Sitting of 13 February 1989

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

    London (Road and Rail Developments)
    Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the comparative costs of road development in London and the proposed public financing of rail developments.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): As the House may know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is attending a meeting abroad today and has asked me to give his apologies to the House.
    Expenditure on road developments by my Department, the London local authorities and the London Docklands development corporation is expected to amount to some £300 million in 1988–89. That compares with planned investment of more than £450 million on rail development by British Rail Network SouthEast, London Regional Transport and the London Docklands development corporation.
    Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister not concerned that the road assessment studies for London propose the expenditure of £3·5 billion and the destruction of 6,000 homes, and that all of that would be borne by the public
    2
    purse and taxpayers, who would pay for the whole road development? Yet a much smaller cost of £2 billion for the central London rail study would largely be borne by the fare-paying public, either through interest charges to private investment being put into the rail system or by increased fares for those who wish to use the central London rail system when it is developed. Does the Minister not think that it is time that the majority of people who travel by public transport benefited from public expenditure and the minority of commuter motorists who drive in and out of London were forced to pay for the destruction that they are causing our city and the exorbitant cost of the road development that is planned to appease them?
    Mr. Portillo: The position is not as the hon. Gentleman has represented it. The assessment studies are consultants' studies, not departmental ideas and the consultants are still looking at ways of minimising the effect. All the options will have to be considered in a framework that takes full account of the environmental impact. On the central London rail study, no decision has been taken on how the funding will be achieved.
    Mr. Maples: Does my hon. Friend agree that major road developments in central London cause enormous environmental damage and often do little for traffic congestion? They simply encourage more people to use cars. Will he confirm that such environmental arid other externalised costs are taken into account in deciding levels of public subsidy for other forms of public transport?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend is right. In answer to the previous question, I stressed that the environmental impact was most important and that we would not support any schemes that did more harm than good. My hon. Friend is also right to say that when proposals are made for investment the Department can look at any external benefits that there may be to non-users.
    Mr. Chris Smith: The Minister will be aware of the enormous concern among my constituents and others in north London about the likely impact of the east London assessment study proposals. He will be further aware of

    3
    the growing concern at the extension of the private consultants' studies to the King's Cross area. Have any costings been done of any of the proposals that were drafted last year and which may come forward later this year from the study? Would it not be better if the Department of Transport scrapped the whole idea now?
    Mr. Portillo: It would be better if people did not misrepresent what is going on. The important point is that we are looking at ideas from consultants which have not yet been finalised. They will be brought forward in the course of the summer and at that time we shall be able to judge the value of those ideas, to reject those that are not very useful and to proceed on those that have a promising future.
    Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that in assessing road versus rail costs in London or elsewhere it is important to be both sensible and honest? Does he agree, for example, that all the police costs connected with motoring must be taken into account as part of the costs of motoring? Is he aware that, despite lengthy efforts, I have failed to obtain from the Metropolitan police or the Home Office any idea of the amount of police time involved in policing London's motorists? Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that that information is available and is taken into account?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is one of our principles that we expect those who use the roads to pay their full track costs, which would cover not only the cost of building the road but of maintaining it and, importantly, policing it.
    Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister explain why his Department banned the use of a computer model developed by the transport and road research laboratory and designed to evaluate the merits of different traffic policies for London? Will he confirm that the Government's policy of building more roads in London and cutting public transport subsidies scored lowest in that evaluation, and that a policy of investing in public transport scored highest? Despite his obvious embarrassment, will he now lift the ban so that the TRRL can get on with its work?
    Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position, and I hope that she will be very happy in it.
    What the hon. Lady says about a lack of subsidy to public transport is not right. She will be aware that the amount of public subsidy to London Regional Transport is proposed to be increased, much to the displeasure of some of my hon. Friends behind me. That was not a powerful point. She will know that big investment is going on in London—about £1 billion on the roads programme, and a further amount of money as yet unsettled because we are still studying the central London rails subsidy proposals.
    Mr. Speaker: I make a plea for brief supplementaries today to enable us to get more quickly down the Order Paper.

    Motorway Construction
    Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new motorway construction in each of the past four years, at constant prices.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): In 1987–88 prices, £385 million, £298 million, £204 million and £176 million last year. The reduction reflects the completion of the M25 and more spending on trunk roads, bypasses and increased maintenance.
    Mr. Knox: Given the amount of congestion on motorways at present, which is often caused by the sheer volume of traffic, does my hon. Friend realise that the figures are completely inadequate and that much more needs to be spent on motorway construction if British industry is to be competitive and if the frustration experienced by many motorists is to be reduced?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an increase in spending of between 20 per cent. and 40 per cent. over the next three years. That is a welcome increase following the reductions under the Labour Government. It is true that we need roads which are longer, wider and stronger.
    Mr. Janner: Although spending on motorways is insufficient, does the Minister agree that there must be a balance between spending on motorways and spending on other roads? Does he know of the death of my constituent, Kerry Allen, aged eight, on New Parks estate? The county council had approved a pelican crossing but said that it did not have the money to install it. How long are we to have insufficient money for road safety? Is not the present position intolerable, unreasonable and totally insupportable?
    Mr. Bottomley: The whole House would wish to join every family in grieving over a road death. There are 14 road deaths per day in this country. The nation rises to mourn when there are group deaths, but when 5,000 people a year die on the roads in this country, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we must obviously go on reducing the toll as fast as we possibly can.
    In overall terms, the number of people killed and injured is 6 per cent. down on the number at this time last year, even though there has been a 4 per cent. increase in traffic, and there was a similar reduction the previous year. In population terms, Britain has fewer road deaths than any other country where there is motoring and drink.
    Mr. Fry: In view of my hon. Friend's last remarks, is it not clear that we need more motorways so as to reduce the road accident rate further? What plans does he have to provide alternative routes for such as the M1 and M3 which are now so terribly congested?
    Mr. Bottomley: Dealing with congestion is one point, but the point that my hon. Friend picked up from the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) is that three quarters of deaths and injuries take place in built-up areas. Motorways are not the answer in built-up areas. Bypasses or relief roads may be an answer, but the normal answer is traffic management and traffic calming so that where there are many pedestrians—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Bottomley: If I may finish, Mr. Speaker. Where there are many pedestrians, pedestrians get more priority and motorists get slightly less.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to improve communications between Scotland and the south-east, in preparation for the opening of the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Portillo: British Rail is required by section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 to publish a plan by the end of this year setting out its proposals for the dispersal of passenger and freight trains within the United Kingdom. The impact of the Channel tunnel is one of the many factors taken into account in planning the forward trunk road programme.
    Mr. Macdonald: Will the Minister confirm a report in the "Politics Today" column of the Financial Times on Friday that a study that was prepared for the Prime Minister shows clearly that unless there is a major improvement in the road and rail network between Scotland and the south-east, Scotland will not benefit in any degree from the opening of the Channel tunnel? If that is so, why is the Minister cutting investment to British Rail by £300 million in the latest public expenditure White Paper and why are there no plans in the White Paper to improve the road and rail networks between Scotland and the south-east to enable Scotland to benefit from the economic activity of the Channel tunnel?
    Mr. Portillo: There has been no cut in the investment of British Rail. Indeed, it has been rising sharply and will be £3·5 billion in coming years. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is becoming confused with subsidies, which is a quite different matter and has nothing to do with how much is being invested.
    I know of no evidence in any report to suggest that the links to the north are inadequate. On the whole, the inadequacies seem to be in the south-east. That is why there is a £600 million programme of investment in the south-east to improve the links. The north of England and Scotland stand to gain especially from the Channel tunnel because rail freight comes into its own over longer distances.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I heard the Minister's reply with delight. Does he agree that since Liverpool has excellent port facilities it makes admirable sense to improve the links between there and the Channel tunnel as it would prove an ideal through-port for goods from America to the continent?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend refers to a most interesting idea. When we last had questions on this subject I referred to a study being conducted into that very matter. We are happy to co-operate with that study in any way.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister therefore confirm that when the study for the landbridge concept for the port of Liverpool is completed and suggests that it is a feasible option the Government will look favourably on that proposal?
    Mr. Portillo: We shall always look favourably at any commercial proposition put to us by British Rail.
    6
    However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) implied a moment ago, the port and road facilities at Liverpool already look as though they have plenty of capacity for that plan.
    Mr. Hind: When my lion. Friend discusses these matters with the chairman of British Rail, will he bear in mind that there is still an important link from the whole of the west of country to the tunnel without going through London? All that my hon. Friend needs to do is to put some investment into the flyover at Redhill. That will then provide long routes and freight links all the way to the tunnel from the north-west, the south-west, Wales and Scotland and will definitely benefit the country as a whole.
    Mr. Portillo: The important thing is that there should be through freight links between the regions and the Channel tunnel. That is British Rail's ambition and that is why it is working on its plan now. The exact route is a matter for British Rail. I am happy to mention the point to the chairman when I next see him but I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that he has made his case effectively on a number of occasions already.
    Mr. Kennedy: The Minister will appreciate that the rail links between the highlands of Scotland and the south and from there to the Channel tunnel suffered a severe setback last week when the rail bridge in the town of Inverness was washed away in the flooding that occurred. Will the Minister give an undertaking that all available finance will be made available to British Rail and ScotRail to ensure that that bridge is reconstructed as fast as possible because the great worry in the north now is that if it takes up to a year—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about the Channel tunnel, but the hon. Gentleman's question is wide of it.
    Mr. Kennedy: Without the bridge, there is no rail link to the Channel tunnel from Inverness.
    Will the Minister ensure that the finance is available and that British Rail checks bridges of the same age at regular intervals to ensure that there is not a similar setback again?
    Mr. Portillo: The safety point is well made and. I shall bring it to British Rail's attention. I know that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland have been in touch with each other about the bridge. We do not yet know anything about the costs that would be involved, but we shall stay closely in touch with the hon. Gentleman on this matter.

    Thames (Barge Traffic)
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with London riparian borough councils and the Port of London Authority concerning barge traffic on the Thames.
    Mr. Portillo: The recent incident at Battersea is being investigated by a Department of Transport marine surveyor who has had discussions with the Port of London Authority. The authority is now restricting the number of barges that may be towed up river under Battersea bridge to one per tug, and I have asked the PLA to inform me of any other new measures that it proposes to take.
    Mr. Bowis: Will my hon. Friend confirm that two such measures might well relate to the competence of pilotage on the Thames and the use of the tides? I understand that in this instance the pilot came up too late on the tide and the barge was too close to the bridge structure. Will my hon. Friend further confirm whether the Department has contingency plans against the day when another such incident occurs and the bridge perhaps being completely destroyed?
    Mr. Portillo: The marine surveyor will have to consider whether there was a culpable failure and make recommendations arising from that. The PLA has already said that tow barges should come up river as early as possible on the flood tide. In the unlikely event of the bridge collapsing, the PLA would need to take emergency action and it is well aware of that.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that to come up early on the tide is navigationally impractical and that the best advantage is in coming up near the top of it? Does he further agree that, pending protective measures to bridges such as Battersea, which is relatively narrow, such accidents on the Thames are rare and when they occur they cause headlines, which illustrates the safety of water transport by barge on the Thames in general?
    Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Battersea bridge had been damaged on six occasions this century before the 1988 accident, so it is a fairly rare occurrence. I am not competent to comment on the hon. Gentleman's first point beyond saying that it is the PLA which recommended that tugs should come upstream as early as possible on the flood tide.
    Mr. Squire: In addition to echoing the points made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), may I ask my hon. Friend if he will further confirm that it is in everyone's interest that we continue to send domestic refuse down river by barge, rather than attempting to bring it back on to the roads and increase the already impossible congestion?
    Mr. Portillo: That is a good point. The barges keep a large number of lorries off the roads, which is welcome to residents of the area.

    Minibus Drivers
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to press for modification of the European Community requirement for minibus drivers to hold vocational entitlement under the proposed harmonised driver licensing system.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: We have pressed the European Commission at every level to avoid placing restrictions on the use of minibuses by the many voluntary groups, including those working with the disabled, who depend so heavily on them. We shall continue to do so and we aim to protect our present arrangements in the negotiations in the Council of Ministers.
    There is no evidence that our present licensing arrangements for driving minibuses in any way prejudice safety. There is every evidence that voluntary minibuses aid mobility, especially for people with special needs.
    Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to press this matter. Will he confirm that
    8
    minibuses are just about the safest form of transport and that we tend to use them more than other Community countries? The Commission's regulations will cause special hardship to charities for the elderly. That is just not good enough. Will my hon. Friend make that point forcefully to the Commission? Will he also arrange to put in the Library recent correspondence with the Commission on this matter?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes. My hon. Friend speaks for hon. Members on both sides of the House. Minibuses, often with six to 10 voluntary drivers, do a great deal of good for the elderly, the handicapped and the young. The letter which the previous Commissioner for Transport made public on 14 December was probably an aberration. His successor, the present Commissioner for Transport, will look with a fresh eye to see whether safety and mobility for the handicapped and others can be maintained and enhanced. I will put the exchange in the Library.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend stress in Europe that harmonisation for its own sake is extremely damaging to the Community as a whole? Can he say whether the eventual decision on this will be by majority vote or unanimous decision?
    Mr. Bottomley: The decision would be by majority vote if it came to that, but I have every confidence that on road safety grounds the Commission, Parliament and the whole of Europe will look to Britain, which has the best safety record. If the rest of the Community had our road safety record, 40 per cent. fewer people would have died last year. In other countries, the casualty rate is rising, not falling as it is in Britain, so we have something to contribute. On aid for the handicapped and others, we have learnt some lessons which others may want to copy. We do not know everything, but in this area we are the experts, we have the experience and we are right.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. John Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: This question comes up at the regular meetings which Ministers have with the chairman from time to time. I am also in regular contact with the BR board member responsible for the development of this proposal.
    Mr. Hunt: In view of the continuing anxiety and uncertainty on this matter, is it not high time that we were given a firm date for British Rail's announcement of the chosen route? As soon as that route is known, will my hon. Friend do all that he can—if necessary, by urgent amendment and uprating of the Land Compensation Act 1973—to facilitate speedy and generous compensation to those whose homes will have been blighted?
    Mr. Portillo: In answer to my hon. Friend's first point, I agree that an urgent decision is required. There will be an announcement at the beginning of March. On the second point, it is extremely important—I impress this upon British Rail—that there should be an announcement of compensation terms at the same time as the announcement of the proposed route for the line.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the submission made by Kent county council on behalf of all residents of Kent? May I have his assurance that he will instruct British Rail that whatever proposal it puts forward it should comply at least in minimal terms with the criteria in that submission?
    Mr. Portillo: I and British Rail are looking forward to the Kent county council meeting of 23 February, at which I believe that it will confirm or amend the criteria that it is putting forward. Of course, I take those criteria seriously. Environmental protection for the people of Kent under any proposal is most important, and I have no reason to believe that British Rail is is any doubt about that.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Is the Minister aware that 16 per cent. of the total cost of the TGV north route has been earmarked for environmental impact work? Will he ensure that there is a similar investment in this country to protect the people of Kent and elsewhere from the environmental impact of the route?
    Mr. Portillo: I have no idea how those calculations were done in France. Of course, environmental protection will be included in the proposal, but it is only when British Rail makes a firm proposal that we shall know how much it has to spend on environmental protection over and above the cost of the basic line.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Would it not be far more appropriate to have a public inquiry into the route through Kent and, indeed, the location of the second London terminal? This is far too important a matter to be left to British Rail. Has the Minister studied route 5 to see whether it would be environmentally less damaging than the other options being considered?
    Mr. Portillo: I cannot accept that the matter is too important to be left to Parliament, which is what we are doing. This will be a matter for a private Bill, which is the appropriate means of settling it. I, too, believe that the people of Kent have suffered enough uncertainty already. The important thing is to bring the uncertainty to a conclusion. That will be done when British Rail makes a firm proposal in March. Discussions will continue thereafter, and then a private Bill will be introduced into Parliament for full discussion here.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: Although I recognise the importance of proper links between the Channel tunnel and the rest of the country, does my hon. Friend recognise that proposals to run heavy freight and high speed passenger trains at speeds above 100 mph along embankments, viaducts and bridges, and over the homes, houses and heads of my constituents, are unacceptable and that they will be opposed vigorously in the House? If there is any lesson to be learnt from the dreadful tragedy at Clapham, it is that such a risk cannot be taken.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend puts me in a difficult position, because we do not yet have a firm proposal on the table from British Rail, but I note his point. My hon. Friend asked about freight. It is proposed that the new line should be for passenger trains. One reason is that only passenger trains can move at high speeds. Freight trains cannot move at those speeds. One effect of putting only passenger trains on the new line will be to allow more room on existing lines for freight trains, which may mean fewer freight lorries on the roads of Kent.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Minister confirm that these expansive environmental safeguards for the rail link will have to be financed out of British Rail revenue? Will that not inevitably mean a low-cost solution that rides roughshod over the concerns of the people of Kent and south London? Such a major decision should not be left solely to British Rail. Is the hon. Gentleman giving serious consideration to the inquiry that I suggested, which may assist the House in making a decision about that route?
    Mr. Portillo: It is not strictly true to say that the safeguards would have to be financed out of British Rail revenue. If British Rail were to propose building the line, it would have to be a commercial proposition that provided an acceptable rate of return. The House and Parliament will decide on what line is acceptable. Once that has been decided, we shall see whether it is commercial. That is the way it will be. The other possibility is that it will be built in the private sector with British Rail paying a toll to run across it. That again would not require British Rail finding money from its own resources.

