarily to set aside those centuries of experience and the institutions which have grown out of them seems to be most extraordinary. I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson that it is the more extraordinary from a Conservative Government. I am only comforted by the fact that I believe that they are a Conservative Government intermittently —sometimes they are and sometimes they behave as though they were a wholly owned subsidiary of the Institute of Economic Affairs. It is possible to take alternate roles and many repertory companies actually survive in that way.
However, if it were, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, suggested, merely obeisance to market forces, that would not be as sinister as the other aspect, which is the enforcement of executive control, because the way in which those so-called market forces are to be encouraged is by executive fiat. It is not the result of the legal profession, through its acknowledged institutions, altering its practices to give greater weight to the consumer.
I am surprised that no legally qualified Member of your Lordships' House has commented on that. For instance, what has the Director General of Fair
218
Trading to do with legal practice or appearances before the courts? I am sure that he is a very dedicated public servant —as is certainly the present incumbent of that important office. When it comes to ensuring that there is no hanky-panky with the market for crispies, pop-up toasters or video nasties, I am sure that he does his best to guard us against such marketing malpractice. However, should he not keep to what is properly consumer interest? Consumers have a continuous interest. They buy their crispies once a week or their toasters once every five years or whatever it may be. But what has he to do with something that may affect a person's life or liberty in criminal law or a person's reputation and property in civil law? The introduction in this Bill of this official in a role which is quite unnecessary —because there are plenty of other ways in which control can be exercised —is an insult to a profession, and I should feel that were I a member of that profession.
I refer again to what I regard as a much more dangerous aspect —imposition by hastily thought out legislation. I wholly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. I cannot think of another major Bill in the course of British history that has been rushed through unnecessarily in this way as though it were an emergency powers Bill with an enemy on our doorstep. If it is right that there should be changes in the provision for the education of advocates or their training, it is no more urgent today than it was yesterday and it is no more urgent today than it will be tomorrow. Following the detailed examination of the Green Paper in your Lordships' House and the very interesting and important documents that have been produced by the various branches of the legal profession, it would have been perfectly possible to have found the agreement between both branches of the profession which several noble Lords have said is their principal objective.
I referred to this issue when I spoke in the debate on the Green Paper; it has also been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. It is the so-called advisory council. I speak as a layman. It seems wholly improper that important issues such as the education and code of conduct of an advocate should be dealt with by a body with a lay majority. One may well wish to have a lay representation because the professions exist for those who need them. But a majority is unnecessary. Indeed again it is insulting to the members of the two professions.
I believe that I said something similar in the debate on the Green Paper. However, my doubts and reservations have been much increased by the experience of another quango which was set up under the Education Reform Act last year. The universities have been handed over to the mercy of a quango. Although it does not have a lay majority in the strict sense, for a variety of reasons which would take too long to go into, it is dominated by the lay element. Anyone who is acquainted with the university scene today, as some noble Lords are, is quite well aware that the result has been an appalling degree of intervention in a university's internal affairs despite the assurances of the noble and learned Lord the

219
Lord Chancellor when the Bill was debated. It has led to chaos, resentment and low morale. With that example staring us in the face we ought to ask the noble and learned Lord to consider the composition of the council.
I was not altogether surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, came out as a supporter of the Bill. But from his other position he must be well aware of the truth of what I am saying with regard to advisory committees. I was not altogether surprised. All of us declare an interest and some of us declare our real interest, and the interest that he declared was that of the ordinary consumer, although I find it difficult to think of the noble Lord as the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Or in the dock at the Old Bailey.
Lord Beloff: What in fact we had was the traditional Home Office view —the lawyers are a nuisance and a bore and should be sued if they get things wrong, but our civil servants, immigration officers and all those who answer to the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office are men of such incalculable genius, confidence and integrity that no word of criticism, let alone action for damages, should come against them. If the Home Office has a corporate view in favour of the Bill that should make us enormously suspicious.
After all, the Bill is not necessary, and that is the point to which one continually returns. One could say that Part I of the Bill is necessary, although since apparently they are not to be financed, the provisions are unlikely to deal with the mischief which they claim to remedy. I certainly agree that, if presented separately with a proper estimate of the amount of public money involved, Part I of the Bill could have been useful. We all wish to see litigation become more rapid and cheaper. However, Part II of the Bill appears to be difficult to explain because there is no evidence of any particular grievance or public clamour that needs to be satisfied. Clearly what some tabloid newspapers may write about the legal system is not worth the paper on which it is written.
As has been repeated by many noble Lords, generally speaking the system in this country has a high reputation. It has a much higher reputation than the system in the United States of America upon which apparently our new-fangled legal system is to be based. It is not unusual or unique that we have a separation in the legal profession. Many countries divide up their legal profession. The French, as one might expect in Gaul, have three divisions. Therefore, to say that we are somehow coming into line with the civilised world is unacceptable to anyone fully aware of the facts.
I should have thought that it would be perfectly possible, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, has said, to start with a modest step in advance; let us say an agreement as regards solicitors. I do not know whether they would fully wish to take advantage of it or whether, coupled with the effect
220
of other sections of the Bill on conveyancing on the solicitors' profession, they would wish to press forward with other persons to be given the right of advocacy as paralegals. But in a legal system which has been in existence for several hundred years, I cannot see why your Lordships' House or the other place should be asked to swallow in the course of a few weeks or months changes which we may come bitterly to regret which could only be justified by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he could give us his personal assurance not only that the Government will remain in office well into the next century but that he will continue to occupy the Woolsack. As neither of those propositions appears to be at all likely, I must confess that I shall be moved to vote in favour of the many amendments already suggested.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Hampstead: My Lords, the present Government have sometimes been accused of not being a listening government. However, I really do not believe that that accusation can be fairly levelled at the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It may be that he is not to be totally exculpated from showing some degree of undue haste which is not uncommon in governments, but as regards listening to comments and criticisms, I believe that he has, if I may say so, behaved in an exemplary fashion. He has listened to all possible criticisms, he has engaged in public debate all over the place and, as has been remarked, even in the course of our two debates on this subject, he has most diligently sat through all the speeches put before him.
Your Lordships may recall that during our first debate he showed himself as rather minded to think that a White Paper was unnecessary. However, in the end, as he was pressed to produce one, he did so. He produced a very detailed White Paper in which he endeavoured to meet fully and candidly the serious criticisms raised. Moreover, he showed himself ready to accept modification on important points such as abandoning the licensing scheme, which so many of us thought was open to a considerable amount of objection. The scheme which he has now substituted appears to have aroused a great deal less hostility than earlier proposals.
It is late and I do not propose to detain your Lordships longer than necessary. I was proposing to comment on Part I of the Bill but I shall omit that entirely and pass to making a few brief remarks on Parts II and III.
Here I venture to think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has gone a long way to finding solutions to what have long been vexed and controversial questions; more particularly, those relating to judicial appointments in relation to solicitors and their rights of audience in the higher courts.
At present I believe that there are really few opponents to the concept that solicitors, if suitably qualified, should be accepted as judges in the superior courts. After all, they have now proved their