    Networker Trains
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has as to when the new Networker trains will be in use; and on which lines they will operate.
    Mr. Portillo: My right hon. Friend approved the purchase of the first Networkers—77 diesel vehicles for lines out of Marylebone—last Tuesday. These units will enter service in 1990. British Rail hopes to begin operating the first electric Networkers by 1991 in south-east London and north-west Kent.
    Mr. Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that my constituents would be relieved finally to get a decision on the introduction of Networker trains on the north Kent line? Does he appreciate that they are well and truly fed-up with the dreadful conditions on commuter trains in north Kent?
    While we are talking about better conditions, does my hon. Friend recognise that commuters not only in the Gravesham area, but throughout London, are concerned about security, especially in light of the disgraceful scenes over the weekend on the train from Bedford? Will my hon. Friend reassure us that efforts will be redoubled to avoid such security problems in future? Will he note that we take some comfort from the fact that at least one of the alleged perpetrators has now been apprehended?
    Mr. Portillo: I look forward to a proposal from British Rail for the Networkers, but I have told my hon. Friend what the position is.
    A man has been charged in connection with the incident on the Bedford to King's Cross train at the weekend, and I understand that further arrests are expected. I understand that four men are in custody in connection with the Clapham Common stabbings and that six men have been arrested over the weekend in connection with the fight on the train in Scotland.
    Mr. Lord: When considering these new Networker trains, and bearing in mind the increase in crime to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) referred, will my hon. Friend take immediate steps to ensure that train drivers can be kept in permanent contact

    11
    by telephone with the stations along their route and the emergency services? In this age of modern sophisticated telecommunications equipment, it is ridiculous that we cannot have this obvious safeguard for passengers and crew.
    Mr. Portillo: It is certainly British Rail policy to equip new trains with radio communications for drivers and to fit that equipment to some existing trains. The Bedford to King's Cross train involved in the incident was equipped with a radio. The driver was able to radio ahead and the police were then able to meet the train at King's Cross station.
    Mr. Spearing: In respect of the new Networker multiple unit electric trains, will the hon. Gentleman speak to his right hon. Friend about the future standards of seating? Is he aware that some of the new trains from other London termini, though they are faster and perhaps smoother than the stock which they are replacing, have less seating room and are less comfortable for travellers? Is that not a step backwards? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the seating design of the proposed Networker stock?
    Mr. Portillo: I will look into that matter, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is being a little grudging. We are talking about a major reinvestment, which will constitute a major improvement in the travelling circumstances of many thousands of people coming into London in the rush hour.
    Sir Trevor Skeet: Will my hon. Friend the Minister bear in mind that security is the most important aspect for people travelling from Bedford? They will not use the line at all if their lives are not secure. Will my hon. Friend assure us that British Rail intends to adopt some innovative measures? Whether British Rail accepts the idea of Guardian Angels on the trains or considers any other method, will my hon. Friend assure us that some method is adopted?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend will agree that it is most important that criminals should believe that they are likely to be apprehended. I am sure that he will welcome the news that progress is being made with the investigation. My hon. Friend will be aware that the line has not had a record of serious crime hitherto, so the incident took the police by surprise. Nonetheless, they have reacted with great swiftness to an extremely serious incident.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the new Networker trains have guards? That was the element which was so obviously missing in the deplorable Bedford line incident at the weekend. Does he accept that the cuts in staff and police levels have contributed to encouraging an increase in violence on our railway system, with the result that the steamer gangs see our rail system as a soft touch? Will the Minister now tell British Rail that it will forgo the £200 million cut in public subsidies this year? Will he ensure that the moneys are redirected to increasing staffing levels and safety standards to improve security on our railway system, thus making an increase in safety standards a higher priority than the saving of money?
    Mr. Portillo: The Networkers will be one-man operated. They will be associated with the new radio equipment I have mentioned, which is extremely important in combating crime. There is no evidence that there is more crime on one-person operated trains than on
    12
    other trains. When I took the opinion of a senior police officer this morning on whether any difference would have been made if there had been a guard on the train, his reply was, "The guard would have taken a serious beating."
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Networker type of train has sliding electrically operated doors. The same type of doors contributed to an accident that resulted in the death of an elderly lady at St. Anne's railway station. Will my hon. Friend undertake that he will consider carefully the representations that I have made to him for a full railway inspectorate inquiry into that matter and into other safety matters that involve sliding doors?
    Mr. Portillo: I am taking extremely seriously the matter on which my hon. Friend has corresponded with me. I am discussing it with the railway inspectorate.

    Settle-Carlisle
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future of the Settle-Carlisle line.
    Mr. Portillo: Not yet. We are still considering British Rail's closure proposal and related matters.
    Mr. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that those who are involved in the holiday business in the area, as well as those who use the line daily, are having a blight cast upon their work because of continuing uncertainty? Tour operators have lost bookings because they cannot guarantee that the line will be open from May to October. The continuing uncertainty is not helped by press speculation that the Minister has found a solution about which he will not tell the House. Will the Minister reveal whether the speculation is sourced from his Department and when an announcement will be made?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not responsible for the speculation which has appeared in the newspapers. I am sorry to hear about blight. The hon. Gentleman will know that I had to give the most serious undertakings that I would consider all the evidence that is put before me, and there is voluminous evidence. It would be wrong for me to reach a decision until I have gone through the evidence carefully.
    Mr. Waller: Although it seems unlikely now that a single operator could take over the Settle-Carlisle line and run it, will my hon. Friend have close discussions with bodies such as the passenger transport authorities, the county councils and the tourist boards to ascertain whether they can come together, with the support of the Government, to find a way of saving what is, by any standards, an important part of the British heritage?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. The first thing that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to do is to reach a decision on the application that has been made by British Rail to suspend its services. A number of people have been in touch with us, including the West Yorkshire PTA.
    Mr. Dalyell: In the voluminous evidence, what is the notional figure for the annual maintenance of the Ribblehead viaduct?
    Mr. Portillo: I am not prepared to reveal one part of the evidence in isolation from the rest. British Rail's closure

    13
    proposal has been published. If the hon. Gentleman cares to read that, he will find some of the figures for which he may be looking.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received regarding a high-speed rail link from the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Portillo: I have received a large number of representations about British Rail's proposals for rail links to the Channel tunnel.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend agree, while understanding the concern of those whose homes may be destroyed, that the national construction of a high-speed rail link offers enormous environmental benefits and improvements? It will give us a chance to transfer some traffic from road to rail, and there is the possibility that there will be fewer vehicles, including coaches, cluttering Kent's roads.
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend has made a most interesting point. Even without the new line, rail freight is expected to more than triple. There could be 20 trains a day in each direction through the tunnel and that would mean that 1,500 fewer lorries a day would be required in Kent. With the new line there will be more room on the existing railway network for freight trains. Therefore, there will be less of a tendency for that freight to drift back on to the roads of Kent.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that it would be a travesty of justice to promote such a rail link by way of a private Bill? We need a planning inquiry. If a private Bill were used to promote the new line that would bring the procedures of this House into disrepute. Does he agree that it would be absolutely impossible to find four hon. Members to sit in a judicial capacity on the Bill who do not have an interest in the matter? Will he ensure that there is a proper planning inquiry and that the new line is not promoted through the back door route of a private Bill?
    Mr. Portillo: No. I absolutely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Although some proposals have been put forward by a joint committee which we will have to consider very seriously, at the moment there is no method for the promotion of a new railway line other than by a private Bill.
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the past six months British Rail has engaged in what it calls consultations, but which the rest of us would call confrontation, which has added nothing to the argument? As a consequence, when British Rail finally announces the route, it will not have gained any more information or taken any notice, as far as I can see, of what anyone else is saying. Will my hon. Friend, in those circumstances, ensure that British Rail considers other routes, such as, route 5, which has been carefully designed, before it takes its decision?
    Mr. Portillo: British Rail should consider its route very carefully including any alternatives which are put forward. However, my hon. Friend rushes to judgment when he says that British Rail has not been listening. He must wait until he sees the proposed line, and then judge for himself.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    cohabitation
    Mr. Fraser: To ask the Attorney-General what steps are currently being undertaken by his Department or that of the Lord Chancellor in relation to increasing the rights which flow from cohabitation.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): The Law Commission is currently reviewing the law relating to intestacy, to the occupation of the home, and to domestic violence. This review will include the question of what rights should follow from cohabitation as well as from marriage.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Solicitor-General confirm that it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor's Department to increase the obligations of common law partners in the forthcoming legal aid regulations? Does he agree that inter vivos rights of common law partners should be increased. For example, a common law wife who has lived in a home owned by her common law husband for many years should have rights of security and proprietary rights in the matrimonial home as well and, so as not to be sexist, vice versa?
    The Solicitor-General: People in that position already have some rights and the Law Commission is considering whether they should have further rights. Such rights as they have at the moment will be taken into account appropriately when the regulations to which the hon. Gentleman referred come forward.
    Mr. Holt: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that whatever the rights are, it is very important that the mechanics match those rights? Is he satisfied with the work of the legal aid office in Newcastle which allegedly dictated a letter on 19 January, typed it on 1 February and which was finally delivered on 9 February after I had contacted the office by telephone? That communication related to the "tug-of-love" case between one of my constituents and a child's mother. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that case was put in jeopardy, whatever the rights may be, because of the length of time involved?
    The Solicitor-General: That seems a far cry from cohabitation. However, if my hon. Friend will write to me, we will look at the case.

    Serious Fraud Office
    Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the director of the serious fraud office; and what matters were discussed.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Today, Sir. We discussed matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Attorney-General confirm whether he has discussed with the director of the serious fraud office the continuing delay in reaching a decision on his inquiries regarding the Department of Trade and Industry's report on the House of Fraser? Will he also confirm that the dilatory actions of former Ministers, Sir Alex Fletcher and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) allowed known crooks to buy the House of Fraser? Are they now co-operating fully with the serious fraud office?
    The Attorney-General: As to the less tendentious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the matter to which he referred at the beginning featured among those that I discussed today. Police inquiries requested by the Director of Public Prosecutions are continuing.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions any need for additional staff in his Department to deal with major fraud cases? It has taken an appalling length of time to bring the Guinness scandal to trial.
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir. That was not among the matters discussed, because the director of the serious fraud office has made no representation to me that he needs additional staff. The establishment of the serious fraud office has vindicated the legislation that permitted it, because matters that are now the subject of prosecution—including the prosecution arising out of the Guinness affair—would not have been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the previous arrangements.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is happening in the case of Mr. Kunwar Chander Jeet Singh, who ran Ravendale Group plc and City Investment Centres, and who, in the over-the-counter market and in other share dealings, defrauded thousands of people of their money? When will that fraudster be prosecuted?
    The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask a question about a specific case, it will be to my advantage and, I suspect, to that of the House, if he addressed his question directly to that case.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Holt: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what was discussed.
    The Attorney-General: Today, Sir. We discussed a variety of matters of departmental interest.
    Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether one of those matters was bringing back to this country Mr. James Draper, to serve the two-year prison sentence that was imposed upon him for contempt of court, after he and others defrauded many people in this country?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, Sir. That matter was discussed today. For the assistance of my hon. Friend, I can say that the Vice-Chancellor made an order committing Mr. Draper, in his absence, to prison for two years for civil contempt of court. Extradition cannot be ordered from any country for civil contempt, even if it results in an order of imprisonment. The Vice-Chancellor's judgment and a separate report by Department of Trade and Industry inspectors into the affairs of two companies, known as Milbury plc and Westminster Property Group, which covered similar ground, have been studied by counsel, who concluded that a police investigation should not be commenced, nor extradition sought, in respect of alleged criminal offences committed by Draper. The Crown prosecution service agrees with that view.
    Mr. Cohen: Is the Attorney-General aware that London Labour right hon. and hon. Members today met Sir Peter Imbert, Commissioner of Police of the
    16
    Metropolis, who acknowledged that to tackle racial harassment effectively, a much stronger policy is needed from the Director of Public Prosecutions, so that more of those people who perpetrate racial harassment will be prosecuted?
    The Attorney-General: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis has not yet reported that meeting to me, nor any opinions such as that which the hon. Gentleman identifies. I look forward to reading any communication from the commissioner.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the great courtesy that he showed me, when we met to discuss the case of my constituent, Mrs. Christine Sellers, and the possibility of bringing a criminal prosecution against the surgeon, Mr. Cook? My right hon. and learned Friend's advice was that she should bring a civil case against him. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the case has now been heard, and that judgment is expected later this week? If Mrs. Sellers wins, will my right hon. and learned Friend be willing again to see me, as was anticipated in the first place?
    The Attorney-General: I am always willing and anxious to see my hon. Friend. It is a labour of love to extend courtesy to him.

    Attorney-General of the Irish Republic
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland; and what matters were discussed.
    The Attorney-General: On Thursday, 29 September 1988. As I stated in my answer of 23 January 1989 to the hon. Gentleman, we had a constructive meeting in regard to matters of concern to our respective responsibilities—in particular, extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Dalyell: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has possibly had a telephone conversation this morning with the Irish Attorney-General, what message does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have for lawyers and solicitors in Northern Ireland in the light of last night's tragedy?
    The Attorney-General: Last night's tragedy should and does arouse disgust throughout the civilised community. It is, of course, most deeply felt among lawyers but also, I would judge, widely shared throughout the Province.
    Sir Raymond Gower: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to take any steps to bring Mr. Ryan to justice through a trial, either in the Irish Republic or in this country?
    The Attorney-General: The Irish Attorney-General has had the papers concerning Mr. Ryan since last month. Those papers were sent with a view to his prosecution being considered by the Irish Director of Public Prosecutions.
    Mr. Winnick: Arising from what the Attorney-General has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), does he agree that the murder last night of a solicitor is a new escalation of the murderous violence in the Province? Does he also agree that those who practise law in Northern Ireland have a duty and a responsibility

    17
    to their clients? Are not those responsible for the murder demonstrating once again that, whether the violence comes from the Republican or the Loyalist side, these murderers have no respect for the rule of law?
    The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman's last remark was quite correct. However, I do not know whether the murder was an escalation of the violence that has beset the Province for so many years. It is certainly an example of violence on a disgusting and totally unacceptable scale, which right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House wish to do all that they can to suppress, consistent with the rule of law.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Malawi
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Malawi; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I visited Malawi at the end of last month. I saw a range of British-financed development projects and technical projects and technical experts, and confirmed to Malawian Ministers our continuing commitment to help Malawi's development programme. British aid to Malawi, including help for Mozambican refugees, amounted to £25 million in 1987, the latest year for which full figures are available.
    Mr. Knight: Is not one of the biggest problems facing Malawi its need to improve transport links to the coast? Is there anything that the British Government can do to assist in that matter?
    Mr. Patten: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. I saw for myself the importance to Malawi's economy of improving transport links. That is why we intend to spend just over £13 million on the northern transport corridor linking Malawi to Dar-es-Salaam. We have also made a contribution to the rehabilitation of the Nacala line, and will probably be able to do more to support that project as well.
    Sir Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend will know all our aid is directed on a bilateral basis where it is most needed. Why does the European Community, particularly in the case of black South African townships, insist on feeding its aid through a third party, which then has the power to direct where the aid should go? Would not our approach be more satisfactory?
    Mr. Patten: We are pressing, both through our own bilateral contributions to projects in South Africa and through the European Community, to ensure that that aid goes to education and social projects where it is most needed. We shall, as my hon. Friend suggested, be spending on our own substantial programme and we have already committed about £25 million to bilateral projects in South Africa in the five years to 1992.

    Lomé IV
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current progress in negotiations on Lomé IV.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Negotiations on a successor to the third Lomé convention, which expires in February 1990, were opened formally in October last year. The first European Community—African Caribbean Pacific ministerial negotiating meeting, which I shall be attending, is in Brazzaville later this week.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: When the Minister attends the meeting, will he press the European Commission to consider carefully the implications of the 1992 single market and its impact on African, Caribbean and Pacific countries? Will he ensure that those Third world countries do not lose out in the single market? Does he recognise the grave danger that the fat cats of Europe will get the cream and milk while the Third world countries will be left with only a cracked saucer?
    Mr. Patten: I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman said. We have to make absolutely certain that 1992 does not create a fortress Europe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear. We have to do all that we can in the re-negotiation of the Lomé convention to ensure that we liberalise the existing trade arrangements where we can. We have set out our thoughts on that, and in particular we have made clear our views on bananas and the importance of guaranteeing the position of our traditional suppliers in 1992 and thereafter.
    Miss Lestor: While the hon. Gentleman is in the mood to agree with my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he has had time to look at the charter for Lomé IV produced by the world development movement? Two of the points in that charter may well be in line with what he is thinking, and I should welcome his comments. First, the Economic Community, in discussing 1992, should publish a report on the anticipated costs and benefits to African Caribbean Pacific states and fully compensate those that are adversely affected, and secondly that the Economic Community should abolish all remaining tariffs and non-tariff barriers on processed products from ACP states. As the Minister shares the Opposition's concern about the move towards 1992, I should welcome his co-operation on those matters.
    Mr. Patten: I agree with a good deal of the world development movement's charter on the Lomé renegotiations. In regard to tariffs, as I said earlier, we are pressing for further liberalisation. For example, we are pressing for rum to be treated like other industrial products. It seems inconceivable that after 1992 we could continue with a quota on rum and with compartmentalisation. I have mentioned the importance of liberalising the arrangements. The hon. Lady also mentioned an economic assessment of the consequences of 1992. We have argued with ACP countries that they should benefit from a larger and more dynamic market after 1992. The European Community has to help them develop their own processing and manufacturing capacity, for example, by simplifying the existing rules of origin.
    Dame Peggy Fenner: May I say how much I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the effects of 1992? Will

    19
    he pay particular attention to the Madrid appeal—the document produced by the 22 countries of the Council of Europe in their campaign for greater public awareness in the North-South campaign?
    Mr. Patten: That was a very useful campaign, particularly as my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) played a part in drawing up that declaration. We were pleased to be able to make a small contribution to that campaign, which quite properly accomplished its objectives.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    International Debt
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take in the light of the World Bank's report on the growth of international debt.
    Mr. Chris Patten: We shall continue to play our full part in implementing the internationally-agreed strategy on debt. We will maintain support through the aid programme for important initiatives recently adopted for the poorest debtors, in which Britain took a leading role.
    Mr. Cohen: That is some strategy. The Minister will be aware that that World Bank report showed that the poorer nations paid the richer nations some $43 billion last year and because of compound interest they were still $39 billion further in debt. The Government's strategy is to export privatisation, to soak the resources of those countries and leave them even further in debt. Is that not a recipe for poverty capitalism, rather than popular capitalism?
    Mr. Patten: Unusually, the hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the mark. The figures which he quoted are certainly misleading as they take no account of grant aid or of the ability of better off developing countries to repay their debts. The net capital flows to sub-Saharan African countries were strongly positive throughout the 1980s. Even after deducting interest payments they amounted to $15 billion in 1987, the last year for which we have figures. These days very few people would agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of market forces. His views seem to be more in line with those of Mr. Ligachev than with those of President Gorbachev.
    Mr. Wells: The House owes my hon. Friend a great debt of gratitude for the initiative that he and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have taken to put on the international scene the initiative on sub-Saharan debt, which has been taken a step further at Toronto. Does my
    20
    hon. Friend believe that the time is now ripe for a further initiative in that area, and that we should extend the initiative on sub-Saharan debt to other countries, such as Guyana in South America? Can he make a statement about that? Is he prepared to take any steps in relation to the debts owed to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Patten: It is important to distinguish between the poorest and the most indebted countries and those which are rather better off. It is also important to distinguish between debts that are owed to Governments and international organisations and those which are owed to commercial banks. Whatever happens, I would not endorse the transfer of risks from banks to taxpayers.
    We have announced that we have committed support to the programme, which we hope will get off the ground, to encourage economic reforms in Guyana. Canada has led the exercise, but we have said that we will support an agreed IMF-World Bank programme in Guyana. I hope that we can start one very soon.