221
capacity over a number of years as circuit judges and there seems little doubt that, if the occasional solicitor is appointed to the High Court, he will almost certainly occupy that office with distinction and without any threat to the independence or status of the Bar. One can almost regard that now, judging by the present debate, as a dead issue.
The question of solicitors as advocates in the higher courts remains much more controversial. I venture to express the view that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was well advised to drop his original, rather cumbersome, scheme of licensing advocates. That had a slightly distasteful atmosphere about it apart from, as I say, being rather cumbersome. That has now been replaced by the functions of the advisory committee and the crucial role of the senior judges in approving or disapproving of the basis on which advocacy may be admitted in accordance with certain statutory principles.
For my own part, I cannot see any constitutional objection to such a system, although it may be very difficult to predict how it will work. I feel bound to repeat a comment which I made in the earlier debate; I am by no means persuaded that it will have more than a marginal effect on the cost position. Nevertheless there are advantages in extending advocacy to the solicitors' side of the profession. One thing that puzzles me greatly —and I have not heard this adequately explained —is why the White Paper and the Bill seem intent upon extending not only audience rights but even the right to judicial appointments to non-legal professions. I cannot detect any public demand whatever, either from professional groups or from the public at large, that accountants, chartered surveyors, architects or doctors should, if suitably qualified in advocacy, be admitted as members of their own profession to become advocates or even judges.
I should have thought that, save in those exceptional cases where lay advocacy is appropriate —and the Bill to some extent deals with this —it is far better to leave these functions to professional lawyers. They have the experience; they have the ethos and the training. It is rather puzzling that the Bill should go out of its way to admit the possibility of professional advocacy being extended to other professions.
So far as I am aware, this role for non-legal professionals does not exist in any other country, save perhaps in very rare and specialised cases such as patent agents, who are sometimes in some countries given rights of advocacy before patent tribunals; but that is a special matter.
To extend advocacy to solicitors is a different matter. There can be no argument that this increases choice on the part of the client and is a reasonable choice to give him. If, for instance, a client comes to a solicitor and is given to understand that the solicitor is qualified to conduct his case in the High Court and the client is happy to leave the case entirely in the hands of his solicitor right the way through, I cannot see why he should not be allowed that degree of freedom of choice. I cannot see what is wrong in that. It is, after all, what occurs in almost
222
every country. If, on the other hand, he prefers to employ counsel then he should be entitled to do so.
Nor can I see that this will inflict any irreparable harm on the Bar. The public will always need highly skilled specialists to conduct their advocacy. There will always be a section of able and energetic young men who will be drawn to that type of practice as a speciality and who will prefer the lifestyle which is characteristic of the Bar.
On the other hand, there may be some who will find the solicitors' side increasingly attractive if they can also engage as senior advocates. That is, after all, no more than reasonable competition. It is up to the Bar to do all it can to make entry into the profession as attractive, competitively, as it can. Speaking for myself, I am very happy to learn that the Bar has been taking considerable measures recently to improve salaries, access to chambers and alternative ways of setting up in practice. All these are legitimate ways in which the Bar may encourage able young people to enter into that side of the profession. However, it is a question of facing competition. The Bar, as the Bar never tires of telling us, is of all professions perhaps the most competitive. This is just another form of competition. I do not think it will produce any fatal consequences to the Bar for the reasons I have just mentioned.
Nor am I persuaded that the big firms of solicitors will syphon off all the leading practitioners from the Bar. I think that that is somewhat fanciful. In the first place I am quite persuaded that the leading practitioners would show no desire to be syphoned off in that way. For the most part I believe that they are perfectly happy with their own professional life and have no desire to become a cog in a huge legal machine. Although I am sure that the fears are genuinely felt, I feel that they are somewhat exaggerated.
I do not propose to add any more at this time. In conclusion I suggest that, despite some quite conspicuous flaws in the present Bill which are doubtless capable of improvement in Committee, it is a good Bill and it deserves support. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is entitled to considerable praise for the efforts that he has made to produce a workable and acceptable scheme. I believe that in due course he will be recognised as one of, and take his place among, our leading reforming Lord Chancellors.
10.1 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that I have advanced from being the 41st speaker in the debate on the Green Papers to being the 29th speaker tonight, I find myself still, as a late speaker, able to claim the privilege of saying that I do not intend to say what I otherwise might have said on the rights of litigants to have their solicitors represent them in the High Court instead of barristers.
This Bill is about the provision and the providers of legal services. It may be fanciful, but the appearance of the subject of courts as a separate component of the Short Title seems to indicate that, in spite of the radical insistence in other parts of the Bill on making the law more accessible, more

223
understandable, more effective and cheaper for those who come to it, there is a lingering insistence that the interests of the courts and those who serve in them must, in the last instance, be paramount and that the parties to a civil dispute and their representatives are but petitioners on the treadmill of justice.
What seems to me to be insufficiently recognised in the Bill is that civil proceedings as opposed to criminal proceedings are primarily for the benefit of people, not of the court, society or the Government. They are designed to settle disputes arising between individuals and the court is there to find out what happened, to establish the law and apply it. The court is of course concerned that its time should not be wasted and that proceedings should be properly conducted.
The civil courts are there to meet the requirements of litigants and the speed and nature of the proceedings should, as far as possible, be determined by the litigants themselves. So it is with some concern that I approach Clause 9, which deals with penalties for non-attendance and proposes that a court may summon a litigant or his solicitor, barrister or lay representative, where there is no solicitor, and impose a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale for failing, without giving due notice to the court, to keep the court appointment.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to that as a quasi-offence, but I should think that it is an offence which is to be compared with other offences found in the County Court Act for which the court may fine; for example, for assaulting an officer of the court in the exercise of his duties or refusing, as a witness, to appear to a subpoena. They are strange bedfellows to be found with failure to keep appointments.
That is an authoritarian proposal. The Law Society opposes it principally on the ground that the courts and other parties to litigation, faced with time-wasting tactics —and there are many such cases apart from the failure to turn up for a hearing—have plenty of existing remedies to compensate one party for the default of the other, which are just as effective as a fine and in addition actually benefit the other party and do not just go into the Consolidated Fund. It will be interesting to know something of the background to this clause and why it is that failure to keep appointments has been singled out for this draconian treatment. I can find no trace of it in the unified list of recommendations of the Civil Justice Review.
The report of the Review Body on Civil Justice was published in June 1988 and was generally well welcomed by the profession and the consumer bodies. Particularly welcomed were the proposals to extend the jurisdiction of the county courts, to provide for a more flexible allocation of cases between the two courts, and to provide for there to be a common core of court procedures applying both to the county courts and to the High Court.
It is in this light that I draw attention to the absence of any recommendation that the work of the High Court and the county courts be joined together
224
in one court. It is to be regretted, now that the county court is to cease to be just a small claims court, that the opportunity is being missed to end what will become basically an archaic delineation matter.
It seems to me that the greater flexibility that will be necessary when the review proposals are implemented —already reflected, for example, in the terribly convoluted provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill dealing with the allocation of cases between the two courts and the transfers of cases up and down between the two courts—points clearly to the desirability of there being but one court. The same can be said of the sorry state of the county court service, to which so many have referred tonight.
Your Lordships may read some of the arguments for and against the unified court in the Civil Justice Review. I shall not summarise them now. I shall only comment that the argument put forward against the court seems to depend on the proposition that the specialist work of the High Court—that is to say, judicial review, public and administrative law, intellectual property and Admiralty cases, revenue appeals and the like—differentiates the High Court from the county court and justifies their separate existence. There is nothing about the convenience of litigants in all this, and I should have thought that it would be perfectly possible in a unified court for the right judges to deal with the difficult and important cases.
I pause here after this list of specialist cases to refer to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. He is, as your Lordships will know, especially concerned with the affairs of solicitors. He expressed surprise and sadness that the Law Society had taken what he said in the autumn to be an implacable defence of the Bar's monopoly of advocacy. I shall have to read the speech and see exactly what he said, but this is what I understood him to say. He said that the monopoly of advocacy would only be needed in certain cases. I suspect that he would have included in these cases the specialist cases to which the Civil Justice Review has referred.
These cases do not normally involve conflicts on fact, or the cross-examination of witnesses. They are often cases that deal with the interpretation of the law in relation to documents. I should have thought that these were just the cases where it would be possible for solicitors to appear in the High Court. I have the impression that the Bill and the document that preceded it indulge in more than a little identifying of motes in the eyes of the professional while remaining blind to the beams in the eye of the court administrator. I am thinking now about the difficulty in obtaining recompense as of right for administrative incompetence within the court system.
The Parliamentary Commissioner may look into the court activities for which the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible, but when there is error and it comes to the point the department appears to claim that what appears to be simple maladministration by court officials was not that at all. It is a matter which falls within the responsibility of the judiciary, and no one may investigate it.

225
I understand that the Law Society receives correspondence from practitioners about court errors; for example, the parties and their representatives may be at the doors of the court, but there is no judge present because the court officials have not told him about the case. There is no redress through the Parliamentary Commissioner because of the curious demarcation convention that such an error is an error of the judiciary and no concern of the department. I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, in his suggestion that it ought to be possible to amend the Bill to make it clear that errors of court staff are subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I should like to say a few words about the provisions of the Bill relating to conveyancing. The Government are determined to promote conveyancing by financial institutions and conglomerates. I think it is fair to say that popular demand for one-stop shopping has loomed very large in the thinking which has brought about this decision. For my part, I am concerned that the long-term effect of a move to a one-stop service will be against the interests of consumers, unless it is clearly laid down that consumers are to be treated by those with whom they deal as clients and not as customers. I would put it this way. A client is one to whom a professional solely owes his duty; but one sells used cars to customers.
The house buyer or seller employing a solicitor or licensed conveyancer may find that he needs advice on finance, on insurance, on surveying, on estate agency matters and on all the other components of the whole deal which constitute the house purchase or sale. The solicitor is in a position to give the disinterested advice which the purchaser or seller needs regarding recommending brokers, surveyors, estate agents and so on.
On the other hand, the house buyer who opts for a one-stop service may find that he is advised as to all these matters, but there will only be one recommendation at each stage. Whether he asks the lender to recommend a surveyor, the estate agent to recommend a source of finance, the building society to recommend a conveyancer or the conveyancer to recommend an endowment policy, the result will be predictable. However, I shall not dwell on that fact.
The Government recognise the conflict of interest which affects the person employed or engaged by the financial organisation to do its conveyancing for its customers. They accept that the conveyancer should not act in a conflict situation. Clause 37 of the Bill provides that there may be regulations designed to avoid conflicts of interest. What are the Government going to do? They will cut this Gordian knot and allow the conveyancer to exempt himself from his duty to his lay client so that he can look after the interests of his employer. Is that not curious?
In a Bill which purports to arise out of concern for the users of legal services, would we not have expected that the conflict of interest issue would be resolved in favour of the client? Moreover, might we not have expected —and, indeed, may we not now expect —that in a Bill concerned with the protection of the public any arrangement or
226
agreement limiting the professional duties of the employed conveyancer to his quasi client would be statutorily rendered void, it not illegal? However, that is not a provision which we shall have.
I shall end with one more point on independent financial advice. The problem does not simply relate to conveyancers employed by building societies. The Consumers' Association made the point that only a small percentage of house purchasers now receive advice from their solicitors about house purchase finance. From that fact the association draws the conclusion that advice, independent of the financial organisation, is not required. However, the short answer to that argument is that if this Bill is implemented, as intended, many more house purchasers will need independent advice and far fewer house purchasers will receive it.
Estate agents, as your Lordships are aware, may be able to offer conveyancing services, at least to those who are selling houses through their offices. I had direct experience this summer of a lady who engaged agents to sell her house. They were not entitled to offer to convey her house for her, so she went to a solicitor. He advised her I hat the estate agents' terms were unusual and unduly greedy. Before the estate agents got much further, he had renegotiated the terms. It might well have been otherwise had the Bill been enacted and had the estate agents been doing the conveyancing for the lady. That is what the conflict of interest is all about.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of Shannon: My Lords, in my short contribution to the debate I, like the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, wish to draw the attention of the House to a section of the Bill headed Extension of conveyancing services. That section encompasses Clause 31 to 43, which taken together outline a new and significant group of changes in the organisation and structure of house transfer. Although that section has received only a fraction of the publicity about the Bill, I make no apology for concentrating my remarks upon it. I do so for two main reasons: first, it is likely to have a more practical and direct effect on the man in the street than some of the other more legally esoteric areas of the Bill.
It has now become a well-worn clichė that moving home is the most important, expensive and traumatic event in most people's lives. Secondly, conveyancing and house transfer are still badly in need of further change, reform and competition.
Britain is a modern society and a property-owning democracy. Two-thirds of us are owner occupiers. We need a conveyancing system which is expeditious and tailored to consumers' needs and which enhances the mobility of the nation's labour force.
The existing conveyancing system was designed in a different age when the quill pen and not the laser printer was the basic tool in the conveyancer's office. The adversarial approach to the transfer of title on land was developed when the number of transactions was less than 1 per cent. of the present level and long before the creation of land registration which now covers about 70 per cent. of the properties sold.

227
In short, the system has been crying out for reform, and the process started earlier this year by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with his Green Paper was a most important first step. It is worth noting that in other member states of the European Community the property transfer system does not have that adversarial approach. Generally there is just one notary between the parties whose function it is to confirm that the transfer has been properly carried out. I feel sure therefore that most noble Lords will join me in welcoming this important measure which is designed to widen choice and reform the delivery of conveyancing services.
Although the Bill does little directly to sweep away the restrictive practices in conveyancing, the competition which is being introduced by the Bill is most heartily to be welcomed.
I feel confident that authorising financial institutions and others with an expertise in the property business to offer conveyancing services will fulfil the Government's hopes that these new practitioners will simplify the conveyancing process itself.
For many, if not most, home owners, conveyancing should not be a legal service but a consumer product constructed and delivered in much the same way as other elements of the home-moving process. In truth, the actual legal input required in the conveyancing of a registered freehold is minimal. The rest of the process is largely ritual paper-pushing which can be replaced today by computers. This has been increasingly recognised and the fact that those employed by authorised practitioners under this Bill simply have to be "fit and proper persons" rather than legally qualified persons allows for this change in the nature of the transactions.
The introduction in Clauses 33 and 34 of the Bill of this competition between the old legal system and the new operators deserves support. My fears, however, start with this very division in the treatment between the existing operators and the new authorised practitioners. We are creating two systems of conveyancing and two frameworks of organisation. The first is the current system governed by the Solicitors Act and the Administration of Justice Act, and which is the province of solicitors and licensed conveyancers. The second is the new system of authorised practitioners created by the Bill. This means that we shall virtually have two sets of rules, two pyramids of regulations and two broad categories of practitioners. My fear is that with these two systems of conveyancing some poor consumers will fall down the crack in the middle.
Surely it makes sense that all conveyancing work undertaken by any person, be he a solicitor, a licensed conveyancer or an authorised practitioner, should be covered by the same set of rules and the same ombudsman scheme. Is it not essential, if we are to create a level playing field, for all people who want to undertake conveyancing work to be authorised in the same way?
It might be coincidental that last week the winding up was announced of the committee established
228
to recommend improvements in the conveyancing system. Over the past four years the conveyancing standing committee of the Law Commission has brought forward a large number of recommendations to speed up and simplify the system. Most of these appear to have been ignored by those providing legal services. I therefore welcome the powers given to the Lord Chancellor in Clause 37 to make regulations,
"designed … to provide for the efficient transaction of business; [and] avoid unnecessary delays".
In the White Paper which preceded this Bill reference was made to the reforms being introduced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to create a self-regulatory system backed by statute for estate agents. It is truly heartening to see that the estate agents are as concerned as the consumers' organisations to see improvements in the home transfer system. The National Association of Estate Agents published in June this year a vision of the future entitled Moving Without Tears. I have a copy of that booklet with me and it is available in the Library should any of your Lordships wish to peruse it and read the valuable conclusions it reached. One of the most important conclusions was that it should be possible within the existing legal framework of conveyancing to construct a much simpler and easier home-moving process around a conditional contract.
Finally, I give one word of warning. Much of the force of this Bill will depend upon the regulations which will come in its wake. There are those waiting in the wings and, as we have seen this afternoon, on centre stage, who will try to nullify the impact of this reforming measure. I do not underestimate the strength of the legal lobby which will try, and has tried, to persuade your Lordships that the new authorised practitioners should be burdened with the same legal system's antiquated and expensive ways. We have outlined a new world. Please let there be no return to the old.
10.26 p.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, as one of the few non-lawyers contributing this evening to the debate, I wish to assure noble Lords that my contribution has nothing whatever to do with courage but more to do with gall. I find it very sad that so few noble Lords who are not lawyers have contributed to the Second Reading of this critically important Bill. That is not a criticism but merely an observation. I say that because perhaps the most exciting thing that I find about the Bill —this is one of the reasons why I welcome it so warmly —is that its whole style and form recognise strongly something which might come as a great surprise to those who practise the law at whatever level; that is, that the law is there for the people of this country. That means the entire 55 million people in this country. It is not designed for the benefit of those who practise it at any level. I say that as strongly as I possibly can because I have been astonished on former occasions, and frankly somewhat horrified, at the reaction of some of the most senior members of the Bench and the Bar to these proposals.
Other noble Lords, like myself, have been entertained for some eight years by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone

229
when he has constantly referred to the absurd conservatism of his profession. Yet in the course of discussions on this matter I find that the gamekeeper, so to speak, has turned poacher. I am sad about that because I am convinced that this Bill will be for the benefit of the country at large. I particularly welcome, as many noble Lords have said, the reorganisation of the allocation of work between the courts. I shall not dwell on that matter but I wholly support the point made so eloquently and so well by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and indeed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, that it is of critical importance that correct and adequate resources are brought to bear in order that Parts I and II come to proper and efficacious fruition.
At this point I wish to raise the point that has been mentioned so often before about the independence of the Bench and the Bar. This is dressed up as a constitutional point. Why is it, I ask myself, that for the past 30 years the Bench and the Bar have been so silent on this issue? Why have the Bench and Bar not constantly encouraged their members to upbraid the administration publicly for the appalling levels of pay and the appalling inadequacy of the court system? That would have been warmly welcomed by any Home Secretary or Lord Chancellor as giving strength to his arm in arguments with the Treasury over resources. I should welcome it if in the future the Bench and the Bar used their constitutionally independent position constantly to bring pressure to bear on government to draw more resources into the court system.
I have no worries whatsoever regarding the issue of rights of audience of practitioners who have not been trained at the Bar. I am convinced that the Bar is strong enough not to suffer one jot from these changes. Its members have nothing to fear. Their abilities, their history and their education will protect them in the future. The virtues and usefulness of the Bar mean that the Bar needs no protection, statutory or otherwise.
I believe that there will be no problem with regard to judges declining to grant rights of audience in the High Court to other than barristers. Even judges have to obey the law. The paramount principle declared in the Bill determining whether a person should be granted rights of audience is whether he is qualified under the education and training requirements and whether he belongs to a professional body which maintains rules of conduct conducive to the proper and efficient administration of justice. There is no need for concern in that area.
I come to my last point, which is education and training. I am delighted with the provisions in the Bill which move towards common education and training in the profession. I believe that that is long overdue. As I had the impertinence to suggest in the debate on Scottish reforms in this area, the Scottish practice whereby young entrants into the profession serve as solicitors for at least a couple of years before applying to become members of the Faculty of Advocates is an example from which I believe the English Bar would benefit greatly.
While on that subject, there is no reference in the Bill, and no reference has been made today by the
230
professionals or by anybody for that matter, to the fact that there are legal practitioners other than the generals and the staff officers. The former Managing Clerks' Association —the association of legal executives —has for years provided an extremely fine education service to lawyers. There are the court officials and those in the court structure. They all provide a service to the public. It is important to recognise that it is not only fully qualified solicitors and barristers who, either directly or indirectly, provide a legal service to the public. I welcome the fact that the Bill recognises that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask him a very short question. When he states categorically that the Bar has nothing to fear, does he accept that that view is wholly dependent upon clarification of the role of the judiciary?
Lord Morris: My Lords, the judiciary in itself has nothing whatsoever to fear. I have never in my life met a judge who was in the least frightened of voicing an opinion and getting his opinion across. I see absolutely no reason why the judiciary or the Bar should be in fear of the Bill. Are the Bench and the Bar such tender flowers that they need statutory protection? I do not believe a word of it.
10.35 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, as the last speaker on the list in this long debate —
Noble Lords: There are three more speakers.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, as the last speaker but three I should state my starting point, particularly having heard many of today's interesting speeches; namely, that we in the legal profession have not been and are not now living in the best of all possible worlds.
There has been worry about the law and the way in which it works over many years, and that worry has increased in recent years. There was the Bill, to which reference has already been made, promoted by Austin Mitchell in another place and relating to conveyancing. There has been the radical change in the conveyancing field and the Farrand Committee which related to that. Those measures have been implemented despite severe opposition from my professional organisation, the Law Society. So there has been a great deal of concern and there have been the beginnings of change.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, indicated that he did not believe that there was any need for speed. I entirely agree that, in a matter of this importance and of such fundamental consequence, we should certainly not proceed with haste, but the motto, "Deliberate speed, majestic instancy" would fit the bill.
I am filled with admiration, as I believe are others in the House, for the courage and determination of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in bringing about the Green Papers, the White Paper and the Bill. I also admire the calm which he has evinced in the face of attacks of a fairly violent kind

231
both from colleagues and others, and his constant desire to discuss and explain and, in many cases, to accept proposals and ideas which have been put to him. The changes in attitudes and practices, both of the Bar and of the solicitors' profession and their governing bodies, have been brought about by the initiative which he started. I therefore start with the proposition that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has brought about the possibility of change which some years ago was almost impossible to foresee.
I have no doubt that extensive amendment to the provisions now before us will be required. I do not at this stage of the evening wish to refer to them at length. I simply want to refer to two points, neither of which noble Lords may think is fundamental, but to my mind both are important and are derived from my experience of 40 years in practice as a solicitor.
The first of those points relates to the provisions of Clause 50, to which reference has already been made, relating to judicial appointments and the provisions of Schedule 7 which also relate to other appointments. The substantial effect of those is that the qualification for judicial appointment and those other appointments is to depend in future on the right of audience that a person has acquired from the Bar, the Law Society or some other authorised body.
Increasingly, aspects of legal practice demand specialisation. So the advocate needs to be a specialist in advocacy and will have to receive appropriate training. In some cases no doubt the capacity to occupy high judicial office stems from experience in advocacy. But the people who are able to discharge the judicial function are not necessarily and in all circumstances those who most effectively pursued careers in advocacy. On the contrary, there are many judges of the greatest distinction, both in this country and elsewhere, who have not been among the leading advocates and in some countries there are those who have not practised advocacy at all.
A glance at Schedule 7 indicates that in general the qualification for appointment, instead of being a barrister or solicitor —that is to say, a person qualified in the law with more or less many years of experience —is now to be derived from qualification as an advocate. That applies to, for instance, qualification as a charity commissioner, a law commissioner or a commons commissioner and, if my recollection is right, qualification to preside over an assessment tribunal of a midwives' organisation. I suggest that somewhere this view has gone wrong and that we ought to get it right.
Specialisation, already widespread, is likely to increase. Greater specialisation than presently exists will, I believe, be required in the courts and among judges. I suggest therefore that this is not the time to preclude specialist practitioners of the highest quality from attaining judicial or any other office.
It is perhaps worth noting that to settle civil disputes resort is increasingly had to arbitration, and the arbitrators appointed both in this country and, for instance, by the International Chamber of
232
Commerce, which is one of the leading organisations conducting international arbitrations, are not specialist advocates. In many cases the appointments are made by the parties themselves. That indicates that the clients see virtue in such cases in the judicial function being exercised by a person who is not a specialist advocate. I believe therefore that when we come to consider the Bill in Committee this point should perhaps be considered further.
Another point to which I should like to refer relates to multinational and multidisciplinary practices, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, referred. There is in existence the recently created European legal entity, the European Economic Interest Grouping, as it is called —the EEIG —which may be helpful in establishing relationships between, for instance, English firms of solicitors and their equivalents elsewhere in the EC. We shall have to consider to what extent use can be made of that body within the rules prescribed in this Bill as to the relationships between solicitors in this country and other organisations such as Fiduciaire in France and Belgium.
There is also the question of solicitors entering into partnership or other arrangements with lawyers in the Community. In certain EC countries lawyers may enter into partnership or themselves conduct business other than legal business, such as accountancy. The practice of commercial law is presently largely conducted in this country within the profession.
The commercial and legal developments of recent years and the requirements of clients are rapidly changing, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in his opening remarks. We have to bear in mind that, if the constraints on practitioners are too great, it is easy to envisage that commercial legal practice may be conducted outside the profession and the safeguards which have been so much emphasised in this debate —and rightly so —will then be absent. It is a point that one has to bear in mind in considering the extent of the regulation which may be desirable.
At present solicitors may not enter into partnership with persons who are not solicitors. That provision is to be repealed. The Bill then provides in the next subsection that the freedom given to solicitors by that repeal can be cancelled by the Law Society making rules in effect reinstating the previous position either generally or with exceptions.
Much has been written about one stop shopping —to which reference was made by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon —in the financial services field as well as in the context of professional services. I suggest that the question of whether or not solicitors or barristers should be able to enter into partnership with people in other professions or occupations ought to be determined by Parliament. It is not a suitable matter for decision by self-regulating organisations, which in this context the General Council of the Bar and the Law Society are to be. I do not believe that government or indeed Parliament should shirk their responsibility in this regard.
10.47 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, since I am recovering from a rather heavy attack of flu, and for other reasons, I shall be very brief in winding up the debate from this Bench.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Lord Hooson: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord said "Hear, hear" perhaps he bore in mind that this debate has been very much a repeat of the debate on the Green Paper. It is a sad reflection that so many people who took up entrenched positions then have had to repeat them today.
It is very interesting that noble Lords—judges, members of the Bar and others —have expressed exactly the same doubts about the Bill as they expressed about the Green Paper. It is a very serious matter that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not been able to allay the fears of the senior judges about the long-term effect of his proposed measures. They are a very important profession in this country. No one is suggesting that in the shorter term this Bill, if enacted, would have immediate effect. But it is the long-term effect about which people are worried. After all, we have a system of justice that is greatly admired. That is attributed to a great extent to the fact that we have an independent judiciary served by an independent Bar. We have had separate professions. That has resulted in a system which is greatly admired outside our country and within it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, suggested that the course upon which we are now embarking is a watershed in our system. It means that we shall have a complete change. Therefore the onus of allaying the fears surely rests upon the shoulders of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The great fear that has been expressed in the debate is that gradually the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society and everything else, will come under the control of the administrative arm of the Lord Chancellor's Department. Eventually that will undermine the standards of the Bar and of the judiciary. As was put trenchantly by one of the noble and learned Law Lords, we shall go down the American path. A surprising number of my American friends have warned me about the path on which we are embarking.
If one applies market forces to the legal profession and the structure of the legal system, everybody undercuts everyone else and one ends up with lower standards. No one whom I have met from the United States pretends that the American system is cheaper, speedier or held in more regard than ours —quite the contrary, my Lords.
Therefore I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he has to deal with the following problem. I take the two cornerstones of the profession, as they were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander: the High Street solicitor, of whom there are 80 per cent.; and their immediate access to an independent Bar. The package of reforms proposed by the noble and learned Lord will undoubtedly have the effect of
234
reducing the number of High Street solicitors. There is no doubt whatever that, for example, those who practise in the criminal court will tend to get together in practices near the crown courts. Others will form associations creating larger firms in order to try to benefit from some of the changes. They will use the greater freedoms, and they will have the rights of audience in the crown courts and elsewhere. That will reduce the work for the Bar.
The Bar is so well controlled by the judiciary because it is a small profession. The numbers are important in this respect. There will be a gradual change and reduction in the control exercised by the judiciary over the Bar. There will be a gradual change in the standards to be expected from the advocates in general because one cannot control a small profession as one can control a larger and wider profession. Eventually we shall see the market forces undermine the standards which we have so enjoyed in this country.
That is the fear which is expressed and it is a true fear. With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I do not believe that he has gone even half way towards allaying those fears.
I can think of no reason why the legislation has been pushed forward with such haste. After all, we discussed the Green Paper in only April. I cannot believe that it was not possible to bring together round a table the leaders of the profession and the judiciary to discuss the various matters in order to see whether there was another way out.
The noble and learned Lord appears to have embarked upon a confrontational course with the Bar and the judiciary. It is unjustified in the circumstances. No one can pretend that the reforms included in the Bill will have immediate effect. No one can think that it is good for the country to have such a clash of view on these matters so publicly expressed as between our senior judges and the noble and learned Lord.
I have dealt with the greatest fear about the Bill. However, I do not think that it will be possible to amend it in any meaningful way in order to allay those fears. There may be attempts to change the Bill in certain vital respects, but I cannot see that there will be a change in the basic approach that has been embarked upon by the noble and learned Lord.
I turn to Part I of the Bill. I entirely approve of the decision to move some of our litigation from the High Court to the county court in the way suggested. However, my overall impressions gained on my circuit is that business in the civil High Court is now being dealt with more expeditiously. High Court arrears have been cleared up quickly, but the county court arrears are mounting. There are more and more complaints about the county court. Therefore, this provision comes at a very inauspicious time, to say the least. Certainly the Lord Chancellor would need the support of the Treasury to make available much more in the way of resources in order to make this a meaningful change, if it is to be meaningful, in terms of a few years rather than over a long period of time.