    International Development Association
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current progress in negotiations for the replenishment of the International Development Association.
    Mr. Patten: Negotiations will start in Washington later this month. We hope that they will be successfully concluded by the autumn.
    Mr. Welsh: I wish the Minister all success in the negotiations and hope that they are successful for the association. Is the Minister aware that, in 1979, we contributed 10 per cent. of this fund and that, in the early 1980s, we reduced that contribution to 6·7 per cent. because we had a weak economy? Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer says that the economy is the strongest it has ever been. Does the Minister agree with the Chancellor? If so, will he renegotiate a 10 per cent. contribution in the next round of negotiations?
    Mr. Patten: Of course I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the strength of the economy. I also agree with what he told the IMF-World Bank development committee recently. He said that we
    "believe a substantial replenishment is justified to maintain the Bank's concessional lending to its very poorest members, especially in Africa".
    I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend. We shall certainly play our traditional part in accomplishing such a replenishment.

Point of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that, some weeks ago, the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) raised the issue of the six Conservative Members who have been identified as a security risk by the Security Service. You will recall also that I have raised this matter repeatedly—at column 866 on 24 January, column 1041 on 25 January, columns 1185 and 1204 on 26 January and column 122 on 30 January. You have given me rulings on this matter several times. The first time you advised me to go to the Leader of the House. He told me that he could not answer questions on matters of security. I accept the answer that he gave me. You then ruled on a further point of order which 1 raised with you, and said that I should take the matter to the Procedure Committee. I went to the Procedure Committee, and I have to advise you of its reply. It said:
"It was the unanimous view of the Procedure Committee that in no way could consideration of this, or any matters concerned with security, fall under the normal interpretation of the terms of reference of our Committee."
You will understand, Mr. Speaker, that my case has always been that if Members of Parliament are not fit to be Ministers because they cannot be trusted with classified material, which was the effect of the statement made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South, members of Select Committees who may have been subject to the same scrutiny should not have access to classified information. I have identified in the Chamber at least two Committees to which classified material is made available. Indeed, this afternoon, in the Public Accounts Committee, we shall once again be examining classified material. May I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we need a ruling whereby this matter can be opened up?
As you will understand, I am not satisfied if some Members of this House whom the security services do not regard as trustworthy are to be given access to classified material. We know that at the moment there are six such Members. We know not who they are; we know only that they are Conservatives, and in saying so, I am not scoring political points—[interruption.] It was the hon. Member for Thanet, South who said that these six Conservative Members had been identified by the security services.
All I want is a ruling whereby we can move forward. Will you please consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, and tell me to which Committee I can go next to have it examined further?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think I can help the hon. Member. I have given him two suggestions, but, as he well knows, it is not my role to indulge in giving advice as to tactics. I can only suggest that he might now seek to win time for a private Member's motion, which might enable him to develop the matter further. I cannot give a ruling on something over which I have no authority.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I should seek to win time for a private Member's motion in a ballot of potentially 640 Members, to deal with an urgent matter concerning Committees of this House. However, today, and over the next few weeks, classifies: material will be examined. Surely it is wrong for the House to have to wait for some form of adjudication on these
22
matters. That material may fall into the hands of Members whom the security services have identified as unreliable. This is a matter for the House of Commons, not for the Government, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give us a ruling as to which Committee we can go to next.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must pursue this with the Leader of the House. He cannot pursue it with me; it is not a matter for me. He has taken it to the Select Committee, which has said that it is unable to deal with it. I cannot deal with it either.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Mr. Speaker, you could advise me—
Mr. Speaker: I cannot, and there is no point in the hon. Gentleman's pursuing the matter. I have no authority to do it.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: In your reply, Mr. Speaker, you referred to the need for me to go to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House has said:
"The hon. Gentleman knows the answer that he will get. I am not prepared to comment on matters of security, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be well aware, it is ultimately for the House to decide on membership of Select Committees."—[Official Report, 26 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1185.]
The House cannot decide upon this matter because the House does not have information as to who these six Conservative Members of Parliament are—nor, indeed, does the Committee of Selection.
We cannot just allow this matter to fall by the wayside. It is important. We are talking about classified material. We are talking about information relating to defence contracts, perhaps even contracts such as the one on which you, Mr. Speaker, had to rule a year and a half ago—the Zircon project. How do we know that those six Conservative Members of Parliament do not have access to that information? We know that they could not get it as Ministers, because, according to the hon. Member for Thanet, South, their appointments were blocked by the security services. I am trying to find out—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is taking up private Members' time. This matter arose in a speech made by the hon. Member for Thanet, South, (Mr. Aitken). I have no idea whether the hon. Member was right or wrong. What he said was his responsibility not mine. I have no authority to do as the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do. He must find ways of pursuing this matter other than through the Chair.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is another way that I can pursue the matter, but the problem is that because I do not have a name and therefore cannot approach one of the Members, perhaps privately, to make a complaint to the Select Committee on Privileges, I am not in a position to press the matter. You could advise the Select Committee on Privileges to examine this matter in a general sense without any Member having to lodge a complaint.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows the rules about that. If he maintains that it is a matter of privilege, he should raise it in the appropriate manner, which is to write to me about it. Before he does so, however, I have to say to him that I cannot be held responsible for what hon. Members may allege in the Chamber, provided that what they say is in order. The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair to his colleagues by

23
taking time out of private business.[Interruption.] There may come a day when he finds himself in a similar position.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: You say that the hon. Member for Thanet, South made a statement that perhaps was unsubstantiated. He said:
"Just in case Labour Members think that these kinds of mistakes are totally confined to their side of the House and to Labour Prime Ministers, they may perhaps be interested to know that I was told … reliably".—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145 c. 190.]
The hon. Gentleman said "reliably," so it was not a question of conjecture. He made a specific allegation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Very frequently hon. Members allege that they have reliable information and very frequently it turns out to be highly unreliable.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not intend to hear any more about this matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to hear any more about this matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with the matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am dealing with classified material.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am dealing with classified material.
Mr. Speaker: Again I ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will not resume his seat, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber for the rest of this day's sitting.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member to leave the House for the remainder of this day's sitting.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Am I being asked to leave the Chamber?
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall be back.
The hon. Member then withdrew.

Moral Values
3.41 pm
Sir Hal Miller: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the different but complementary roles of the Church and State in our society; and calls on all sections of the Church, including that by law established, to fulfil their leading role in the promotion of moral values.
I move this motion with some diffidence, as I have no wish, nor is it any part of my purpose, to give offence. I am conscious that I am one of the frailer vessels on the Ecclesiastical Committee and I am most grateful that other hon. Members are to take part in the debate. I very much regret the absence of the Ecclesiastical Committee members. The Committee is to meet the archbishops later today. In particular I regret the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) who has provided me with much help, encouragement and information, and who, I know, wished to take part in the debate. I acknowledge also my debt to the Earl of Lauderdale and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). None of them wishes, of course, to take any responsibility for my remarks.
All four of us are members of an organisation called Church In Danger, but the debate purposely goes wider than the Church of England, as is recognised by the presence of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who I am sure will lend wit, wisdom and a wider perspective to our deliberations. Despite the advice and fears of many of my hon. Friends about my temerity in raising the subject, I felt that I should take this opportunity to air matters that have been giving me cause for much concern.
Dame Elaine Kellet-Bowman: And many others, too.
Sir Hal Miller: The origin of the concern in my own case is the growing perception that Church spokesmen are speaking with a great deal of certainty in the realm of politics but with increasing uncertainty in the realm of things of the spirit. Thus, in the past year one diocesan newsletter in my diocese was headed "Tax Cuts are Immoral". Another was devoted to a consideration of our nuclear defence policy. Other bishops have attacked the deregulation of buses and the proposals that schools should opt out of local authority control and, most recently, I heard one bishop looking forward to attacking the proposals in the White Paper on health.
I am not, of course, objecting to the clergy's right to have political views or to express them, but they should not express those political views in their guise as clergymen or bishops, with the sacred authority thus implied. In other words, I do not believe that they have the right to speak on such matters from the pulpit or the throne. I find it odd and offensive that clerical spokesmen can, apparently, deny the basic beliefs of the creed, contemplate the ordination of divorced people—I speak as a divorced person—and purport to celebrate homosexual marriages.
It seems that the church is becoming a battleground—I nearly said playground—for activists with distinctively minority views. Labour Members are only too panfully aware, as reselection looms, of what that involves, and the Synod of the Church of England is in danger of attempting to give some of those views an elective authority that

25
cannot stand comparison with the authority of this House. We ceded authority to the Synod to manage Church affairs without interference from the House, not to run political campaigns, however sincerely felt. I shall come back to the question of establishment later.
I have been a Member of Parliament for 15 years, during which time I have seen at least three political theories in action. I ask myself how the Church can safely abandon the eternal for the obviously temporal.
Mr. William Powell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sir Hall Miller: No, as I am still in my introductory phase.
This apparent increase in the Church's concern about the political has been accompanied, in a curious transposition of roles, by an increase in state concern for the moral, such as state insistence on religious education in schools, which was questioned in the House of Lords by one of the Lord bishops. There has also been state insistence on the responsibility of the individual in a variety of spheres, in which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has played a part.
Mr. William Powell: Is it my hon. Friend's experience that those churches where the strongest spiritual message comes from the leadership are the fullest and those where the political message is most enhanced are the emptiest?
Sir Hall Miller: My hon. Friend has made his point. My understanding is that the churches where there are enthusiastic beliefs have full attendances.
I want shortly to turn to where I see the solution lies to the seeming contradictions, but I want first to deal with the moral basis of our present system of democratic capitalism. I speak as one who was originally reared on the Christian Socialism of F. D. Maurice and R. H. Tawney, supplemented—almost redeemed, I might add—by William Temple. We are now seeing the worldwide realisation that Socialist centralised planning and Socialist management have not only failed to deliver the economic goods and the means of ministering to the poor, but that the price in terms of human rights has been too high to pay for illusory equality.
In Russia, we see a move to provide greater rights, but political freedom may give rise to more demands than the still shackled economy can meet, while in China, economic processes are being freed first, giving rise to greater political demands than the state can perhaps meet. Therefore, we should be thankful that we and other advanced economies are living under a system of democratic capitalism. A free economy is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for a free society. By itself, a free economy is not a sufficient condition for a free society. Just as I have departed from Socialism in advocating a free economy, so I am departing from libertarianism.
The individual in the free economy needs to recognise his responsibilities as well as his rights. Here we see the field of play for moral values. The Socialist will seek to impose such values, but the libertarian will deny them. History ruefully records that states are no more moral than individuals' actions. I speak as a former civil servant. There is no greater morality in public rather than private expenditure, and state monopolies are no more admirable
26
and no more conscious of their customers than are private monopolies. We are up against the problem of self-will. As William Temple reminded us
"There is no Christian solution to the problem of self-will."
It is what distinguishes us from the rest of creation. if we seek to deny it, we deny our creation. We have therefore to inform and guide it. That is the supreme role of the Church.
Too often, we politicians are presented with imperatives—for example, on abortion. I do not believe in abortion, and I hope that I would be able to sustain that belief in my own family life. But, as a politician, I must recognise not only that there is a minority of Church believers in this country but, more important, that there must be a policy to deal with situations in which abortions would otherwise be carried out in back streets, at high cost and with even greater danger to health.
Surely the Church can recognise original sin and self-will. How can the Church want us to legislate it away? We know that individuals have the potential for good and evil. Surely we should aim to increase the field of action of the good. Is it not our experience that individuals and small units—small groupings of people—when giving rein to the good, gain added strength? Should we not welcome possibilities for the provision of more flexible, more local bus services, for example, or return to schools more control over their own destinies? Should we not try to do the same thing in the Health Service? There should be more funding, certainly, but there should also be more say to those providing the service and more tapping of local enthusiasm, initiative and loyalty. Again, if tax cuts yield more revenue for more such expenditure, as has already happened, what is immoral about that?
As we achieve more economic freedom and more choice, the Church needs to remind us more of our responsibilities—our individual responsibilities. In our diversity of callings, we need the light of faith and the standards which the Church can provide.
So I come finally to the position of the Church of England, by law established. It is in a unique position to understand and minister to our needs, embedded as it is in our national life, being the result of the Act of Settlement 1700. As such it has a wider role than any other Church and in a real sense belongs to more people than merely to its members. Of course, it may, in effect, opt out of that position and responsibility. However, its schism would contain the potential for greater rifts. Therefore, I very much hope that its leaders will pull back from the merely partisan and the temporal and continue to promote the beliefs to which they gave express assent, as well as continuing to minister to us who have such need of them.
3.55 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heller: I welcome the fact that we are discussing this matter today. Although the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has been moderate—I appreciate the fact that he says that he comes from a Christian Socialist background—unfortunately some of his colleagues, including some of his hon. Friends, still consider the Church of England to be the Tory party at prayer. They believe that politics should be left to Tory politicians and that only they have the right to be concerned with such matters. They believe that the Church of England should be concerned only with the saving of individual souls.

27
Their objective is either to maintain the status quo—as long as that equates with the present economic capitalist system—or, if changes are to take place, to remove the welfare state, trade union rights, the National Health Service, council house building and local authority rights in the interests of business, especially big business.
As somebody who was born into the Church—I am sure that I will die a member of the Church—I am passionately concerned with the interests of my Church. I believe that the Church has a right to involve itself in politics. Indeed, it has a duty to do so. The politics of the Church should be the politics of the early Christians. As Bishop Sheppard of Liverpool said in his book, there should be a "Bias to the Poor".
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove referred to Archbishop William Temple who said—I agree with him—that Christianity must
"criticise actual institutions in the light of its own social principles, because it aims, not at the salvation of individuals one by one, but at that perfect individual and social welfare, which is called the Kingdom of God or the Holy City".
The arguments that we shall hear today against the bishops—we hear them regularly from Conservative Members—were used against Archbishop Temple in the past. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in 1934 William Temple wrote to The Times urging Neville Chamberlain, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, not to decrease income tax but to restore cuts which had been made in unemployment benefit. Neville Chamberlain was furious. That is perhaps a mild word to use. He was absolutely mad. He wrote to The Times:
"When I read that letter I thought it was a pity that the Archbishop should suggest, as it seems to me he did by implication, that MPs require to be reminded of humanitarian feelings which otherwise would not occur to them."
The archbishop was right to send his letter. Members of Parliament, certainly some in the House today, have to be reminded of humanitarian feelings. If Christians are not genuinely concerned with the spiritual welfare of people, they must be concerned with the material needs of people. There is no contradiction in that.
Let me recall again the words of the Magnificat. It is much more revolutionary in some senses than the Communist manifesto. The Magnificat reads:
"He hath shewed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away."
That does not fit in with some of the concepts which Tory Members may accept.
There was an interesting and great Roman Catholic professor of political economy of the university of Naples in 1890 who said in his book on Christian Socialism:
"According to St. Jerome, opulence is always the result of theft, if not committed by the actual possessor, then by his predecessors.
That is not much different from what many Socialists have said in the past. I believe that to be true.
We should also remember that Acts 4, 32 states that the members of the first Christian communities were
"of one heart and of one soul, neither said any of them that aught of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common."
St. Cyprea in "Of Works and Arms" said:
28
"When at the first beginnings of the Church the mind flourished with great virtues, when the soul of the believers burned with a glow of faith yet new, then they had all things common, they initiated the divine law, the equality of God the Father."
I believe that. That was why I am both a Christian and a Socialist. I do not find that the concepts I hold as a Socialist are any different from the beliefs I was brought up with.
Many Tory Members have got away from the basic concepts of the Christian Church. They have forgotten how it started and what it is about. It is true that at some stage it became the state religion, so turned into its opposite, like Marxism in Russia. It, too, became the opposite of what it began as. That is not new—unfortunately, it happens too often—but that does not mean that those who began the process—the early Christians and early Socialists—were wrong. It means that those who came afterwards distorted what those who began the process believed. That is what I have always thought. I see no difference between the two, and I find it difficult to understand the arguments of some Tory Members.
I do not disagree with what the Church has been doing recently. In the past I have been a critic of our bishops. Their report on the bomb was excellent. I am only sad that the Synod has overturned it. Fair enough, that is a democratic decision. I fully agree with chapter 3 of "Faith in the City" which deals with theological priorities.Paragraph 3.3 states:
"In this country we are confronted by an acute form of relative poverty—officially recognised as 'multiple deprivation'—that is particularly concentrated in the Urban Priority Areas, and that is caused to a great extent by circumstances beyond the control of those affected by it. There is a clear Christian duty to respond to this situation and 'remember the poor' in our urban priority areas."
Can anybody disagree with that?
The report continues:
It is against the background of the excessive individualism of much Christian thinking in the nineteenth century that we must place Marx's perception that evil is to be found, not just in the human heart, but in the very structures of economic and social relationships. This perception is also found to a notable degree in the Old Testament [from which … Marx may have derived it] where there is explicit recognition of the inevitable tendency of the rich to get richer and the poor poorer unless some constraint is imposed to limit the freedom of individuals to profit without restraint from a market economy."
That is the right approach for my Church.
Today in Latin America, Asia and Africa there is a growth is what is called liberation theology. "Faith in the City" states:
"To all of us, the example of Liberation Theology opens up the possibility that new priorities, as well as new methods, can restore to us a theology, that is truly relevant to the needs and aspirations of people today. Therefore we have to apply the new theology to the situation that exists in Britain today."
I accept that. We cannot talk about liberation theology only in Latin America. Hon. Members who saw last night's programme about the Sudan will have been made ill. Everyone who is a genuine Christian must have felt sick, seeing the poverty and misery that exists in the Sudan, Ethiopia, Latin America and various parts of Asia.
What about our poverty? We cannot act to solve the problem too quickly. We are a rich nation. What about our poverty? We have to do something about it. Therefore, I agree with "Faith in the City" that we must concern ourselves equally with what is happening in our own country.