235
Lastly, I just make this point about the ombudsman. I certainly believe that the ombudsman should have the right to investigate administrative delay and fault, as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, suggested. That would be absolutely essential. However, my overall view is that I still have the scepticism which I had during the debate on the Green Papers. Nothing I have heard today has in any way allayed those fears.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I rise to wind up from these Benches some seven hours 55 minutes after the debate began at 3 p.m. There seems to be no lack of appetite for this subject in your Lordships' House. Our debate on the Green Papers on 7th April occupied 12 hours 45 minutes so that perhaps the appetite is becoming a little more under control. In winding up, I shall certainly not regard it as boundless.
If there is a single theme which has emerged in this debate it is the recognition from all quarters of this House, however courteously expressed, that fine words must be matched against deeds. The Government's skill in adopting the language of consumerism, consumer rights and consumer choice is not in doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, recognised that. What is in doubt is their commitment to provide the resources necessary to ensure the delivery of adequate legal services to consumers.
The trick of the Green Papers and the White Paper was to promote the vocabulary of consumer choice while prescribing nothing to promote that genuine access to systems of provision and benefits which alone can enable people to exercise any real choice.
We must not be so bowled over by the Government's adoption of that vocabulary that we neglect to look at the reality behind the fine words. I believe that that is the principal achievement of this debate. Many of your Lordships referred to the scandal of inadequate provision of legal aid. On the one hand, the Government declare that improved access to good quality legal services is what their policy is all about. On the other hand, they say that this Bill has no need to address legal aid because that subject was satisfactorily addressed in the Legal Aid Act 1988.
The Government assert that free competition will ensure that the public is provided with the most effective and efficient network of legal services at the most economical price. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quoted that. That is the heresy used to disguise the need for a major commitment of resources. If the Government believe their own free market hype, they deceive themselves.
As I ventured to say in your Lordships' House on the debate on the Green Papers:
"The simple truth about any market is that it operates to provide services only for those who are able to enter the market. The free market does nothing whatever for those who have no access to it, those for whom no one competes because they cannot afford legal services". —[Official Report, 7/4/89; col. 1324.]
Still the Government have nothing to say about giving legal aid back to the millions who are outside the absurdly low qualifying limits.
236
In his speech at the outset of this debate, the noble and learned Lord expressed his puzzlement at criticism that this Bill does nothing to commit further resources to legal aid. I shall endeavour to relieve him of his puzzlement. Legal aid is available to a small and diminishing proportion of the population. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quoted the latest statistics. Since 1979 14·8 million people and 5·5 million households have become ineligible for civil legal aid. The qualifying limits have become absurdly low. Since 1979 earnings have increased by 135 per cent. and prices by 93 per cent., but the upper eligibility limit for disposable income has risen a mere 50 per cent.
It was to the great credit of my noble and learned friend the late Lord Elwyn-Jones —who is remembered on all sides of this House with great affection and respect —that by 1979, when my party lost power, he had been responsible as Lord Chancellor for raising the limits so that at least 70 per cent. of two-parent families with two children had become eligible for civil legal aid. More than 30 per cent. of these received it without paying a contribution. Since then, as I said, 14·8 million people have gone out of eligibility. I do not understand how a comparison of the number of legal aid certificates granted in 1979 and 1989 can begin to engage with the point that 14·8 million people have entirely dropped out from eligibility.
The Legal Aid Act 1988 improved the administration of legal aid and in some ways quite significantly, but did not tackle the resource problem. The Government's response to these concerns was provided on 19th November in a Written Answer in the other place by the Attorney-General. It was that £5 million of additional funds were to be made available for cases involving children, pensioners and personal injury. The noble and learned Lord called attention to that. We should be thankful for that small mercy, but that is all it is. The real solution —a major increase in resources —is put on the back burner.
Over the next two years legal aid expenditure will not keep up with inflation and the time honoured expedient of setting up an inquiry, which will take years, has been adopted. A review of the financial conditions for legal aid is to be set up to look at all aspects of eligibility, contributions, the statutory charge, means-assessment and the payment of contributions. We are told that the review will take two to three years. Can this lethargic time-scale not be improved upon? This lethargic time-scale is to be compared with the few months required by the Cabinet's Efficiency Unit study into legal aid in 1986. It is also to be compared with the brief period of time taken in the production of the Green and the White Papers and then the Bill itself; an abbreviated time-scale which caused many to be convinced that it was the roller-coaster of free market hype that was in the driving seat in place of the mature thought, research and extensive consultation that would have been appropriate to the gravity of the subject matter. I invite the noble and learned Lord, when he replies to this debate, to say whether he can agree that a comprehensive review of legal aid is a manageable subject matter that can conveniently, and will, be concluded within a maximum of six months.