29
One example is housing. When I think of the Government's record and policy on housing, and of the needs of our people, I remember what the report says about housing. In the section headed "Public Housing: the Way Forward", paragraph 10.72 on page 250 states:
"The great importance of the public housing ideal was that it broke the link between poverty and living conditions. The poor did not have to live in poor housing. But this link is now being re-established … Net capital spending was cut by 44 per cent. in volume terms between 1975–76 and 1979–80 and by 52 per cent. in cash terms between 1979–80 and 1984–85. The result is that the number of new homes started in the public sector has dropped over the last decade from 174,000 in 1975 to 38,000 in 1984. At the same time there has been a shift in expenditure away from the metropolitan districts and London in favour of the shire districts."
In the conclusion to the chapter on housing, the report states:
"What is beyond dispute we believe is that a continuing emphasis upon home ownership alone will not solve the housing problems of the urban priority areas."
That is liberation theology as argued by the Church in Britain, and I believe that it is absolutely right.
Mr. Ian Gow: The passage which the hon. Gentleman, perfectly understandably, has just read to the House is the best illustration that one could find of where the Church—the best motives—is commenting upon matters that are very much within the judgment and responsibility of politicians, whether at local or at national level. Some of us would have been much happier if "Faith in the City" had directed its attention to saving the souls of the people rather than making political judgments on how housing might be improved.
Mr. Heffer: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman said that, because he has made my point for me. If they want to save souls, they had better house the people properly. If they want to save souls, that had better give the people decent jobs and full employment. If they want to save souls, they had better become concerned with personal relationships and what is happening at home. That is what Christianity and Socialism are about. The hon. Gentleman has attacked the report, just as some of his hon Friends have attacked the bishops, precisely because they have asked vital questions that are apposite to the needs of the people. I believe that the Church has come down, rightly, on the side of doing something about the problems.
In his book "Essays on Christian Politics and Kindred Subjects", William Temple said:
"It is not possible to limit Christianity to the individual alone. Christianity appeared in the world as a society. It was not indeed a society with a finished constitution presenting what officers it should have, or what its specific aims should be."
I agree with that.
Unlike some people in Moslem and other countries, I do not believe that Christians want to have a theocratic state. I do not agree with the Christian Democrats in Europe, who wish to involve themselves in political affairs and say, "This is what we shall impose on society." The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is as good a Christian as I am. I accept that people who have different political views are sincere Christians. We may argue about our interpretation of Christianity, but I do not want us as Christians to say that we shall impose our views on other people. I am sure that most other hon. Members will accept that. It is a question of our basic ideals of Christianity.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the basic ideals of Christianity is that there should be one man and one woman for life?
Mr. Heffer: I do not argue with that. I have done rather well in that regard. But I believe that Christians should have compassion and understanding for people who may move in different directions from ourselves When Conservative Members have strayed, I have been asked by the press for my views. I have said that it is a matter for them, not for me to sit in judgment. I am not God and I do not pretend to have Godlike powers. I look to Him to help me to come to my views on issues, but I do not sit easily in judgment on other people. One great problem is with people who suddenly find morality. That does not relate to the basic concepts of Christianity.
The Church has gone through many evolutionary phases. At times, it has become the opposite of what was intended. It began as the society of the poor. Later, it was transformed into the religion of the state, and it became all-powerful. A powerful universal state within states was defined by those who wanted to get back to its original principles. During the middle ages, a feeling developed that Christianity should be the poor man's charter. That feeling became the chief contributory cause of the rise of all the movements, whether they were Catholic or supposedly heretical, Franciscan or Waldensian, which were in being from the 13th century onwards. In Britain they were embodied in the ideas of Wycliffe and, in a practical way, in the Peasants' Revolt of 1381. Troelsch, who studied these movements, was led to describe the period of the later Middle Ages as the "Laiechristentum"—the time of the common man's Christianity.
Political struggles and involvement have been endemic in Christianity from the very beginning, and whether some like it or not, that is still the case today. The rise of Protestantism was part of the struggle for political freedom, for democracy and for the right to speak freely, which is now accepted by most Christians, no matter to which branch of the faith they belong.
The Church has a number of currents within it, the basic concept being the creation of God's kingdom on earth and need to create a society where things are owned in common and where people act together for the commonweal. At the same time, individuals have rights and minds of their own, and they must be given every facility to use them. That is the important point about Christianity. We were given free will. We must use that free will for the benefit of the mass of the ordinary people in society—the poor and the oppressed. I believe that the individual's rights must be part of the collective whole. Those rights, together with the obligations, must be accepted by all.
I shall read extracts from two poems which I believe are essential in understanding why the church and christianity must be involved in politics. George Lovelace, the leader of the Tolpuddle martyrs, was a Methodist preacher. I have never been a methodist, although my mother-in-law is one. After seven years transportation, which was, as it were, given to him by the State at that time, he responded with a poem, "God is Our Guide":
"God is our guide, from field, from wave,
From plough, from anvil, and from loom;
We came, our country's rights to save,
And speak a tyrant factor's doom;
We raise the watchword liberty;

31
We will, we will, we will be free.
God is our guide! No swords we draw.
We kindle not war's battle fires.
By reason, union, justice, law,
We claim the birthright of our sires;
We raise the watchword, liberty,
We will, we will, we will be free!!! "
George Lovelace was concerned about the morals of his children. He wrote to his wife Betsy:
"Be satisfied, my dear Betsy, on my account. Depend on it, it will work together for good and we shall yet rejoice together. I hope you will pay particular attention to the morals and spiritual interest of the children. Don't send me any money to distress yourself. I shall do well, for He who is the Lord of the winds and waves will be my support in life and death."
I shall now read from the hymn or poem, however one looks at it, "Jerusalem" by Blake. It is something which we all sing with fervour in our churches and in our meetings. We must think about what it means:
"And did those feet in ancient time
Walk upon England's mountains green?
And was the Holy Lamb of God
On England's pleasant pastures seen?
And did the countenance divine
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here
Among these dark satanic mills?
Bring me my bow of burning gold!
Bring me my arrows of desire!
Bring me my spear! O clouds, unfold!
Bring me my chariot of fire!
I will not cease from mental fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand,
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land."
That is what I believe. I believe that Christianity is about transforming society to make it better. The Church must be involved in politics. It must concern itself with what is happening around us. It must become up to date. If it has to decide on such issues as whether there should be women priests and whether those who are divorced should hold positions in the Church, it is because it must live in modern society. It does not mean that the basic concept is wrong, but that we must accept that the Church must be involved. If it is not involved, it cannot make the contribution that it should in building a new society—in building that Jerusalem—and creating a new world. That is what I believe, and that is why I became involved in this debate.
4.24 pm
Sir John Stokes: I know what a good Christian and Englishman the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is, and I share his love of history. However, in all our history we are usually two sides—he would have been a Roundhead and I would have been a Cavalier, but still part of English history. I was much moved by what he said about "Jerusalem". Conservative Members sing that hymn, too.
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on thinking of this motion and on introducing it so well. We rarely debate these important matters, but I have occasionally done so
32
on Adjournment debates. This subject is vital to our health as a nation and it is good that we should spend this afternoon considering it in detail.
When we consider today the condition of England on the one hand, we see a nation that has never been so prosperous, but, on the other, a society bedevilled by crime—much of it violent—drug-taking, drunkenness, vandalism, thuggery and gross dirt and untidiness in our streets and many other public places. Apart from other grave moral failings which have not been mentioned, there is divorce, which is increasing alarmingly, the break-up of families and also, I am afraid, some dishonesty, whether in high places or in low. We appear to have lost in our national life a lot of that cohesion in our towns and villages, which I remember as a boy before the war. We are not as neighbourly as we used to be, perhaps because of modern means of transport and the fact that people move house so often.
It is not, of course, all bad. For example, more is given to charity than ever before in our history. If there has been a falling-off in standards of behaviour and in our manners, why is that so? I believe that it must be because of the failure of parents in the home to bring up their children in the Christian virtues and with the appropriate moral standards.
The Church clearly has a great responsibility. Unfortunately, not only has the number attending services been falling for years, but the number of baptisms and confirmations has too. Although poll after poll shows that most people still believe in God, the Church is irrelevant in their lives.
I have always loved the Church. It supported me in the various crises of my life. I believe that in the end religion is a personal matter, although it has its social side. Ordinary people want to know about fundamentals—why they were born, what they are doing on this earth and how they can cope with tragedies if they come along. They want to know, too, how to deal with sin and evil and to know the means of salvation. Those are the essential matters about which they want to hear from the clergy. But do we hear about those things from our bishops and the clergy? Do they, for instance, denounce the rising divorce rate, fornication or selfishness, or do they hesitate to condemn such matters because it is, perhaps, not fashionable to do so'?
I often feel that the Church tries to compromise too much with the liberal and progressive thinking of the modern age, and hopes by that means that it can fill its churches. I am sure that that is not the right approach. The Pope certainly does not take that route. Perhaps we need among our bishops more John the Baptists.
I believe strongly in the establishment of the Church of England. To dismantle it would be enormously costly and complicated. It would do damage to those occasional churchgoers who in the last resort still depend upon the Church. The Church of England is a marvellous institution. It has a network of parishes covering the entire land and it is available to everyone who wishes to avail himself of it.
I am glad that the bishops are still in the other place, as that reminds us of our Christian heritage as a nation. That does not mean that I agree with everything that they say. There is something wrong with our present system of appointing bishops. Many committees are involved and there is the baleful influence of the General Synod. The old system of the Prime Minister's ecclesiastical secretary

33
taking soundings from all quarters was much better and ensured that all sections of the Church had a fair share and not only the modern section, as now. It is hard, for example, for a Prayer Book man or a man opposed to the ordination of women to be made a bishop or a dean. I was surprised and delighted the other day when I saw that the chaplain of the fleet had been appointed Bishop of Sodor and Man. The chaplains in the services know about life and death; they are familiar with real life. I am glad to see that one of them has been promoted.
We hear that not enough priests are coming forward for ordination and that the standard generally is not high enough. Pay has been much improved but it is still too low when compared with that which is received by many affluent factory workers.
We have heard much today about the Church and politics. Many of the clergy, including the higher clergy, seem obsessed with politics, to the detriment, I believe, of the spiritual. I accept that religion must cover all aspects of life, including politics, but politics alone is not enough and can be harmful. When an all too absorbing interest in politics is compounded by a lack of traditional Christian belief in a Church leader, we have a recipe for disaster. Some time ago there was a meeting between business men and the bishops and clergy. The churchmen asked, "What do you want of us?" The business men replied, quite simply, "Preach the gospel." That sums up my criticism of the present Church leaders.
What is called the Thatcher revolution of the past 10 years is liberating the energies of individuals who give of their best in their careers for themselves and their families on this earth. Why is the Church not making a similar appeal to individuals in spiritual terms? The Church still seems to cling to collectivist solutions, usually meaning more taxpayers' money being directed to every problem, although this has failed so often in the past and notably, and unfortunately, in Scotland. What ecclesiastical leader has there been in the past 10 years to have anything like the influence that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had in the secular sphere, from the shop floor upwards? Would that we could have a leader in the Church as we have in politics.
Our schools bear a heavy responsibility for bringing up people in the Christian traditions. Church schools are vital, but all schools in England should teach Christianity and Christian morals. Unfortunately, that does not happen everywhere nowadays. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is trying hard in that regard.
Unfortunately, the prestige of the clergy has declined since I was born in a country rectory over 70 years ago. Equally unfortunately, the prestige of the teaching profession has declined also. We need our best people in these two professions. We must do all that we can to raise their standing and the respect in which they are held by the public, and above all by the parents of our children.
What about we politicians? What example are we setting? Is it an inspiring example in faith and morals? I shall spare my colleagues any further remarks on that difficult and delicate subject. In recent years, relations between the Church and the House have deteriorated. The Church of England has appeared soft on certain moral issues such as homosexuality among the clergy. A dangerous conflict is arising about the ordination of divorcees while their former spouses are still alive. I have
34
often felt that the ordinary Back Bencher appears more rigorous in these matters than some members of the clergy. That is a sad state of affairs.
Hon. Members may not realise that in some senses they are more representative of the man in the pew than members of the General Synod. I remember how hard some of us fought to try to save the Book of Common Prayer. We prophesied that it would disappear. It has now done so in about four out of every five of our churches, to the irreparable loss of the whole of England.
If bishops did their job properly, there would be no need for the General Synod. The laity could make their views known at parish level. I joined the Synod some years ago on the basis of, "If you can't beat them, join I hem." I have been somewhat disappointed. The Synod meets too often, it seldom discusses basic issues and it is frightfully expensive for the parishes to maintain. Moreover, it is building up a bureaucracy which poses dangers to the well-being of the Church. The Synod takes up too much time of the bishops and the higher clergy. Preferment often seems tied to performance in the Synod instead of in the field. I once asked a chaplain on the Falkland Islands what he thought of the Synod—I hesitate to quote his reply.
I cannot end on an altogether sad note. In spite of the secular and materialistic age in which we live, there is still a longing for religion among many people. Somehow the Church has to appeal more to the hearts and minds of men and women. It must concentrate on essentials. A great evangelical crusade is required in many parts of our land where religion has almost vanished.
I believe that we are still at heart a Christian nation. Christianity has helped to shape our national character and there is still a haze of Christianity over this island. We must all of us in this place help the Churches all that we can to return to historic Christian roots; otherwise, our future will be bleak indeed.
4.38 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has placed this matter before us for debate this afternoon. As the debate unfolds, we will hear a variety and diversity of Christian views ranging from Christian Socialist to High Tory. There is a great diversity of Christianity in the United Kingdom. There are the established Churches in England and Scotland—the one Episcopal, the other Presbyterian; there is no established Church in Wales or Northern Ireland and in all four nations there is a great diversity of Christian views and denominations increasingly working together.
I speak as a nonconformist, a dissenter, a Free Churchman. I do not have the hang-up about bishops which Conservative Members seem to have. Conservative Members seem to attribute an authority to bishops which causes them to react with increasing violence to anything which a bishop might say with which they disagree. The most vivid example of that must be the comments that surrounded "Faith in the City".
The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) said in response to "Faith in the City" that The Church of England was now being
"run by a load of Communist clerics."
A Cabinet Minister was quoted as saying that "Faith in the City" was "pure Marxist theology."
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): Who was the Minister concerned?
Mr. Beith: I am sorry to say that he was not identified. I hope eventually to discover who it was. However, I can identify the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who questioned whether bishops, although decorative, were any longer entitled to be taken seriously as political commentators with a built-in right to sit in the House of Lords. I often think that it will not be the radical dissenters who disestablish the Church of England, but the Tory party as it discovers increasing disagreement between itself and a body which it somehow expects to support it. It is strange that Tory Members seem to believe that the Church of England exists to support them and give succour to their views.
There is a necessary diversity of Christian views on political solutions. It is inevitable that Christians applying their belief to politics will come up with different solutions and views.
There is also a diversity of religions in the nation, not all of which are Christian. I do not accept the view of those who claim that in an increasingly multicultural Britain Christian values have no relevance. That is a fallacy based on a mistaken notion about multiculturalism in Britain.
One of the products of multicultural Britain is a very large and strong West Indian-based Christianity which is vibrant and sees Christian values as highly relevant to modern society. There are also many Moslems who have much common ground with Christians in their belief about the importance of moral values. The Christian Churches should not go into retreat on moral issues simply because we now have a more diverse nation with Christians of other traditions and others with non-Christian religious views.
When the Prime Minister addressed the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, I saw evidence of this Tory desire to claim the support of the Church. I feel compelled to remind Tory Members that the Christian gospel is about challenge. It is about challenging individuals in personal responsibility, behaviour and spirituality. It is also about challenging those in authority to assess what they are doing in the light of very different claims to those which now seem to dominate them.
The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that he did not question the right of clergy to hold political views—well, there is a concession for a start—but they should not express them in their clerical capacity. I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would have said to the Old Testament prophets. What would he have said as they railed against the evils of the societies in which they found themselves?
Perhaps he would have said, "You are not entitled to express these views in your capacity as a prophet. You may hold them privately, but you may not express them." What would the hon. Gentleman say to the priests in Poland who have supported Solidarity? I suppose he would say, "Of course they are entitled to hold those views, but they should not express them." Surely not. The Prime Minister has often welcomed the way in which the Church in Poland has supported Solidarity and she has welcomed the great alliance between Christianity and the desire for self-expression and democratic rights in Poland.
What would the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and his Friends say to Mother Teresa because she poses a challenge to our society on homelessness and abortion? She demands that we think again about those issues.
36
Would Tory Members say that she has no right to say those things in public because she is a member of a religious order and should therefore keep those things to herself? Surely not. Prophetic words uttered by a remarkable Christian like Mother Teresa or by people whose prophetic voices have an authentic ring are where we are most likely to find the authenticity of the gospel.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) suggested earlier that most Churches were most full where Christianity was not considered to be relevant to politics or having a message about politics. I attended the remarkable and vast gatherings of the Spring Harvest evangelical organisation where many people feel very deeply about current moral and political issues.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the point was that the emptiest Churches were those where the doctrine of Christianity was not preached, in other words where secular doctrines were preached to the exclusion of Church doctrine?
Mr. Beith: That was not the point as I understand it. Perhaps the hon. Lady is thinking of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). I was referring to a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Corby which seemed to carry the import which I have attributed to it.
Petitions are pouring in at the moment from active Christian Churches all over the country about people in South Africa who have dissented from military service in the South African defence forces because of their disagreement with the system in that country. They are coming from active congregations who believe that there is a relationship between the gospel and political issues.
Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that I was invited to visit a parish church in Lancaster to give a sermon. That church was packed to the gunwales.
Mr. Beith: I am not at all surprised and quite delighted about that. Having co-authored a book with the hon. Gentleman on those issues, I would have expected a crowd to gather to hear him.
Dave Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I do not think that this point requires a sequence of interventions.
The note of challenge is bound to be seen as a challenge to this Government. It would be a challenge to any Government, but there are particular challenges for this Government. The most powerful challenge is that the Government appear to have adopted the concept of "passing by on the other side" as an objective of public policy. They believe that that is desirable, but that concept threatens many areas of public policy.
The Government's attitude to apartheid in South Africa and the desirability of acting with other nations to bring pressure to bear on South Africa is that they should leave well alone and stand well back from it. The Government's attitude to many aspects of homelessness is one in which they say, "Well, we'll see what the private sector can do and leave it to them to solve the problem." That attitude is very obvious today in the battle over the funds for hostels which provide for people with special housing needs—for example, women with children who have had to leave home or who have been turned out