237
I would be the first to agree that litigation is too long, too cumbersome and too expensive. A more worthwhile reform than much of this Bill would be to require the courts to adopt a "hands on" approach so that every civil case must be brought to trial within a maximum of one year from its commencement. I believe that in the United States this is called "fast track" litigation and it is working in some places. Far too often in this country months and years are occupied in interlocutory skirmishes; rows about pleadings, particulars, discovery of documents, or whatever, and the skirmishes become a professional way of life —and a very remunerative way of life — in themselves. The battle that matters, the trial, is endlessly postponed as if the lawyers can never quite commit themselves to bringing matters to a conclusion.
We should require that all those wrangles be resolved on a single occasion within a few months after the commencement of the action, and that the action must be brought to trial within a year. That might need more judges, but that would be a small price to pay for the huge savings in delay and costs that would be achieved because no one should be in any doubt that when cases are spun out over years the delay is costing the litigants money because the lawyers are continuing to earn during the period of delay.
As I say, the real truth about litigation in this country is that it is too long, too cumbersome and too expensive; and it is currently the privilege of the very rich and the very poor. Middle-income Britain is left out in the cold. Since that is undeniably the fact, where stands the free-market hype which declares that free competition will ensure that the public is provided with the most effective and efficient network of legal services at the most economical prices?
During the passage of the Legal Aid Bill through this House government spokesmen, including the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, did not attempt to challenge that for the vast majority it is the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, the advice centres and the law centres which provide their only access to justice, yet they are starved of funds and have a hand-to-mouth, week-to-week existence. How the market is supposed to work in relation to these agencies is beyond my comprehension. They have virtually no central government funding; the great bulk of their funding comes from the local authorities, and the local authorities do not even have a specific power, far less a duty, to fund them. They have to fall back on the old tuppeny rate to fund them as best they can.
So it is utterly unsurprising that the law centres and the advice centres currently have no assurance that they can pay wages or stay open. It is small wonder that provision is haphazard across the country with gross geographical inequalities. Unlike my party, the Government have no commitment to a comprehensive national network of general and specialist advice and law centres adequately funded.
If there is one thing that is deeply offensive it is humbug. I say that, despite their words, the Government, by their deeds, do not accept the duty
238
of the state to secure access to justice for its citizens. It is not only the advice centres that are in crisis. As this debate has emphasised, the county courts, to which so much is to be hived down under the Bill, are in crisis. My noble friend Lord Mishcon spelt out the situation in his graphic examples at the outset of this debate and it is unnecessary to multiply these. That is the reality on the ground. It continues as an affront to justice that legal aid is still not available for tribunals, arbitrations or small-claims arbitrations in the county court.
Many of the greatest injustices that I have personally witnessed have been in the industrial tribunals. They have a substantial jurisdiction in unfair dismissal, redundancy and antidiscrimination cases. They can make awards of many thousands of pounds. The unrepresented applicant is at a huge disadvantage against the legally represented employer. That is a major obstacle to justice being done. It is nothing short of a confidence trick to go on saying that the procedures of these tribunals are informal so that unrepresented parties are at no disadvantage. It is not true. The procedures of those tribunals are identical to the ordinary courts.
Mercifully, the department of the noble and learned Lord will no longer be able to make that claim. The major conclusions of a recent study carried out for his department are, first, the success rate of those who are represented in tribunals is significantly greater than that of the unrepresented. That conclusion was over the whole range of social security appeals, immigration, mental health review and industrial tribunal hearings.
Secondly, representation contributed to the speed and quality of the decision of the tribunals. Thirdly, the study concluded that legal aid should be available for serious or complex tribunal hearings. The reason that the current levels of representation were low was recognised to be the absence of legal aid and the lack of resources on the part of the lay agencies to which I have already referred.
Where do the Government stand on this? Are we going to have legal aid for the tribunals, and when? By what rational standard can it be right to make legal aid available (although subject to the appalling limitations that I have described) to uphold legal rights in the ordinary courts but not legal rights that can only be upheld in the tribunals? What standard of justice is that?
We have a two-tier system of justice in this country —one for those who can afford representation and another for those who cannot, and it is getting worse, not better. The levels of legal aid remuneration are already low and they continue to decline, so the number of solicitors who are willing to conduct legal aid work continues to fall. As this debate has shown, it is not just legal aid that is starved of resources; it is also the courts themselves.
A major proposal of the Bill which many have discussed is to hive down business from the High Court to the county courts. The fact is that the county courts are ill equipped, underfunded and overstretched with their current workload and are simply not geared up to cope with the enormous volume of business that it is proposed to hive down

239
to them. They urgently require a huge increase in resources to allow for the smooth redistribution of business but they are not going to get it. A maximum of £3 million in the first year, £4·5 in the second and £5 million in the third are the figures that I understand are to be dedicated to coping with the hiving down.
The High Court today is handling its workload remarkably efficiently, but for well-known reasons the county courts deliver an inferior standard of justice which will become the more serious as more is thrust upon them. I make two major points apart from the staffing problem. The first was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. In the High Court trials are continuous. The court sits if necessary over days or in long cases weeks until the case is concluded. The case is a full-time, continuous job for the judge and the lawyers from start to finish.
The report of the Civil Justice Review showed that only 30 county courts out of 274 offered continuous trial facilities. The inability of the county courts as currently resourced to provide continuous trial facilities is a major source of dissatisfaction to litigants. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, the only key in the Bill to reducing delay and costs is this hiving down of business to the county courts. But this must be set alongside the county courts as they are currently administered.
Reassembling the judge, the lawyers and the witnesses on a number of separate occasions is in practice very difficult. Sometimes adjournments are for many weeks or months. We all agree that the major causes of consumer dissatisfaction with the law are delay and cost, but here, because of the under-resourcing of the county courts themselves, we have a major cause both of delay and excessive cost. These frequent adjournments add to the costs, and the delay adversely affects the quality of justice because the time to evaluate evidence is when it is given and not weeks or months after it has been given. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack if he would be good enough to tell us in responding to this debate whether the county court system to which so much work is going to be hived down will generally be enabled to provide continuous trial facilities.
Are there going to be recording facilities generally available in the county courts so that, as in the High Court trials, a tape recording or shorthand note is made both of evidence and judgment? At present there is no recording by tape machine or shorthand of the evidence given in county court cases nor is there any regular recording of the judge's judgment. The absence of a record of the evidence and the judgment puts the county court litigant at a great handicap when it comes to appeal. I regard it as extraordinary that a country as advanced and sophisticated as ours should not at least provide a complete record of the judgments of the judges in the county court which, after all, contain the reasons for their decisions.
Therefore, the question is whether this Bill in hiving down to the county courts will in practice be ensuring that consumers of legal services receive a
240
standard of justice which is inferior to that which they would formerly have received in the High Court. There is no good reason of principle why they should.
We welcomed the statement made by the noble and learned Lord that he has secured an additional £70 million for his department and that he contemplates an increase of 350 in court staff. Moreover, his acceptance that further staff will obviously be needed in consequence of the Civil Justice Review is also to be welcomed. However, I ask the noble and learned Lord to tell the House in his reply to the debate whether he can offer any assurance of this general principle: that the county courts will be sufficiently resourced to ensure that the standards of justice they offer in handling their increased workload are not inferior to the High Court. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, said, it is one thing to initiate reforms of this nature, but another to make them work. The essential infrastructure is all-important; the staff are all-important.
The gripping contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, requires an answer. He has no political axe to grind; nor indeed has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, in supporting him and declaring that the Government do not yet even contemplate the scale of resources necessary to allow the county courts to carry out their new job. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, also spoke with strength on the subject.
We on these Benches reject the proposition that free competition will ensure that the public is provided with the most effective and efficient network of legal services at the most economical prices. I believe, judging from contribution after contribution to the debate which focused on the inadequacy of state resources committed to securing access to justice, that the House as a whole rejects this simplistic proposition.
The truth of the matter is that the internal differences within the legal profession, involving the judiciary, on the issue as to rights of audience —which is a highly important issue in itself—has been exploited by the Government to distract attention from a major issue; namely, state support for access to justice. Therefore the more the lawyers differed the more the simplistic, populist line worked: alter the practices of the lawyers; make them compete more; inflict some popular pain on the lawyers and this will guarantee better access to legal services, lower costs and increase consumer choice. It is a false prospectus. The reality on the ground is as I and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate described it.
A major component in deciding whether a state provides a decent quality of life for its citizens is the extent to which it secures for them access to justice. People value their legal rights very highly. They feel deeply frustrated when they cannot secure them. Moreover, they feel cheated in an alien court or tribunal environment where the other side is represented while they are not and where they lose. As the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, emphasised in his contribution to the debate, all the legal rights

241
which Parliament confers are a hollow sham to the extent that citizens cannot secure them in practice.
All the free-market hype pouring out of this Government's propaganda machine should not be allowed to conceal the basic truth, which is that they are unwilling to commit the resources that only the state can provide to secure equal access to justice for all its citizens.
I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that we on these Benches do not regard legal aid as a bottomless cornucopia which is a substitute for reducing delay and costs. I hope that I have emphasised the importance that we attach to the latter. We want to reduce delay. We want to reduce costs. But we want also to provide a fair system of legal aid and to resource the court system adequately. It is on the last two that the Government are failing the nation. Everything that they say about access to justice is so much aspiration until they get those two things right
11.20 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have had a full and interesting debate. Your Lordships will not expect me to deal in detail with every point that has been made. The whole purpose of the Bill is to seek to make improvements and to open up opportunity for improvements in access to justice. I have no desire to achieve any sort of populous effect or anything of that nature. I put the Bill before your Lordships in the belief that the general thrust of its provisions, no doubt subject to improvement by amendment as it goes through the House, is properly directed towards achieving a better system of justice and a more varied and therefore better provision of legal services for all our people.
I believe that it has been generally understood that Part I, which implements the main proposals of the civil justice review, is a change that should properly be made but subject to the need adequately to provide resources for the county court. I accept that point entirely, which is why we propose to deal with the matter by making adjustments to the allocation as between the High Court and the county court according to how the county court can take it. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice said some time ago when talking about how cases were sent down from the High Court to the county court, a thermostat has to be inserted into the system to ensure that the load which is being put down is being dealt with appropriately.
With regard to preparations, I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, about the fundamental need for continuous listing. That above all is required in the county court and it is that that we have endeavoured to provide.
Nearly 50 continuous trial centres are already in operation. They take the majority of trial work from about half the courts. The system has been not to provide facilities for continuous trial at every county court but to try to provide centres to which that work may be sent. A further 25 or so trial centres are in the pipeline. That will mean that most trials of any significant length will be dealt with in those trial centres.
242
It is true that we have recently experienced difficulty in the county courts because of the rise in the amount of work and the difficulty in retaining qualified staff. I should like to join my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice in what he said about the dedication of our staff and of the judiciary. I wish to do nothing to reduce the morale of the staff that we have. I and my noble and learned friends have done everything in our power to try to support morale. As your Lordships know from the times when I have had to ask the leave of your Lordships, I have endeavoured to see as many of the staff in the courts as I can, to try to deal with matters which arise from time to time in the courts.
I believe that on the whole the rate at which work is being handled by the county courts, taking the position over the country, is perhaps not quite as bad as the picture might suggest. According to my information, at the end of 1987 about 55 per cent. of the main office work in the county courts was being dealt with within five days of receipt. That figure has now risen to about 80 per cent. It is also true that the average delay between a request for a hearing and the hearing itself in the county court is about four months. A survey of waiting times at trial centres carried out last month showed that waiting times for hearings at these centres range between one and 24 weeks, with the majority falling into the band between eight and ten weeks. For transferred cases these times compare favourably with waiting times in the High Court, where in the main similar cases have to wait several weeks longer for a trial date.
I appreciate that as cases are sent down from the High Court the waiting times there are likely to be reduced and the waiting times in the county courts are likely to be somewhat increased. There have been particular difficulties this year. It seems to be the case that the training that we give to staff in the courts makes them extremely valuable once they are trained to, for example, solicitors in private practice and to local authorities. It is a difficult task therefore to maintain in the county courts and in the courts service an adequate supply of fully qualified staff. But I believe that some part of that difficulty is also due to the nature of the work.
One of the major changes that we hope to put into operation soon is the summons production centre. That will deal with these large issues that are required by creditors who have a large number of debtors, so that one can put on disk a large number of cases per day which have to be processed. We are setting up a summons production centre which will do that by computer and take a lot of the heavy manual work away from the court staff. It is in these areas of heavy manual work of a rather repetitive kind that the system is showing strain.
I also propose to give effect to a move away from the handling of suitors' cash, which again is a very time-consuming and rather difficult exercise for the staff. I believe that the result will be helpful in relation to retaining staff and providing the service in the areas of which your Lordships have spoken where there have been difficulties.
I think it right to make plain that what I have in mind in the operation of Part I of the Bill is that it

243
should be done by stages. I wish to assure your Lordships that it is in my view necessary and I shall ensure that the transfers will be made only under the condition that the proper resources are available in the county courts to deal with them. As I have indicated, we have already made quite considerable steps in the important area of continuous trial centres.
A number of your Lordships have suggested that Part I of the Bill concentrates more on the convenience of the court administration than the court user. The intention is to provide an administration which will be suitable for the court user and, as regards the suggestion made that the remit to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration should extend to the courts —I think the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made the same suggestion in relation to the legal services ombudsman —I think it is plain that the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 was not intended to apply to the court services. What should be done in that connection is a matter that no doubt we shall consider in Committee.
As regards Part II, a good deal of discussion has centred on the arrangement of Clauses 14 and 15. I wish to make it as clear as I can that the intention is that the general principle should prevail and that the statutory objective is subject to the general principle. The general principle requires that:
"the question whether a person should be granted a right of audience…should be determined only be reference to —

(a) whether he is qualified in accordance with the educational and training requirements appropriate to the court or proceedings in question; and

(b) whether he is a member of a professional or other body which —

(i) has rules of conduct (however described) providing for standards of conduct on the part of its members which are appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice".

I pause there because my noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington, wished to direct particular attention to the phrase:
"in relation to the court or proceedings concerned".
The intention of that phrase is to make it clear that the requirements may vary according to the court or proceedings concerned.
This enables me to deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington. Different rules may apply in this connection to the Crown Court, for example, to the rules which would apply to some parts of the High Court and some proceedings there.
I made it clear in my opening statement, and I repeat it now, that when we are talking about standards of conduct on the part of the members we are talking about the way the members conduct their practice as well as their behaviour in court. However, the importance of the latter phrase is that it relates the requirements to the court or proceedings in question. Different requirements may be appropriate according to different proceedings.
The second branch of that part of the rule is that the professional body has:
"an effective mechanism for enforcing those rules of conduct".
244
I entirely accept that merely to make rules is not good enough. One has to see that they are enforced, and one has to make sure that the body is likely to enforce them. This is referred to as the general principle. Clause 15(2) makes it plain that a person exercising any functions under the legislation is to do so,
"in accordance with the general principle"
and, subject to that, give effect to the statutory objective. So the general principle is to rule. The general principle has the phrase—and this is not necessary in the administration of justice, but it is:
"appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice".
I regard that as an eminently reasonable test on which to base a judgment in this matter. Obviously I shall listen carefully to suggestions for the improvement of this matter, but that is the scheme, and that is precisely the scheme of the White Paper. However, it emphasises in this case the relative importance of the statutory objective and the general principle so as to make the general principle paramount.
My noble and learned friend Lord Donaldson of Lymington was also concerned about the procedural layout, as it were, of the arrangements. I have laid out these procedural arrangements as the ultimate order of proceeding. I took the view —this view was enlightened by discussion —that it was right that the senior judges should come into this in the final form only after the Lord Chancellor had given his view on it, in order that he might be first to deal with the matter. He would then put it to the senior judges for their decision. I entirely agree with the view that in practice we should be able to have discussions to determine the various steps to be carried out in the same way as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson of Lymington, deals with solicitors' regulations, some of which require his approval only and some of which require the approval of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice and of the Lord Chancellor.
In practical terms the Master of the Rolls takes the lead in the negotiations and then the formal application for approval is made. In my short experience of these matters the arrangements have never caused any difficulty whatsoever. I hope and believe that my relationship with my noble and learned friends the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls and with the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor would be such that we could approach the matter in that way and reach a conclusion on which we should all be able to agree.
I am very insistent that it is not correct to describe our proposals as doing nothing but bringing in a free market. We have heard about "free market hype" more than once, and I shall not refer to it very often. I believe that in the professional field the free market must be subject to the maintenance of standards of competence and conduct. That is what this machinery is designed to ensure. It is designed to ensure that no one has a right of audience in any of the courts who is not competent and does not obey the rules of a properly organised professional body which is willing to enforce those rules.