37
because of domestic violence and young people with nowhere else to go. Those hostels are unable to meet their commitments on the proposed level of Government funding.
There is a similar willingness to "pass by on the other side" in relation to poverty and the Health Service. I sometimes think that the Prime Minister would have said to the victim in the Good Samaritan story, "Why haven't you got private health insurance? You wouldn't have had to worry."
Mr. John Patten: That is cheap.
Mr. Beith: No. The Prime Minister has given her own interpretation of the Good Samaritan story. She said that the main point is that the Good Samaritan could only provide help because he had prospered, had the means to put the victim in a hotel and could provide for him to stay there for a few days.
There is another side to the story. The dominant aspect in the New Testament is that if we see someone suffering, we must do something about it.
The criticism we make of the Government is that, while we recognise the desirability of helpng people to look after themselves to the greatest possible extent, if there is deprivation, suffering, homelessness and ill-health, for the state to stand by and not take the action that it could is a form of passing by on the other side.
The Gospel imperatives ask the question:
"Lord, when saw we thee hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee: Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me."
The imperative is very clear, and the state cannot stand back and say, "We do not intend to do very much, because we believe that the private sector will solve the problems for us—even though there is no proof of that."
Mr. David Martin: Between 1974 and 1979, we saw examples of the state attempting to take on certain responsibilities, and to solve problems that had been with us for some time. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about those problems, but a successful way of managing them could not be found in the years between 1974 and 1979. The Prime Minister herself said that for the state to operate, individuals within it must carry out their responsibilities in conjunction with the state. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Beith: As a general proposition, I do not dissent from it, but between 1974 and 1979, the Health Service was, in some respects, in a better state than it is today. If the current Health Service proposals are implemented in full, its deterioration will be much worse.
The hon. Gentleman was seeking some common ground with me, and I wish to establish that common ground. I believe that individuals should be given the greatest possible opportunity to look after their own affairs. I believe that in respect of individual rights, for example, individuals should be protected from an overbearing state. I regret the fact that Conservative Members do not join us in safeguarding individual rights through a Bill of Rights.
I believe also that the tax system should be reformed, so that those having the lowest incomes are given an opportunity to look after themselves, and do not find that they are bearing the heaviest relative burdens that the tax
38
system imposes, so that they too may exercise more responsibility and self-reliance. Getting the balance right, and ensuring that people can behave responsibly—and are given the opportunity to do so—without the state passing by on the other side, is difficult. The criticism that many in the Churches are making of the Government is that they have got the balance wrong: they do appear to be passing by on the other side.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: The hon. Gentleman says that under the last Labour Government—which his party actively supported during that Government's last two years—the National Health Service was in better shape. That comes as a surprise, given that the Health Service was then funded by 40 per cent. less in real terms than it is today, with 60,000 fewer doctors and nurses, and with a 30 per cent. cut in its hospitals' capital growth— compared with a 30 per cent. increase in spending on the capital programme under the present Government. How does the hon. Gentleman explain that?
Mr. Beith: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes round the hospitals of this country and asks those who work in them whether they think that the Health Service is better now than it was a decade ago. He will find a degree of anxiety verging on despair.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to debate the second motion on the Order Paper. Without seeking in any way to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how to do your job, I shall be grateful if you will ensure, in view of the important debate on town and country planning that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to reach, that discussion of the Health Service does not take up too much time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the motion now before the House is all-embracing. If there are fewer interventions, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) could proceed more speedily.
Mr. Beith: I will take the hon. Gentleman's hint and not give way for a while. In the interests of lively debate I gave way extensively.
The question of passing by on the other side is not the only one on which many Christians wish to take issue with the Government. There is also the matter of general moral values and the belief that the state, while not legislating on moral values, can to a large extent uphold them. There is much anxiety among Christians about a get-rich-quick morality that seems to supplant older values that one thought had a place, even in the philosophies of Conservative Members. A whole series of incidents emphasises that fear.
Today's newspapers report yet another stage in the saga of the sale of cemeteries by Westminster city council. The idea that it is proper for a public body to sell off its cemeteries for 15p, see £1 million profit made out of them, and then try to silence the official who could reveal much of the truth of what went on and who has been critical of the councillors involved shows that a different kind of morality prevails than many Christians feel is appropriate.
On Sunday trading, we see the Government's apparent determination to bring about a state of affairs where Sunday will be like all other days, with those working in

39
the retail trade having no protection for their family life. That is seen by many Christians as an assault on basic Christian values and on a basic aspect of our society.
In saying that such matters pose a challenge to a Conservative Government, I am not saying or suggesting that Christianity poses no challenge to people who hold other political views. I would have been more impressed if Conservative Members had shown more awareness of that. I see a challenge to my own political beliefs. There is also in the Christian gospel a challenge to Socialist beliefs. If either of our parties were in government, we would expect the Churches to be critical of some of the things we were doing—perhaps because we were not doing enough of something or underestimating important values.
There is criticism also of Parliament as a whole. For an issue of such moral importance as abortion, affecting whether or not life can proceed, to be one that Parliament is unable to decide because its own procedures fail to allow a widely supported private Member's Bill to be decided upon is an indictment of this House. Many Christians find that intolerable and impossible to comprehend. If the House does not take action to ensure that it can legislate—it was only able to do in 1967 because the Government provided time—that will be an affront to many Christians.
The Churches promote moral values and spirituality, and will continue doing so. However, in doing so they are bound to come into conflict with the Government of the day. They are bound to come into conflict with the present Government and with future Governments. When I hear suggestions that the Churches are wrong to come into conflict with the Government, and are wrong to speak out when they do, I am very fearful. That is not the way we should speak to the Churches of this country.
4.56 pm
Miss Emma Nicholson: One of my ancestors killed Thomas à Becket. Others left France in 1698, on the repeal of the edict of Nantes, to save themselves from the vengance of the French king against the huguenots. Therefore, in my blood I have always been conscious of 700 years or more of conflict between Church and state. Perhaps that is why I am wholly unable to support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller)—although I welcome his courage and determination in presenting for debate a subject that can never be explored too often.
As a communicant member of the Church of England, I cannot see any good reason for continuing the long-established tie between Church and state. I rest my case on the Magna Carta which, right hon. and hon. Members will recall, states that the English Church shall be free. Is the Church honestly free, when No. 10 Downing street appoints its bishops? If No. 10 does not appoint the bishops, can somebody tell me who does? No. 10 is meant to do so.
Recently, as a member of the House of Commons prayer group, I was fortunate, with other hon. Members, to be part of the national prayer breakfast group in Washington. There were 134 Christian churches represented there, among the Christian-based prayer groups of 134 Parliaments. I dare swear that not one of them, other than the British Church, is subservient to its state.
40
Last summer, the matter was brought home strongly to me when the Copyright Bill, on which we all laboured so mightily, went to the House of Lords. It had come from there in a terribly tattered state, and was returned there by this House in a much better one. My interest is computer software, and I went to the House of Lords to check that nothing dreadful happened to any of our precious amendments to the Bill. I looked over from my stance as a Member of the House of Commons to see a pair of muslin sleeves and a billowing cloud of red silk leaning back on the Benches, gently snoring as if "Barchester Towers" were still in the writing.
Mr. Robert Key: It is.
Miss Nicholson: I hope not—I would be appalled.
I believe most strongly that the time is long past when the Church of England should have been disestablished from the state.
I also disagree with the motion because we live in a multi-faith society. The year 1871 was a splendid year, when one of my great-grandfathers crossed the Floor of the House from the dying Liberal party to the reviving, thriving Conservative party, to join another two of my great-grandfathers, who had so rightly tempted him over.
My fourth great-grandfather took the cloth and became a curate in London. I bought my house in London because it was at the end of the street where he had been curate. When I went to church and told the vicar, he looked down his nose and firmly said, "Which curate? In 1871 we had six." My goodness, how the Church of England has tumbled since then. I want a stronger Church of England, not a weaker one.
Today, we live in a multi-faith society. Many faiths with many glorious writings, preachings and teachings form that society. For that reason, the motion is too narrow. It talks about the Church's leading role in the promotion of moral values. What morals? Morals are only customs. Today, the young most certainly will not listen to talk from Parliament—a Parliament that includes the Church—on their sexual behaviour, and nor should they. That is a matter for the individual.
What matters are the laws that we pass, which should ensure, in my view as a practising Christian, that the state gives the best possible credence to the values that we place on each other. As many people say—and I believe it to be true—our society's values are derived from many wider sources than mere Christianity. I am tempted to ask, "Why on earth involve the Church in the promotion of moral values?"—if that is the aim.
The Church is riddled with faults. The Christian Church has long been known as the combative Church which created violence, war and assaults. We need only look at St. Paul's Gospel to see that, according to him, all men and women are not equal before God, as they are in Christianity. The Church has been notably untruthful. It has been involved in creative accounting of the most amusing sort. In the 15th century—not that I was there then, I hasten to say, but I have read my history books—the Christian Church in France sought and obtained deliverance from fish on Wednesdays and Fridays in Lent, on the ground that anything shot within 15 miles of the sea shore counted as fish.
We have to agree that the Church is made up of very ordinary people, and people are often wrong. They are sometimes wrong in simple ways—even in their translation

41
of the Bible. For example, Joseph's "coat of many colours" did not contain many colours but it had long sleeves, which at last makes sense of that chapter of the Bible. Joseph had been promoted over his brother: workmen had short sleeves, the overseers had long ones. It was a case of "jobs for the boys".
The Church should, and must, be involved for a much deeper and more valid reason, which is that it is the embodiment of Christianity. Therefore, to me as a Christian—I shall not go into why, because it would take too long—the twin leading roles of the Church are not those in the motion, but to teach us the worship and love of God, who is all around us in every possible way, and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Those must be the reasons for involving the Church in our lives in any way, shape or form, be it in politics or any other aspect of our public or private lives. From those two New Testament commandments from Christ spring the practice and principles of public and private morality.
The concept of the public good surely comes from the notion of "Love thy neighbour". It makes us sensitive to our neighbours' needs and it gives us the determination of will to do everything that we can for the good of our neighbours.
It is sometimes difficult to believe that we in Parliament have any Christian principles at all. At my Sunday school I was taught certain concepts of behaviour that fell within the Christian pattern: for example, the lack of hatred of other people and the lack of screaming, noisiness and horribleness to each other. I have to say that I have been in Parliament for 20 months and such behaviour, almost more than anything else, has been the order of the day. Yet we pretend that we are following Christian principles. Is it really too late to reform Parliament and to make us be just a little more Christian towards each other? I do not think so—I think we could well achieve that.
I am glad that we do not have the Ecclesiastical Committee with us today. We can speak as perfectly ordinary Christians, with our weaknesses. We might have felt hampered if we were before an Ecclesiastical Committee with its firm role of putting forward goodness. I am delighted that it is away on synodical business. The only weakness of my proposal to disestablish the Church is that it will fall into the clutches of that dull body, the Synod. I would that more Back-Bench Members from both sides of the House belonged to the Synod, because that would make it a more interesting, cheerful and spicy place.
Christianity also gives people the strength to be bold. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the Church in Poland. I was fortunate enough to meet the elected President of Poland in Washington. It is marvellous that such a post exists. The man is a strong Christian. He told me, for about half an hour, how his Christian principles gave him the strength to return to Poland to debate with Solidarity and the non-elected Government.
Christianity gave the head of the Methodist Church in Japan, whom I also met in Washington, the strength to write the most bold and challenging letters to Japan's Prime Minister complaining desperately that Shintoism appeared to be part of the Emperor Hirohito's funeral rites. Shintoism is the worship of the Emperor that was outlawed after the second world war. That brave man had
42
also written to the White House. The first visitor to the new order of President Bush at the White House was Japan's Prime Minister 10 days ago.
Christianity has given the nuns in southern Africa whom I know so well the strength to continue their missionary activities. Church of England missionary activities are long outdated, and as a Christian, I deeply regret that. If we believe in Christianity, we should certainly want to convert people to our faith. If we do not, why bother to pretend that we are Christians? It gives those nuns the strength to try to convert people from their sometimes miserable behaviour, in terms of what they believe and whom they worship. It also gives the nuns the strength to combat that worst of all evils, apartheid, and to do it with courtesy, dignity and Christian morality. Christianity gives us great strength to help other people.
Let me return to my theme of the disestablishment. Once before, the Church of England can, with far greater power and much louder voice, help to set the political agenda. In my view, the eradication of poverty has to be at the top of that agenda. I believe strongly that we have at last, through the exercise of, dare I say it, Conservative principles, been able to make this country much wealthier. Now, we can and must turn to the eradication of poverty, not just in the United Kingdom but in the developing countries as well.
The difference between the two sides of the House is not in the eradication of poverty but in how we achieve it. I still detect in the Opposition a delightful but outdated and irrelevant paternalistic concept of giving to others to try to help them in their poverty. But we cannot buy off poverty. If that were possible, it would have been bought off years ago. We have to be far cleverer than that. With our determination to help others and our Christian principles at the fundament of what we do, we must devise ways of helping people to conquer their own poverty, giving them the dignity of looking after their own affairs and helping them to reach that most splendid and proper position—the true dignity of being a human being.
Therefore, I have to oppose the motion, although I applaud the sentiments and concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. I particularly applaud his goodness and integrity as a human being, which are based on his fundamental Christian ideals. But for me, the primary task of Christianity must be the love of God, and the living out of Psalm 104:
"Bless thou the Lord, O my soul. Praise ye the Lord."
To do that I believe that the Church of England should be cast adrift from the state so that it can once more help people in the United Kingdom come to God, worship God and help us all love our neighbours and ourselves, and in this place through the proper discharge of our political responsibilities.
5.11 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: This is the first debate in 40 years that covers the relationship between Church and state. We have had various discussions about Church Measures and about individual questions, but the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) has done us a service by opening up the possibility for a very wide-ranging debate, which in most countries would be taken for granted.
The idea that we should discuss religion only every 40 years—I have been a Member of Parliament for 39 years—is strange when we consider the enormous political

43
power of religion in other parts of the world. The Vatican has always been powerful. It sent an army here to deal with Pelagius, the first heretic, and to put down Pelagianism. The born-again Christians in America are supposed to have been behind President Reagan and the born-again Moslems in Iran now support the Ayatollah Khomeini. The fundamentalists are burning Salman Rushdie's book because they believe that the blasphemy laws should protect the reputation of Mohammed. The argument between the Sunnis and the Shi'ites is mostly unknown here and not understood in Britain although they each represent a very powerful political force. Although the conflict in Northern Ireland is not primarily about religion there is certainly a theological dimension.
Socialism is a faith too. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove said that he started as Christian Socialist. My definition of a faith is something for which people will die, while a doctrine is what they will kill for; there is all the difference in the world between a doctrine and a faith. People will kill other people because they will not accept their doctrines, but they will die for their faith. I have never heard that anyone has been prepared to die because they held a particular view about the size of the public sector borrowing requirement or what should be the basis on which economic policy was formed.
This debate involves high political argument at a rather more fundamental level. I was brought up to believe that the whole story of the Old Testament was that the kings exercised power and the prophets preached righteousness. That conflict has annoyed some speakers. We are discussing the relations between Church and state, between politics and faith and of each with each other. Although I make no complaint about it, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove made a very strong attack on the Church because Church leaders ventured to have a view on atomic weapons which could obliterate mankind if wrongly used; and on inner cities, where terrible suffering is experienced in this so-called rich society. The archbishop was criticised for preaching reconciliation in the service at the end of the Falklands war. Although the matter has hardly been touched upon, there has been savage anger that a woman should have been ordained as a bishop in the United States of America, and there has been criticism of the social message of Christianity.
The debate takes us back to the reason why the Church of England was established. I have introduced a Bill to disestablish the Church, and I hope that the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) will be a signatory to it when I reintroduce it this Session. I know that it has widespread support. Henry VIII nationalised the Church of England because he was not prepared to have a power outside his own control with command over the hearts and minds of his subjects. There had to be a priest in every pulpit telling the faithful that God wanted them to do what the king wanted them to do. The Church of England was established for exactly the same reason as the Conservative Government nationalised the BBC—it was not a Labour Government that did that. The Conservative Government wanted a pundit on every channel telling people that there was no alternative to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted them to do.
I listen to the economic commentaries every night. At first I was puzzled. Dominic Harrod tells us every night
44
what has happened to the pound sterling to three decimal points against a basket of European currencies. I have never seen a basket of European currencies, but I shall take one next time I go on holiday. Dominic Harrod tells us that every night, and in the morning we see pensioners hurrying to the post office to sell their deutschmarks and buy their yen. It is witchcraft from those who believe that capitalism, Christianity and democracy are indivisible. I say that not as a criticism solely of the Government Front Bench because I see that political infection coming into the policy reviews of the Labour party, so I hope that no one will think that I am making a party political point.
The Dow Jones industrial average exercises greater influence than the Ten Commandments. It is a choice for Mammon against God. Christian Socialists might wish to make that point. We are told about the Bible. My favourite picture in St. Stephen's Hall, of which I have many copies at home, is of Wycliffe's Bible. The House would not allow the Bible to be made available to the public until the middle of the 16th century. When the New Testament was first translated, Tyndall's Bible was smuggled in in bales of hay. Only one copy remains in the Baptists' college in Bristol. One of my proudest possessions is a reproduction of it. It was a Marxist, Allende in Chile, who first made the Bible available to the people there; the bishops did not want the faithful to have a chance to go back to the text. That is why I have never been able to take episcopacy into my system, and I believe in the priesthood of all believers.
Ultimately, politics, debates and legislation always reflect the guiding principles upon which society wishes to rest. Policies may change with circumstances, and no one is more disposable than a politician. Democratic institutions are more fundamental, but ultimately everything will reflect the principles on which society bases itself. A society is either a community or a jungle. We are now in the process of telling people that they have no responsibility for one another. Society has been encouraged for a variety of reasons to abandon that sense of responsibility.
There was a little discussion about the Prime Minister complimenting the Good Samaritan on his wealth: if he had not been rich he would not have been able to help. I am awaiting her comment on the widow's mite for she had no wealth to give but gave all that she had. It cannot be morally right for any Member of Parliament, Churchman or citizen to see a world and society which puts the accumulation of wealth above the most pressing human need.
I was in New York before Christmas. It was the coldest 12 December on record. It is the richest city in the richest country in the world. Homeless people were living on the streets in cardboard boxes.
Mr. Heffer: It happens here.
Mr. Benn: Indeed it does. I am giving the New York example first because the police were arresting homeless people and putting them in warehouses. Some drug addicts attacked each other, so the poor resisted arrest. In the New York Times that day were identical pictures, but they were of homeless people in Armenia—a much poorer country—after an earthquake.
I do not know how society can accept homelessness or the plight of the poor and dispossessed. How can we justify expenditure of enormous sums of money on nuclear