245
I want to make it clear that I do not understand the suggestion that the Executive is interfering in any improper manner. It is proposed in the Bill that the advisory committee—and I shall come to the constitution of the committee in a moment—will be appointed by the Lord Chancellor having regard to the various criteria required and the special places allotted to barristers, solicitors and teachers of law who will provide the expertise. A judge of the Supreme Court or a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary will be the chairman. When my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone set up the Civil Justice Review he included a majority of lay people and a very distinguished layman was chairman. I took the view that having regard to the work of this advisory committee it was right that a judicial chairman should have that position. I have no doubt that a judicial chairman is a very important aspect of the matter.
I was interested in the suggestion that a circuit judge should be a member of the committee. Obviously I shall consider that suggestion very carefully. I certainly envisage that the judiciary on the circuit bench may well have a role in relation to this matter.
My noble and learned friend Lord Griffiths asked me whether the provisions would enable me and the senior judges to decide whether a person who took silk would have to be a sole practitioner. In my opinion, if we took the view that it was appropriate in the interests of the proper and efficient administration of justice so to require, then it would be open to us to do so.
The same is true of the eloquent quotations that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, made from myself as the Dean of Faculty —I believe that all but one were made in that capacity, the last being from an interview that I was rash enough to give counsel shortly after I was appointed. But those considerations could all play an appropriate part in deciding what kind of conduct rules were to be required of a particular advocate in a particular court. As I have said, I envisage that the rules appropriate for the county court or the Crown Court would be different from the rules applying, for example, in some parts of the High Court as they do at present.
The noble Lord suggested that the Government's purpose was to drive the Bar out of the Crown Court. I utterly repudiate that suggestion. I have no such intention. The Bar will have a place in the Crown Court as long as it lasts, which will be for as far into the future as any of us can see.
The question of timetable was mentioned. On the one hand it was suggested that those considerations should be subject to some rather rigorous timetable. We have sought to provide that there should be no undue delay in considering proposals. The initiative for proposals will come from the professional bodies and the proposals in the Bill make it plain that the initiative will be with them.
That brings me to a point made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice relating to there being one body and one set of rules. I should certainly like to see that. That was one reason that
246
I proposed the statutory framework in the Green Paper so as to make a uniform provision overarching all those who might be involved in advocacy rights. However, that was objected to and I well understand why. I have not proceeded with that, but the result is that I cannot therefore make one body out of two. It must be a matter for the initiative of the bodies. It is possible to insist by the mechanism that I have sought to provide that the rules should be the same, if that is appropriate in particular cases.
I entirely agree with what has been said; namely, that even in present circumstances, without any change at all, there is much to be said for all those involved in litigation as advocates, whether they be solicitors or barristers in the county court for example, being subject to the same disciplinary body and a similar set of rules. I can see, for example, that the Bar might wish to conduct itself differently in the county court from the solicitors, as is the present situation, but in the sense that the Bar requires, for example, that individuals should not be in partnership to conduct business in the county courts, whereas the Law Society does.
Subject to the differentiation between the way in which different parts of the profession might conduct their business, I agree with my noble and learned friend. I indicated in the White Paper a willingness to discuss that matter with the professional bodies if they felt so inclined. I do not see that I can stand out of regulating the professions as I have sought to do and at the same time bring about a unity of their professional bodies for discipline as is suggested. It is a matter for them, but the mechanisms in the Bill will go a long way to producing the correct answer.
My noble friend Lord Beloff wondered what the Director General of Fair Trading was doing in this business. As noble Lords know, the director general made cogent observations in the course of consultation on the Green Papers. Some of his observations were warmly welcomed by the Bar. His role would be to advise upon whether there were any anti-competitive aspects to the rules. It would be for the judges and the Lord Chancellor to decide. It would not be for him to decide, but his advice would be available. I cannot see that obtaining advice from whatever quarter is bad.
The other aspect which I should mention is that the White Paper on competition policy produced by the Government proposed that where rules have been approved by a Minister they will not be subject to being struck down under competition law. Therefore it is important that when a Minister gives his approval he is aware of the competition aspects, if any, of the proposals, because once he approves the rules they are not subject to the competition law and the competition authority. I believe that that is a very important aspect of these proposals which perhaps I had not sufficiently emphasised to date.
There were many other matters of which one might have spoken. My noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham is anxious because the Bill gives too many powers. So far as concerns Part I, I think it is necessary to do that in order to match the transfers to the resources; in other words, to make sure that we transfer down what is resourced in the county

247
courts. I am sorry if I do not make myself plain —it must be the lateness of the hour —but perhaps I should proceed.
So far as conveyancing matters are concerned, the situation is that on the statute book already in the 1986 Act there are provisions for banks, building societies and the like to practise conveyancing. In this connection I have sought to consider that matter afresh and to indicate the general nature of the safeguards that might be involved. I am glad of the welcome given to these proposals by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and other noble Lords.
No doubt the precise nature of the safeguards will be a matter of continuing discussion. I believe that what I have proposed on the whole is a reasonable set of proposals, but I am certainly willing to consider any points upon them that may be made as we go forward with further consideration of this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but he is dealing with the very important consideration of protection of the public. As I understand it, this Bill will not contain a detailed account of the safeguards. Those will come afterwards in regulations. Therefore, since this matter cannot be dealt with very easily at Committee or Report stage by way of amendments to the Bill, I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will undertake that the safeguards pointed out in the White Paper as being necessary will not be watered down.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is certainly correct that as the Bill stands what we have proposed is that these safeguards should be the subject of regulation. Therefore I think that it would be right for us to bear in mind when considering the Bill what these provisions might be. I certainly think that what was proposed in the White Paper is a reasonable set of protections.
But there are many interests to be considered and I should like to take them fully into account before the regulations are made. The noble Lord can take it that there will be full consultation on the detail of these regulations, and for all I know it may well be that some of your Lordships may feel that some matters should be put into the Bill itself. Those are matters for consideration. I think that my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham might think it a wise thing to do. I do not know. However, for the time being I do not want to foreclose on these issues, as it were.
Some noble Lords have been highly critical of the Lord Chancellor and some have been appreciative of him. I have to do my best to accept both those views with equanimity. I can certainly assure your Lordships that I shall do my best to produce a system which will be effective and beneficial for those who succeed us for however long that system may last.
248
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, asked about the future. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, asked me to reassure people about the future. My noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton asked for studies on what would happen in the future if these proposals were put into effect. I have sought to consider what reason would suggest is the right way forward. What are the conditions under which people should be allowed to appear in the courts? If we get those right, the future will be right. That is the way it appears to me.
We are building on existing institutions. I do not think that I can undertake to forecast the future. Those whom I have come across who have forecast any distance into the future with any degree of precision have not been entirely right. I do not put myself forward as a prophet. I believe that if the proposals are rational and well based, and if we have set up a decent machinery for handling them, the results are likely to be beneficial. The machinery is capable of evolutionary change. I believe that we shall be able to proceed in an evolutionary way and to judge the results to some extent as we go along.
My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell was inclined to question whether what I had done would bring into question the very high office which I have the honour to hold. I take that remark extremely seriously because I am extremely conscious of the honour and responsibility that was put on me on being appointed to this office. I am not conscious through my proposals in the Bill or in any other way of doing anything which would bring that office into question.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree of course that there are continuing debates about the office; and the more public funding that is done through the office the more there may be questions about it. I have certainly sought to discharge this office—bearing in mind that very important consideration —to the best of my ability. I certainly make it my business to keep fully in contact with Members of the other place, and to answer their queries and letters as fully as I can in order that they may feel that I am accountable to them although I do not have the privilege of being a Member of that place.
These matters can only be left to one's personal judgment and one's conscience. However, since my noble and learned friend made that remark I thought it right that I should reply to it. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at six minutes before midnight.

  ENERGY POLICY
  ENERGY POLICY
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION: COSTS
  SIZEWELL B POWER STATION: COSTS
  NUCLEAR SECTOR AND ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION
  NUCLEAR SECTOR AND ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY OFFICE
  ENERGY EFFICIENCY OFFICE
  THE TREASURY: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
  THE TREASURY: ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
  VAT: COMPENSATORY PAYMENT OF INTEREST
  VAT: COMPENSATORY PAYMENT OF INTEREST
  ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
  WATER ABSTRACTION PERMISSIONS
  WATER ABSTRACTION PERMISSIONS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: POWERS
  WILDLIFE AND COUNTRYSIDE ACT: POWERS
  LORD YOUNG OF GRAFFHAM'S LETTER TO THE "INDEPENDENT"
  LORD YOUNG OF GRAFFHAM'S LETTER TO THE "INDEPENDENT"
  CHANNEL TUNNEL TRAINS: NON-SEGREGATION DECISION
  CHANNEL TUNNEL TRAINS: NON-SEGREGATION DECISION
  BR SPRINTER ROLLING STOCK
  BR SPRINTER ROLLING STOCK
  HEATHER MOORLAND CONSERVATION
  HEATHER MOORLAND CONSERVATION
  LIQUID WELFARE MILK: PRICING
  LIQUID WELFARE MILK: PRICING