45
weapons when 15 million babies die every year for lack of a vaccine to prevent diarrhoea'? What do we say to bishops who speak out against it? That must be the connection between moral values and political decisions.
There are many views of the Church. One is that its task is only to invite people to seek personal salvation. I can understand those who think that that is all it is about, but there is an element of escape in saying, "Whatever happens to anybody else, I will be saved." There is another view—it is probably even more popular—which is that, if only the rich are kind and the poor are patient, it will be all right when we are dead. I suppose that Socialists say to that type of Christian, "We want it before we are dead. We want it now." That must mean that some of the qualities attributed to the kingdom of heaven should be brought forward to life on earth. It is out of that view that liberation theology, which is immensely powerful in the world, has drawn its strength.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is a scholarly man, and I thought his speech excellent. He took us back to the peasant's revolt and the reverend John Ball who asked:
"When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman?"
Where in the book of Genesis is there any justification for the class system'? We can carry the thread through to Don Camaro in Latin America who said:
"If I give food to the poor, I am called a saint; if I ask why the poor have no food, I am called a Communist."
There is today the most powerful alliance between Marxists and Catholic priests. There are many people who believe that Karl Marx was the last Old Testament prophet.[Laughter.] The House may laugh, but there are many Christians who believe that. We cannot blame Marx for what happened in Stalin's Russia, any more than we can blame Jesus for what the Inquisition did.
People with profound ideas and faith may create institutions which abuse their power. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton drew attention to that fact. Churches are human organisations. They are bureaucracies. They are like the Labour party: Churches have bishops; we have regional organisers. They both look all the time for heresies. I am not sure that the Church militant would survive with the present national executive committee of the Labour party. I have a feeling that it would be out on its ear. Some of the speeches that I hear made in my party about dissenting Socialists are not so different from what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said about dissenting bishops. It is always a struggle to allow people to speak their minds, based upon their faith.
One of the most painful and difficult things for the House to remember is that all our liberties were won by breaking the law—by breaking laws passed by Parliament. I refer to the laws which allowed Catholics to persecute independents, or those which allowed independents to persecute Catholics. Jews were kept out of the House. All our rights were won in the name of religious freedom, so the preservation of religious freedom is of great importance.
We now have many religions. We have Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Moslems, Hindus and humanists. If we are to live in peace in a very small world, I believe that we have to teach all religions in all schools so that people have an opportunity to understand what moves the families from which their fellow students come. It is terrifying to me to think of the possibility—I do not know
46
whether the hon. Member for Bromsgrove intended it—of Christianity being taught and other religions in some way lying below the line. In the world in which we live, whites and Christians are a minority. We have to learn about the religions of the world. The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West made that point.
Disestablishment is long overdue. Were I to come forward as a member of the hard Left and say, "Establishment has been so successful that we intend to nationalise the Catholic Church and Jews," people would say that I must be mad, and they would be right. What is wrong with establishment is that a Church which should be performing a prophetic function has its leaders appointed by the Prime Minister of the day. I know that it is dressed up in synodical conventions and committees and, as with proportional representation, she can say, "No. 1 or No. 2" on the ballot paper when it arrives at 10 Downing street through the ecclesiastical secretary. I attended the enthronement of the Bishop of Bristol—Bishop Tinsley—when I represented a Bristol constituency, and I heard them order the cathedral to elect him. The appointment is under the power of the state.
It is ludicrous that the House should decide on the liturgy, but we still have ultimate responsibility for it. It is ludicrous that we should pass Measures about the retirement of bishops. We shall have to pass a Measure to allow women to be ordained—they will be ordained—when the House is not necessarily made up of Christians or people of any religious conviction. Since I gave a lecture on disestablishment and introduced my Bill, I have had more correspondence on that subject than almost anything else that I have done because it touches on the central question of what the relationship should be between the kings and the prophets—those who make the laws and those who try to preach righteousness.
I do not suppose that there will be a Division on the motion—the hon. Member may not wish to press it to a vote—but I am grateful to him for allowing us to have this brief debate on an issue which is central to the future of society. I venture this last thought. When the history of the 20th and 21st centuries comes to be written, it will be of Christians and Marxists against capitalists and militarists, and the former will turn out to have upheld the long-term survival of humanity and the preservation of those values which are associated with the teachings in the New Testament.
5.27 pm
Mr. Alistair Burt: I apologise to the House for my absence from the beginning of the debate—I notified Mr. Speaker. I was giving a Lent lecture at the chaplaincy of higher education in Manchester, so perhaps I have as good an excuse as I can have.
I support the motion and the established Church. One might expect a Conservative Member to begin a speech in a debate such as today's by indignantly protesting from the very beginning:
"Church of England bishops are in danger of over-estimating their importance as spokesmen and decision-makers."
I do not intend to do that—the quotation was from John Habgood's book. "Church and Nation in a Secular World" which he wrote as a previous tenant of the mighty bishopric of Durham.
I use the quotation to illustrate that it is not just the doctrinaire Right who recognise the danger in churchmen

47
overstepping the mark and to introduce my few remarks in the spirit of moderation which that gentle barb, when seen in the context of the rest of John Habgood's book, implied.
It is no surprise that the Anglican Church has from time to time been at odds with the state to which it is so uniquely attached. Like two headstrong would-be bridegrooms anxiously wooing the bride, in the shape of the English people, Church and state clash and counter-clash over the centuries with ideas and opinions. That tension should be of no surprise to the Church for it reflects a tension within itself about how it might express the work of Christ in everday life. The Church and Christians are not an exclusive body shut away from the world—we are citizens of two kingdoms, with responsibility in each.
Within Anglicanism the strands of quietism and activism can claim the classic authority of scripture, tradition and reason, as well as example. John Whale, in a section of his work "The Future of Anglicanism", contrasts the life of Charles Kingsley, the radical east-end activist at work in the appalling conditions of his time, with that of Augustus Hare, who ministered in a different way amidst rural poverty,
"his dominant concern being to urge the Christian life and the Christian hope"—
one the activist, the other the quietist, exemplifying the sort of crisis that individual Christians and the Church continually face.
To what extent should we focus on the individual gospel of redemption, Christ's great commandment to
"love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul and all thy mind",
and to what extent do we pursue socially, communally and politically the second great commandment to
"love thy neighbour as thyself"?
I do not think there is any conflict between these two. Indeed, they were given together to us by Christ and must be taken so. There are many Christians throughout this country and throughout the world who bind the two together in their everyday lives.
But clashes there have been between Church and state, and I believe that these are healthy and inevitable if conducted properly and handled in the right spirit—that is, in His spirit. Where they are not, warning bells will sound on each side.
So far as the Church is concerned, it must be cautious not to lose its authority. In the secular world of politics the Church has a voice, but it is an amateur voice, however authoritative it believes itself to be. In recent years certain parts of the Church and certain of its spokesmen have been ensnared by the never-quite-forgotten trap of strongly favouring one form of secular solution to express certain biblical principles over another. The risk of the social gospel is that it can tend to over-estimate the importance of the collectivist approach to man's problems, relate social problems and difficulties to the economic organisation of society, and thus conclude that a different economic order is as necessary for effective action as the gospel. The worth of the individual and the transforming effect of the power of Jesus Christ in his or her life—with the consequential capacity to change the human environment around him or her—are neglected.
There is another danger, which is closely allied to the first, and it is to believe that politicians are so responsible
48
for everything that only they should be looked to for solutions, whatever the problem may be—whether international or domestic, whether it concerns freedom from hunger or freedom from lawless, drunken behaviour. This is a dangerous view, for over-optimism about the power of politics to solve social problems leads, as a result of the experience of repeated failure, to cynicism and apathy and the consequent loss of a mature public involvement in political debate.
If these are warnings for the Church, there are also warnings for the Government of the day about being too heavy-handed in dealing with criticism from the Church. Governments have no monopoly of wisdom. They cannot do everything, nor can they see every problem. The social conscience of the Anglican Church, developed in parallel with other Christian influences of the 18th and 19th centuries, finding its finest parliamentary flowers in Wilberforce and the Clapham sect of social reformers, can still rightly tug at the cloak of defensiveness or complacency with which any establishment may clothe itself. We cannot, therefore, look back and praise the work of Wesley, Kingsley, Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Elizabeth Fry and others for seeking to put right the social wrongs of their time through public campaigns of political activism, and claim now that all such work is done and that those who take up such crosses in the present day are either politically motivated or misguided.
Instead of concentrating on the differences between us and the arguments inevitable in any healthy family relationship, we should be looking to what we can do together. We cannot be in any doubt about the size of the task that we face. There is much materially in society that we on these Tory Benches, and possibly people in the country at large, recognise has never been at a higher ebb, much for which this Government can rightly claim credit. But there is also a tide of human spiritual degradation that has never been so low—with homeless, hopeless, drug-ridden youngsters in too many cities, and women in fear from rape and assault, not daring to catch the eye of their fellow passengers, in too many trains. This is a situation that shames nation, Church and state alike.
Starting from this point, we might do three things. First, we might recognise that we shall differ in our respective solutions, both in this House and outside, and in this recognition of diversity let us realise that our Lord glories in the diversity of His creation. We were not made the same, so it is no wonder that we do not think the same. We can argue our case in the proper spirit and seek the best source of action, respecting each other's position, and not always seeking to denigrate or ridicule any contrary political argument.
Secondly, we can both surely pursue absolute values in human society—the common creed that must be the basis for a secure civilisation. Here there is some legitimate criticism of the Anglican Church for not seeming to stand for absolute values, for ever qualifying and making relative even such matters as the wrong to be seen in lying and stealing. There are values that are classless and timeless, held and broken by families in all circumstances and in every part of the realm. It is not right to accept different standards of moral behaviour because of environmental circumstances. Violence and theft are wrong wherever they exist—not to be tolerated in Toxteth or Broadwater Farm or in the lager-swilling suburbs of the home counties, and

49
the more strongly the Church and the state can stand together for absolute values, the better it will be for society as a whole.
The Ten Commandments are not relative—they are the Ten Commandments, not a voluntary code of practice or a set of guidelines upon which Moses was required to report back to plenary session in the wilderness, there mandated to accept Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 unconditionally; to negotiate on No. 8; to reject Nos. 7, 9 and 10 on the grounds that they were incompatible for a nomadic, economically deprived group; and definitely to reject No. 4—about keeping the Sabbath holy—because, with so much walking through the desert to be done, the Sabbath was the only day to get out with the family and drop down to the garden centre and the do-it-yourself tent. So, there are some absolute values to be held.
Thirdly, Church and state must find the issues of the day on which to join, for it is concerted action alone that can produce the best results. This is surely the great lesson of 19th century social legislation, which is such a pride to us now, that stopped such a number of evils in their tracks. Each can bring its own strengths to bear on modern-day problems. The state has all its formidable legislative powers built on the rock of democracy and the will of the people. The Church has the redeeming power of our Lord Jesus Christ flowing through it. Together, Church and state have achieved great things in the past. It is well to remember this when we occasionally debate the spats and fights that punctuate their great union.
I shall close, if I may, with a small passage from Job, which might be a fitting epitaph not just for politicians but for any of us, if we could possibly live up to it. Job is speaking of a previous time before his difficulties, and he says this:
When I went to the gate of the city and took my seat in the public square,
the young men saw me and stepped aside and the old men rose to their feet;
the chief men refrained from speaking and covered their mouths with their hands;
the voices of the nobles were hushed, and their tongues stuck to the roof of their mouths.
Whoever heard me spoke well of me, and those who saw me commended me,
because I rescued the poor who cried for help, and the fatherless who had none to assist him.
The man who was dying blessed me; I made the widow's heart sing.
I put on righteousness as my clothing; justice was my robe and my turban.
I was eyes to the blind and feet to the lame.
I was a father to the needy; I took up the case of the stranger.
I broke the fangs of the wicked and snatched the victims from their teeth."
If any politician in this House could go to his grave with that as an epitaph, he would have done his job. I suggest that it is a moral and a lead, not only for us in this House in respect of the way in which we do our work, but for any individual in society, to try to live up to those standards also.
5.39 pm
Mr. Robert Key: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), whose wit and lightness of touch complements so well his deep faith and commitment. His is a very difficult speech to follow. I very much enjoyed, too, the speech of
50
the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) who, I was delighted to hear, wishes to privatise the BBC. I was just six when he entered the House. I was then a pupil at the cathedral school in the shadow of Salisbury cathedral. He spoke with the wisdom of years, which I acknowledge. I wish only that his brand of wisdom was as benevolent as his delivery.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) spoke about "Barchester Towers." I commented that "Barchester Towers" is alive and well and continues to be in Salisbury. I have a letter that Charles Dickens wrote to my great-grandfather, who had the temerity to ask the great man to write a biography of Trollope. It would have been rather fun if he had. but "Barchester Towers" is still there. I have an ambition—to write a sequel that would be called "Barchester Spires", because an ex-Prime Minister would be in the plot and it would get very exciting.
I differ fundamentally from previous speakers, in that I do not claim the Church of England as my own, though it claims me. A number of speakers missed the point, including the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) and for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was unintentionally offensive when he referred to passing by on the other side being a Government doctrine. I believe that we are witnessing a return to a sense of personal responsibility. There can be nothing more in tune with that parable than the Government's policy of active citizenship. It was the state that crucified Christ. We have seen models of state that failed year after year.
There is no monopoly of virtue over the Westminster city council's sale of three cemeteries—not, at least, for a Methodist. There was a very sad case in my constituency. A Methodist church was sold for executive housing development. All the tombstones were removed to make a nice garden. We should be careful before we criticise each other about such issues.
I must declare my interest. I am steeped in the Church of England and I have known for a long time that it is not the Tory party at prayer. That was always obvious when I looked around the congregation in Salisbury cathedral. From Monday to Saturday we would be canvassing on the doorsteps, but on Sunday all the political parties would kneel down together in the cathedral, which was a jolly good thing. There are occasions, however, when that goes a little too far. On one occasion I was singing the creed in the Eucharist when a constituent tapped me on the shoulder because he wanted to speak to me about a particular problem.
Criticism comes in all shapes and sizes. I have been accused by the Democrats of going to church during elections for electioneering purposes. That was a bit ripe, since I have been going to Salisbury cathedral since 1946, but never mind. I was told by a wise old canon soon after I had been elected not to take on Mother Church. That was a very wise thing to say to a young politician but it begs the question, what is meant by the Church? For me, the Church is certainly not just the clergy and it is most definitely not just the Synod. It is all the people of this country who may or may not aspire to church attendance.
I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesown and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) only over his reference to the decline in the number of people going to church. It is true that there are fewer committed regular churchgoers. It is also undeniably true that far more

51
people are going to church for the great festivals than has happened for many years. That is the case in Salisbury and I believe it to be true elsewhere. I include in any definition of the Church all the other churches, besides the Church of England. We are not exclusively addressing the Church of England in this debate.
Synodical government is terribly unsatisfactory. There are limits to democracy, and religion does not lend itself very well to democracy. The hon. Member for Walton made that point when he referred to the book "The Church and the Bomb." My bishop was a major author of that work, in which the Church set out its position. We may disagree with it, but at least it is a clear view. Then democracy became involved in the form of the Synod, which overthrew the doctrine that had been propounded in that book. There are occasions when democracy is not the answer to all our problems.
I suspect that, as with every other walk of life, there are silly politicians and silly churchmen. There are churchmen who think that they are six feet above contradiction and there are politicians who think that they are above the electorate whom they are supposed to serve. No one is immune from criticism. That is one of the problems that we face. I do not claim a monopoly of virtue. I do not claim possession of the Church of England, and the Church of England should not claim that it alone knows the route to salvation by means of its particular social policies.
I believe also that ordination is indivisible, in the sense that once a person has a dog collar around his neck, although he may put on a collar and tie on Monday, he is still a parson and that means something. I shall return later to that point.
The clergy have a right to comment on politics. I have always argued that they have a duty to do so. I have no difficulty over that. When a new incumbent or minister arrives in the constituency, I always drop him a line, if I am made aware of the fact, and welcome him. I give him my home telephone number and ask him to get in touch with me if there are any issues that I should know about, or if he has any views on national political issues that he thinks I should know about. My father, who was a priest in the Church of England, was a rural dean in Plymouth during the war years. At the height of the blitz the local Member of Parliament toured the devastated areas and was extremely critical of my father. He wrote to the bishop and complained that my father should be a social worker, not a priest, because my father was, apparently, interfering in the housing problems of the day as a consequence of the blitz.
Parish priests are sometimes frustrated almost beyond patience not because they have too little to do but because they have too much to do. Expectations of what a parish priest can do are too great, particularly if their parishes consist of up to seven previous parishes, churches and village communities. However, I echo the opening words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller)—to whom we are grateful for allowing this subject to be debated—that there is great uncertainty in the Church about moral issues but enormous, overweening certainty about economic and political matters. That is a genuine problem for me. I do not mind being criticised for what I believe is the right way forward economically and
52
politically, but I find churchmen criticising a particular Government policy difficult to take—as though their views were uniquely in parallel with Christian belief. They do not like being criticised, however, if they say it from the pulpit. Both sides must consider that point very carefully.
My diocese is very lively and has a particularly lively diocesan director of social responsibility. He is no doubt an expert on theology but he has also become, he believes, an expert on rural deprivation, housing, broadcasting, Sunday trading and anything else that one cares to mention. He sees that as his role. It may be his role to be on every demo and to have his photo in the local paper every week showing him standing outside defence and other establishments, whether they be connected with cruise missiles, chemical warfare, housing, or anything else. It does not matter, so long as he is seen to be at the forefront of publicity.
Whether he is right or wrong about the matter in question and whether he understands the argument is irrelevant. I am convinced that for most of the time he does not know what he is talking about, but that does not stop me going to church and it certainly does not solve the problems. That is fine, but please may we have more dialogue between those who hold different points of view? I am not going to be chased out of the Church or remove my bottom from the pew just because a priest tells me that he disagrees with my politics. That is the robust attitude that we should take carefully.
The media have a role in all this. Why is it that my hon. Friends so often become upset by bishops? I am used to bishops and all sorts of clerics, so they tend not to worry me too much. But the Bishop of Durham has become more than the average bishop. He has become a party political focus. He may be acting in the grand tradition of the Prince of Bishops of Durham, although in the old days they were against the Scots, not on the same side—but no doubt we could debate that issue for a long time. I know from talking to Opposition Members that the Bishop of Durham performs an extremely important function for party political debate and focus in the north of England and gives a great deal of hope in areas where there is a good deal less prosperity than there is down here in the south. That is fine, but, as ever, it is perhaps the way he says it rather than the message that annoys people. One of the reasons why I was so delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove initiated this debate was that only 10 days ago, I had been surprised to see an article in my local paper, based near the south coast, headed:
"Bishop of Durham lashes Maggie."
The article said:
"The Bishop of Durham, speaking in Southampton last night, launched an attack on the Thatcher Government. Even by the controversial standards of the Right Rev. David Jenkins, it was sustained and savage criticism. He accused the government of 'intellectual and administrative thuggery' in a regime which was becoming more and more tyrannical…The Bishop also condemned the fact that in a country of the 'pre-dawn knock on the door and aggression towards the innocent' it took 100 policemen to remove deportee Viraj Mendis from a Manchester church sanctuary."
That is fine, if it is his view. I am not sure that it adds much to the sum total of human wisdom, but it illustrates why people become upset.
Let us consider the issue of sanctuary. We all know the historic basis of sanctuary. It went away a long time ago and was limited, at best, only to 40 days. Ironically, the

53
city fathers of Manchester refused to accept sanctuary when it was on offer. I was surprised to see in The Journal only last Thursday an article saying that students of
"Salisbury and Wells Theological College held an act of witness in The Close in support of the principles of sanctuary."
A radical lot, clearly.
"The witness was followed by a short vigil on the Guildhall steps to dedicate the Christian commitment to the cause of sanctuary, and was attended by members of churches and other sympathetic organisations in Salisbury."
I did not receive many letters on the issue when it was to the fore. I did, however, make a few comments in the House on the Monday when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his announcement, and I was much heartened to see a splendid article by the Bishop of Kensington, John Hughes, in the Evening Standard of 20 January in which he said:
"To portray the police in the present Manchester case as acting other than on behalf of a lawful society amounts to a gross distortion. We are left wondering whether the rights of the refugee or the desire to disrupt our society and discredit its laws are those uppermost in the protestors' minds…The rights of a Church to speak to society depend on the respect it can generate among ordinary folk whose instinct is that the qualities of justice and mutual responsibility for peace and order are an absolute 'must' if life is to be worth living."
When I had spoken on that Monday, I was in a state of some agitation and thought that I might be flooded by letters telling me how wrong I was. Of course, I was not.
Mr. Heffer: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman has said. Will he cast his mind back and consider whether Herod might have said something like that about Jesus?
Mr. Key: I cannot speak for Herod, although he might have said that. One of the problems with the Bible is that one can pick out phrases that lead down opposite avenues. That is one of the mysteries of Christianity and we should, perhaps, explore that at a later date.
I was delighted when some of the most well-known commentators on Church affairs started saying that the Church had scored an own goal in the Mendis affair. Gerald Priestland in The Sunday Times said:
"Certainly it is the duty of the churches to demand that human values be given more consideration than they are. But Mendis was a bad example, foolishly adopted, probably to the disadvantage of much humbler and less publicised cases. Church sanctuary was a very limited privilege in the past, and today it is a romantic myth. What is to be feared is that it will now be copied in mosques and temples, with far more inflammable consequences, reviving all the blasphemies of racism which need to fade out and be forgotten."
I could not say it better myself. There are also letters in support, including one from a canon in Dorset who said:
"I am sure you are speaking for the majority of C/E members in what you said. I am distressed to find that all the church spokesmen on this matter have supported the idea of sanctuary and that the opinion of the rest of us has been excluded—except when somebody like you speaks for us!"
An enormous body of opinion does not follow the much-publicised leadership point of view or the commentators who currently rate the headlines.
For a long time, I have felt a tremendous conflict. I am the first person to admit to being confused about where the Church is trying to go at present. I am confused in so many areas of life because my traditional education and upbringing have been not only challenged but positively blown apart. When I sit in Salisbury cathedral on Sunday—or in other churches—I look round at the tombs of crusaders and the memorial tablets to 19th century
54
missionaries. I cannot understand why the crusaders and the missionaries have been debunked by the current trendies of the Church leadership. I would have thought that we still have a responsibility for mission. With the crusaders, the politics of the day interfered with the message of the gospel, but the disrespectful way in which hundreds of years of English history are written off by the current interpretation from Church leaders leave me somewhat gasping. No doubt someone will hear my cry and seek to educate me.
As other hon. Members have said, it is astonishing that we are now supposed to think that the Church of England has no monopoly on the right way to live and that all of us must muck in together with other religions, which are all of equal value, and that we should not, therefore, bother about missionaries. That is an extraordinary concept. I have been associated with several missions—some high Tory and others Methodist.
That issue also touches on the question of religious education. When the Education Reform Bill was in Committee, we debated religious education long into the night and I remember having several altercations with the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong). I believe that the Bishop of London got it right. I have to admit that there are many issues on which I disagree fundamentally with him, but he was right when he argued that to understand anybody's religion we had to be able to understand our own first, and that is the prime reason why I believe that schools should have a daily act of worship and that the Church should actively promote that.
I have had many arguments with professional religious education teachers. I taught religious education in a purely amateur way for many years when I was a schoolmaster and we covered many topics, not exclusively scriptural, as most other teachers would readily admit. The problem is that so many religious education teachers today do not see it as their duty to teach Christianity. They mention it in passing and give it equal status with other great faiths of the world, but they see it as their duty not to promote Christianity over other faiths. I find that bizarre and I would expect the Church of England in church schools to be saying something different. No one has yet convinced me that they are right to be denying our children that part of their heritage and that guide for their future.
Just occasionally, I should love to see a little more understanding of what the Government are trying to do. Occasionally, it might even be possible to hope that there might be a little faint praise from Church leaders about what we are achieving in this country, but we do not get such praise now, nor do we get a fair crack in the media. I mentioned that the media have a responsibility. Every hon. Member will know that when the media get it wrong there is precious little that we can do to put it right.
Quite recently, I was a little astonished by my own local paper, with whom I have few quarrels. I attended a meeting called by an elder of the United Reformed Church to discuss broadcasting. I was delighted that over 100 people were present, and we managed to get down to the issues in the broadcasting legislation. I said quite specifically that there is nothing in current law which says that we must watch Harry Secombe on Sundays, that such programmes must be shown, but that, of course, when franchises are being considered, that sort of programming is seen as desirable and competitive. I said that, as I saw it, nothing in the broadcasting legislation would compel

55
religious education or religious programming in future and asked, if we do not need it now, why should we need it in future?
That became a headline in my local paper. It said:
"MP raps"—
I do not rap anything often—
"lack of TV religion."
The article stated:
"Mr. Robert Key said he regretted the absence"—religious programmes—"of and urged members of the multi-denominational council to pressure the Government for their inclusion."
I am quoted as saying:
"'Likewise, there should be written into any future act that religious programmes must be broadcast'".
Well, I never said it, I would never say it, and I do not believe it. I have now put the record straight.
There are many issues on which we need to listen a little more carefully rather than shout at each other.
Mr. Heffer: I am fascinated by what the hon. Gentleman said about the article in his local paper. The hon. Gentleman previously read a quote about the Bishop of Durham. Was the quote about the Bishop of Durham as incorrect as the quote about the hon. Gentleman? Obviously, the press got the hon. Gentleman totally wrong. Could it have got the Bishop of Durham wrong, too?
Mr. Key: I should be delighted if his Lordship would write to me and tell me. I do not mind whether what the Bishop of Durham said was right or wrong. He has every right to make such statements. If he is wrong, no doubt he will write and tell me so. [Interruption.] We shall have to wait and see whether he writes to me to confirm or deny what he said. I certainly did not say what I am reported to have said.
Talking of tolerance, we must remind ourselves that different Christian denominations have quite different views on issues on which Christians do not always agree. Sunday trading is one such issue. I feel strongly about that issue. I was not able to support the Government on the last occasion when the issue came before the House. There were two reasons for that. One was that I was under great pressure from the Christian community in my constituency. Therefore, some have said that I am a wimp. I do not think that I was a wimp. It was a genuine reaction to a large body of people in my constituency who felt strongly about an issue.
The other reason was that a national chain of shops in my constituency was forcing 17 and 18-year-old employees to work on Sundays when they had not been contracted to do so. That chain of shops said, "If you do not like it, take us to court." That would have involved a civil action which the young men in question could not possibly contemplate. It was a disgraceful performance by that chain of shops, and it made up my mind. Until we have a sensible set of proposals on the table, I cannot support the issue.
I have been making my position absolutely clear. I do not hold that position on theological grounds, for the good reason that the theology is totally unclear. The rug was pulled from under my feet. Within a few weeks of that crucial vote, the dean and chapter of Salisbury cathedral admitted that, for years, they had been trading illegally on Sundays and did not know that they had to have a licence,
56
whereupon they promptly applied to the district council for permission to open a second shop to trade in the cathedral on Sundays. I felt a little alone on the issue.
I do not think that there is a paticularly Christian argument against Sunday trading. The minority of practising Christians in this country should recognise that we will do our case no good by imposing compulsion on non-Christians or non-practising Christians, rather than seeking to convince them of the merits of our case. One has only to look across the border into Scotland to see the total deregulation which has worked for years in a Calvinistic country. It seems to work rather well. My late father-in-law, who was a priest in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, wondered what all the fuss was about here.
I do not wish to trivialise the issue, but I must point out that the Sabbath used to be Saturday, anyway. I thought that we were told:
"Six days shalt thou labour".
The Bible does not say that one must have one's day off on Sunday. Many people cannot have a day off on Sunday, and must choose another day of the week. I am prepared to listen to some sensible compromise that will put the law into repute, instead of disrepute, and will allow Christians to worship on Sundays without being forced to work. We shall see whether that will solve a problem which is so divisive among many Christians.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: My hon. Friend is obviously anxious to get into a discussion about planning and development policies. There is an opportunity to do just that a little later.
Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will oblige him.
The diocesan director of social responsibility for Salisbury has issued a long letter to the county council on the development of a rural strategy for Wiltshire. It includes planning and development. In the second section of his letter, he talks about planning and development, and the effect on housing, education, employment, agriculture, the environment, transport, personal care, leisure facilities, and so on. It is yet another example of the difficulty that I face in being told that I should think about political issues from a religious point of view.
We cannot expect a monopoly of virtue in any denomination of the Christian Church. We must be more tolerant about Church and state relations. It may be true that the number of committed members of the Church of England who go to church every Sunday has declined, but I am reliably informed that more people go to church on Sundays than go to football matches on Saturdays. No doubt, when we have the new arrangements for identity cards, there will be even fewer people at football matches and even more in church.
However, at the same time, there has been a remarkable increase in attendance at other churches and denominations and a growth in the home church movement—those who happen to believe that churches are more of a hindrance than a help and that the same goes for the priesthood. A massive number of people are now more interested in Christianity than ever before.
I draw the attention of my doubting friends to what is going on in our parish churches. In the gentlest possible way, I ask some of my hon. Friends to examine their consciences. When did they last go to church? What did they hear when they got there? A great deal of ordinary, humdrum, essential, critical, crucial religion is going on in

57
our parish churches. It is not as though, every Sunday, the entire Church of England launches a tirade against the Government, and against Members of Parliament in particular.
I was deeply moved by the sermon that I heard in my village church yesterday. The congregation were told that one of the great virtues about being a Christian in this country is that someone can stand at the foot of the Cross and spit in Christ's face, and He would forgive him. Someone can stand on a soap box and yell at the Prime Minister, and not be thrown into prison. That was an important message to many people. Above all, it was a lesson of tolerance.
I am tolerant of the way in which the Church of England is acting in some respects at the moment. For instance, as one whose father was a bishop, I have no difficulity in accepting the prospect of women bishops in the Church of England. Sex is a complete irrelevance in such issues. I was happy when I heard about the enthronement of a female bishop in America this weekend. I was born a member of the Church of England and will live and die a member of the Church of England. Christianity is so much greater than any individual, any Church or any Church leader. Many of us support the Church of England in spite of its current leadership, not because of it.
Finally, it would be helpful if, in the spirit of not pretending that either party in the House has a monopoly of virtue, more people outside the House could know the words that we use to start our proceedings in this Chamber every day—that is, those of us who come. In the Prayer for Parliament, we pray:
"We thine unworthy servants, here gathered together in thy Name, do most humbly beseech thee to send down thy Heavenly Wisdom from above, to direct and guide us in all our consultations: And grant that, we having thy fear always before our eyes, and laying aside all private interests, prejudices, and partial affections, the result of all our counsels may be to the glory of thy blessed Name, the maintenance of true Religion and Justice, the safety, honour, and happiness of the Queen, the publick wealth, peace and tranquillity of the Realm, and the uniting and knitting together of the hearts of all persons and estates within the same, in true Christian Love and Charity one towards another".
Amen to that.
6.10 pm
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I should like to make just one point at the conclusion of the debate, but it is one that I feel strongly. None of my hon. Friends has suggested—nor would they dream of suggesting—that bishops and clergy should not comment on the current state of the human condition in this and other countries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) said in his perfectly delightful speech, we are citizens of two kingdoms; we have duties to both." I agree with absolutely every word that he said.
However, what some of us find inexplicable and distressing is that all too often the clerics appear to pay infinitely more attention to that than they do to the basics of the Christian religion. It is the duty of a university professor to create controversy, and it is the duty and privilege of bishops to strengthen the faith of their flocks and to seek to bind their members together. I pray that they will do so
6.11 pm
Ms. Hilary Armstrong: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate and I should like to thank the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) for initiating it.
Hon. Members may wonder why on earth I am speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box. That has struck me several times this afternoon. I am not an Anglican—nor, in the words of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), was I born into the Anglican Church. Like the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) 1 am a nonconformist. I grew up in that tradition. Therefore, I come to the Dispatch Box with some trepidation.
Much of the confusion that has surrounded such debates for centuries is reflected in the Chamber today. I was brought up in a household with straightforward views on such issues. Our household and community expected that the Church, and local and national Government would be involved in the moral issues of the day, although there was never any question or discussion about how and why. It was simply accepted; it was part of our life. The personal, political and moral were seen and experienced as part of the whole. They were interlocking relationships that could not, and cannot, be divided.
It was made clear to me from an early age in many different ways that all of us have a responsibility to be involved in public service. Our lives were seen in terms of a pattern of public service. I never experienced any arguments about whether the Church should be involved in the social order: it was simply accepted.
William Temple has been quoted many times and I shall not avoid doing the same. He stated that the
"church is bound to 'interfere', because it is by vocation the agent of God's purpose, outside the scope of which no human interest or activity can fall."
The debate should centre on that. I have often been told that we have not only a responsibility to be involved—not only does the Church have a responsibility to comment on or to be involved in the social order and the social world—but that if it does not take that responsibility it is missing the heart and core of God's purpose for it.
We have heard many of the different ways in which hon. Members regard what I see as not only a responsibility, but a duty. It will not surprise hon. Members that I disagree with some of the things said by Conservative Members. I agree with the basic premise of the hon. Member for Salisbury—he wavered from it a little, but we all do that sometimes—that there must be diversity and that none of us should be on the defensive about what the Church is saying.
I agree with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that the Church should "challenge" us. Indeed, one of its prime duties is to challenge us and to make us think about the way in which we perform our duty and meet our responsibilities in society.
In preparing for the debate, I inevitably thought about what the Government have been saying about the Church. I accept and welcome the fact that this is not a Government debate, that it has been initiated from the Back Benches. I am confused by the Government's attitude. The Church has been castigated for commenting on the effect of Government policies on the citizens of this country. I do not understand that, because I believe that it

59
is the Church's duty to comment on that. None the less, members of the Government have been angry that the Church has commented.
The Bishop of Durham has come in for more castigation than most. Perhaps another reason why I am speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box is that I am from the bishopric—I come from Durham. I know and have often heard the current and previous Bishop of Durham. In our county, the established Church works closely with other Churches. Indeed, the previous Member for Durham, North-West is currently running the Church of England in my village although he is a Methodist. There are strong and close links between Methodism and the Anglican Church in our tradition.
I advise hon. Members to listen, at least sometimes, to what the Bishop of Durham says. I have never heard him speak without giving a message of great faith and challenge in the deepest Christian sense. On occasions, he has incurred the wrath of the Labour movement in Durham because he does not speak for one political party only. Indeed, he makes it clear that he is never speaking for a political party. He always speaks as a man of the Church and challenges all of us who are involved mainly in the political order.
Government action is inevitably affecting the social and moral order of the day, and the Church inevitably must comment on that. I do not always agree with the Church, nor would I expect the Government always to agree. When we in the Labour party are in government, the Church will criticise some of our actions. I hope that I will have the integrity to listen to and ponder on its comments.
I have had a look at what the Government have had to say. In particular, I have scoured the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Science, who is the latest member of the Government to comment on moral issues and the role of the Church and the state. I have difficulty with one argument which runs through both their speeches. They say that, these days, the main imperative should be individual responsibility. In his speech to Synod, the Secretary of State outlined both the Catholic tradition of community and what he calls the Protestant tradition of defending the individual. It may be useful if I quote from William Temple on this, because he highlights what I find difficult.
For me an individual is never separate from those around him or her. What makes me what I am is not simply me, but my relationships with those around me, my responsibilities and duties to them and the way in which they mould and challenge me. William Temple says:
"Respect for the sacredness of personality"—
he speaks of personality rather than individuals—
"in all citizens will lead us to demand that no child shall be condemned to grow to maturity with faculties stunted by malnutrition or lack of opportunities for full development."
No individual is separate from the way in which those of us responsible for directing the social order do so.
Much of the Government's policy jars with what is at the centre of my Christianity and morality. I have a responsibility to those around me, whatever my needs may be. Yet time and again the Government say that it is the duty of individuals first to look to themselves, to prosper and to develop an entrepreneurial spirit or whatever. I am
60
not saying that that of itself is immoral but, as William Temple puts it, there is a snare within it, and it is easy to fall into the snare and be trapped.
If we look first to ourselves, the imperative of public service and caring for the needs of others can be extremely difficult to meet. The Government need to listen now and again to some of us who say that the individual cannot be separated from the society in which he or she is living. Individual values cannot be separated from collective community values. The one interacts with the other. To put one aside, as the Secretary of State almost did when he emphasised the importance of the individual, jars with the core of our corporate and Christian tradition.
I find similar arguments in the Prime Minister's speech to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I have pondered on these arguments and it seems that the question of individual responsibility is the basis of disagreement between hon. Members. It is also at the core of the bridling of some Tory Members at the comments of the Church, whether of the Bishop of Durham or the President of the Methodist Conference. The basic disagreement is about the nature of people and God, and the relationship between people and their God.
I have several other pages, but I know that others wish to speak. In our family everyone was involved in both politics and chapel. One never took on individual responsibility. We did not seem to suffer from that, as we were involved in everything that was going on. I remember when my father was out working with a congregation for a new church on a new estate. Some of the press turned up—we have already spoken about how the media always have a go at people in the public eye—and said to my father, "You are never at home. What about your family? You are always out here looking to the needs of everyone else."
Although I was only eight, I was there because we were taken along and became part of everything. Dad said—in a sense this has been how I have understood the interlocking relationship between the Church, the state and the moral order—"My children grow up knowing that we are all involved in public service. That does not mean that they are not important, but that they are important enough to be involved with me in the work of the Church in the wider world." William Temple said:
"The aim of a Christian social order is the fullest development of individual personality in the widest and deepest possible fellowship."
That sums up what I am trying to say tonight about these relationships.
Christianity, if it is anything, is not a series of speeches or good words, but a way of life. It is about the way we conduct ourselves. That applies not only to individuals, but to the Government. If the Government expect us to take seriously their claim to have the moral and social order of the country at heart, they cannot separate their words from their actions. They cannot preach to Synod, the General Assembly or the House about the moral imperative and at the same time carry out actions which mean that a shameful number of people are homeless.
Last week, I spoke to some young people who have just come out of care and who are not entitled to any state benefit. I do not believe that that is a matter for which they can take individual responsibility, or that we should expect them to do so. Any Government must accept that there will be challenges when their actions result in such

61
consequences. No one should say, "You do not have a right to speak out." Those young people have the right to expect the House to perform its duty on their behalf.
I hope that on similar issues we shall have not just preaching about the actions and responsibilities of individuals, but acceptance of the responsibility that we all have as Christians and as members of society not to forget, for political expediency, the consequences of our actions. At the end of the day, those consequences will take us forward as Christians and as members of a society that purports to be Christian.
6.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) said that she was not sure why she was here. I am rather glad that she was here, because I enjoyed listening to her speech. I entirely agree that personal, moral, political and religious matters are interlocked. That is something that she learned at her father's knee, just as I learned at her father's knee how to conduct myself at the Dispatch Box. I held him in great affection because he never once ruled me out of order. Just as he once kept the Chamber in order, I am glad to hear that he is now keeping the Anglican Church in business in the hon. Lady's village, despite the fact that he is a Methodist.
I cannot help but reflect on how much my right hon. and noble Friend Lord St. John of Fawsley would have enjoyed replying to the debate. I cannot aspire to his standards of dress. I am sure that purple shirts would have had a good airing this afternoon.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) for introducing the motion and congratulate him warmly on the way in which he introduced it. I am sure that my view will be shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has been a remarkable debate. It has been very moderate, with one or two exceptions—largely from among the Social and Liberal Democrats. We saw a new version of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who made a moving speech. It was a non-ranting speech and very serious, and the whole House listened to it carefully. The only point from which I dissented was that he appeared to say that the Church of England is the Tory party at prayer. A close observation of the Anglican Church would show that to be untrue, just as it was untrue in the 19th century.
We heard a highly engaging and thought-provoking speech from the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who introduced the novel suggestion—for me—that Karl Marx was the last great Old Testament prophet. I shall reflect on that and perhaps give him my views in writing from a personal rather than a ministerial view. I shall come to his important point about disestablishment later in my speech.
During the decade that I have known the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I have held him in great respect. He is one of the few members of the Social and Liberal Democrats who is a national level politician. I was all the more surprised to hear his insulting—I presume that they were designed to be insulting—remarks about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. If he wishes me to give way, I shall do so only so that he can apologise to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman had the extraordinary idea that the Government were erecting passing by on the other side into a form of public
62
policy. He got into a terrible muddle. When citing housing and homelessness, he criticised the private sector, and by implication the housing association movement, for wishing to involve itself in housing the homeless. He completely forswore criticism of the councils that keep empty so many homes in the public sector.
The hon. Gentleman was deeply confused and, for once in his life, seemed to ignore the role and the contribution of the individual citizen and his active endeavour. When that very good king, Good King Wenceslas, heard rumours of starvation in the hills, he did not set up a royal commission to consider hunger in the Bohemian mountains and to report on other matters. He went out with food and kindling—an early meals-on-feet movement. It was extraordinary to hear the hon. Gentleman deplore, by implication, that sort of conduct.
We heard a most remarkable speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). It has often been observed in this place that he speaks for England, and he did so this afternoon. The points of greatest relevance, and the most telling to me, were those that he made about schools, Christianity and moral values. That is something that links all Conservative Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) gave us an account of her genealogy and claimed to be an accessory after the event, by descent, of the killing of Thomas a Becket. That was an interesting chain of events. Like the right hon. Member for Chesterfield, she said that she wanted disestablishment of the Church of England. There was some cross-party agreement in that regard. I need not go into the arguments for and against disestablishment, which would be a major constitutional upheaval, but I can say that the Government would not contemplate such a step unless they were convinced that the established Church wished it.
Perhaps I may take the theme for the rest of my brief remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove. The thrust of his speech was that the Church is trying to usurp the proper historial role of the state and that the clergy have come down from the pulpit to the hustings. The counterpoint of his thesis was that the Government had formed an unbecoming attachment to preaching sermons. That has been mentioned by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The gist of my hon. Friend's message was that we the Government, as private individuals, and he as a private Member of the House should not be disqualified from commenting on Church and moral matters affecting all faiths and that, equally, churchmen have every right to comment on political and social problems.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, but I believe that each should be judged on the seriousness and weight of his arguments. That point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and—in a remarkable, and remarkably short, intervention—by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman).
Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I once participated in a "You the Jury" debate with his right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) in which the right hon. Gentleman was overwhelmingly defeated? It was attended by clergy and lay people and the

63
overwhelming majority were in favour of disestablishment. I believe that many more people in the Church are prepared to agree with disestablishment than the hon. Gentleman pretends.
Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) is well able to put his own arguments here and in other places, as I have read in the public prints of Synod.
As the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove implies, there is a general assumption that it is the job of Churches to provide a moral lead and of politicians to provide a lead in secular matters. However, it is not always a distinction that is clear-cut, and clearly there is a considerable overlap.
The inner cities, for example, which have long concerned the hon. Member for Walton, are an area where churchmen have shown considerable interest and which have given rise to controversy. The inner cities have also been the scene of a considerable amount of constructive work by churchmen and religious leaders of all denominations. When the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Liverpool or the Chief Rabbi speaks on these issues, we listen carefully.
The Church of England urban fund, launched last April, has already raised more than £6 million and given grants to more than 100 inner-city projects, which is a good thing. In 1986–87, there were about 100 projects funded by the Government's urban programme which were Church-based. We have a substantial number of Church projects and also a substantial number of Church-run but Government-funded projects in the inner cities, which show what good work can and will be done.
Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has referred to the Church of England inner-city urban fund. I hope that he will take the opportunity to praise, as I am sure he would wish to do, the many volunteers who, using individual responsibility, have made that scheme such a success and have certainly drawn the attention of people in my part of the world to problems which perhaps day to day they would not know about.
Mr. Patten: I pay considerable tribute to those people of all faiths and denominations who have drawn attention to local difficulties in the south of England and to the needs of the inner cities.
Some of our Government inner-city task forces are forming constructive links with some of the black-based Churches. Here I find myself in agreement with the points made about the Evangelical movement by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). We have some links with Evangelical Enterprise, which is an excellent body, and the West Indian Evangelical Alliance project, which is important in promoting individual enterprise and Christian development in the inner cities. Churches, therefore, have a role alongside Government.
I do not believe—I have not heard anyone say so in this Chamber—that Governments should be rigidly excluded from moral issues. Through the Government's promotion of the active citizen movement, through their support for the voluntary sector and through their involvement in and help for the charitable world—for example, the establishment of payroll giving—the Government have
64
shown a considerable moral lead, and one which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said, has not been recognised. It is a shame that, from time to time, that has not been recognised.
I consider that there are two historic functions which have always been there for the Churches to fulfil. The first is to propagate the essentials of faith, to assert and reassert the timeless message that there is an unchanging distinction between right and wrong—something that it is critically important for them to do—and that, knowing this, everyone has the free opportunity to choose the right. There is, therefore, an unchanging duty to respect one's fellow women and one's fellow men, to know that one cannot have everything that one wants instantly, to know that one must take personal responsibility for one's actions and, above all, to help those who are less fortunate and are weaker than oneself.
The second function can be traced back to the very origins of Christianity among the poor and oppressed, which is to look after the unfortunate, the downtrodden and the under-privileged. However, thirdly, I believe that there is an under-worked vein for the Church, of whatever faith. In historical times, the powerful and the wealthy, including many churchmen, were a tiny fraction of the country, but their duty was often—sometimes uniquely—to preach that those who were less fortunate than others should be looked after. However, in the modern world, where a large section of society is far more prosperous, there is a further missing element.
I do not believe that at the moment we have a theology coming from any of the Churches—from the Jewish faith, or the Moslems or anywhere else—which is appropriate for the climate of success that we have in Britain in the late 1980s. I do not believe that the Church has yet used a rhetoric appropriate when talking to a nation which is increasingly comfortable, but which should not be complacent. I do not believe that there is a theology, a rhetoric, to use, or a message for a successful nation. That is the third and missing element in much of the debate about the relations between the Church and the State.
The Churches remain welcome to preach generosity and compassion to those who from time to time hold power. However, I believe that spiritual guidance should in the end remain of far greater importance to any Church leader of whatever faith than any question of how to divide the national cake. In the absence of some sort of priestly theocracy running this country, such decisions remain a matter for the elected Government and Parliament to decide, and in the end for no one else.
6.46 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: The early Church was notable for the happiness and joy with which its adherents were filled. That happiness and individual joy spilled out into making the Christian church an attractive centre for other people who were lost, anxious or frightened. I believe that there are many Christian communities—many of them within the Church of England—about whom that can be said. It is also sadly the case that they are in relatively small supply and that what we desperately need is a reawakening of that happiness, joy and excitement which is now rare to find. One of the charges which it is perfectly proper to lay on the shoulders of bishops is that they should be bending much of their energy and effort to enable that sort of development to reappear within the

65
Church. If that happened, I believe that one would find that many of the areas of controversy between the Church and the State would melt away.
I am sceptical and edgy about the proposition that, because a number of my Christian friends feel strongly that their belief requires them to behave in a particular way, that should, therefore, become the way in which the State requires the rest of the people to behave. That goes right through a whole range of the controversies which at the moment appear to be heating up the relations between the Church and the state.
I believe that each one of us has within his or her power the capacity enormously to improve the relations between the Church and the state. I listened with enormous interest, as always, to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes.) I detected within it a tendency—perhaps I detected it easily—that we share. I would be happy to see my bishop eating locusts and wild honey provided that he left me free to continue eating in the best restaurants that I could afford.
We all of us have the opportunity to improve relations, but many of us do not encourage within our own association a closer relationship between the local clergy and ourselves. Those who are working for most of their time with the afflicted in one form or another naturally become obseessed by that perspective. Those of us who have, perhaps, a wider range of contacts leave those workers too much to their own devices and then become unreasonably aggrieved when, out of their experience, they say things which strike us as either intolerant or intolerably naive. Mutual association would do us all a great deal of good.
I regret the increasingly rancid tone which some on both sides—if we can call them sides within the Church and within Parliament—are liable to adopt when discussing each other's behaviour. It is far better that we should build on the enormous good will and great strengths that exist. As many have said during the debate, we should not be so sensitive to criticism. If the Church wishes to speak out on political issues, those who do so on its behalf must be prepared— I think that most of them accept this—to be confronted in a political way. For some of them, however, that is a bruising experience.
When the Church does that, we who have developed skins of considerable thickness in this place should not be so sensitive. It is a curious perversity. We give the bishops—most of them are highly intelligent people—considerable authority within both Church and state, and it is curious that we should become so resentful if some of them, entirely properly or sometimes intemperately or stupidly, say things of which we do not approve. I could say much more but I am aware that there are others who wish to contribute to the debate.
6.52 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) on introducing the motion. I am sure that our discussion this afternoon has shown the timeliness of the debate as well as presenting the House of Commons in a much truer light than those who report our proceedings sometimes convey. We have had an interesting and civilised exchange of views across the Floor
66
of the House. There are fundamental differences between hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, but these have been expressed and thrashed out in a civilised way.
I suppose that we as politicians are on dangerous ground when we venture to comment on matters of morality. It is almost as dangerous as when the clergy enter into the political fray, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) has said. It is a commentary on the state of the Church of England in particular that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove has tabled the motion and that there has been so much debate on the role of the Church and on the way in which it is performing that role.
The Church of England must give a much clearer lead than that which it is now presenting to us. Never was there a greater need for abiding Christian values to be clearly and unequivocally proclaimed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr Burt) rightly said, there must be absolute guidance without equivocation. That is what our young people especially need. They do not need to be taught that life is a vast grey area. They must he taught in terms of black and white. They will discover as adults that life is not black and white and is instead a large grey area, but without a basic grounding, what hope have they of succeeding in this world?
I am concerned especially about the pressures on young people. As the father of three children, I have been placed in the dilemma in which many other parents have found themselves. Our children watch television programmes such as "Dallas". That programme and others portray a way of life that is entirely alien to that which the Church and most parents are trying to teach their children. How can we proclaim fidelity in marriage when night after night during episodes of "Dallas" we see people leaping in and out of bed with one another?
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The answer is to turn off the television set.
Mr. Howarth: As my hon. Friend says, the answer is to turn it off. Unfortunately, the programme is shown before the watershed hour. We cannot sit constantly by the on-off switch checking what is being shown on the screen.
What are we getting from the Churches? I believe that there is a preoccupation with the transient and a flirtation with party politics instead of a concentration on the abiding issues. The Church has plenty to say about South Africa. Until last week it had much to say about black sections. The Race Relations Act 1976 was supported by the churches when it first came into operation, but then they found that it conflicted with their aspirations for black sections. They now wish to wriggle out of the law of the land to suit their own purposes. Fortunately. the General Synod thought better of that last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned the case of Viraj Mendis.
Miss Emma Nicholson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Howarth: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend. She has had her say and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove wishes to respond to the debate.
I believe that the Church is taking away our landmarks in what it is doing to our liturgy. This is not a semantic issue. In my view, the Lord's Prayer has been vandalised. That is an example of the false preoccupations of the

67
Church. The issue of women priests is likely to divide the Church. Therefore, it is something on which the Church must embark only with the very greatest care.
This is a Christian country. A recent opinion poll revealed, following a survey, that 85 per cent. of the population regarded itself as Christian. The coin of the realm carries the letters FD—fidei defensor, defender of the faith. It is right that other religions should be referred to, but if we are to understand our country and our history we must understand our own religion.
Some Opposition Members have suggested that somehow the Government's policies are at odds with Christian morality.
Ms. Armstrong: Hear, hear.
Mr. Howarth: I contend that irrefutably the arguments lie with us. It is we who are releasing the energy and endeavour of our people. We are allowing the people to make decisions for themselves instead of leaving decision-taking to politicians. I ask the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) where morality is to be found in the closed shop, which terrorises those working people who do not wish to join a trade union. Where is the morality in inflation, which has destroyed the savings of pensioners? Where is the morality in punitive taxation? I contend that there is no morality in Socialism.
6.57 pm
Sir Hal Miller: I am sure that the House regrets that it was not able to hear more from my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth)
68
because of the pressure of time. He presented an extremely robust defence of the moral base of a great many of our Government's policies.
As I said when I introduced the motion to the House, I appreciate that I am in danger of being misunderstood. Indeed, I was advised by many friends that I would be. Perhaps the misunderstanding was deliberate on the part of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who seems to have been sitting rather too closely to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). He has acquired some rather grubby characteristics as a result. I specifically did not say that priests and bishops should not speak out. I said that they should not expect to be accorded the same authority when they speak on economic or political matters as when they speak on ecclesiastical matters. I said that they could not expect to speak with the same authority from the pulpit or the throne on political matters as on religious matters
We had a wonderful trip down memory lane with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). The right hon. Gentleman referred to liberation theology. Unfortunately time does not permit me to respond. However, hon. Members can read the second Vatican instruction on liberation which I commend as a critique of that theology.
We come to the end of this debate with the issues still unresolved about the disestablishment of the Anglican Church which has had some cross-party support. I ask those who where in favour of that to reflect most seriously on the implications as several of my colleagues have remarked. That could pave the way for much greater and more serious constitutional implications.
It being Seven o'clock, the Proceedings on the Motion lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13(8) (Arrangement of public business).

Official Secrets Bill (Allocation of time)
7 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the
House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee, Report and Third Reading
1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second of those days.
(2) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
Report of Business Committee
2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions—

(a) as to the proceedings in Committee on the Bill not later than 14th February 1989; and

(b) as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the proceedings in Committee on the Bill are concluded.

(2) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (1) above and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
Proceedings on going into Committee
3. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Order of proceedings
5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock on either of those days under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideraton) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14
70
(Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that clay.

Recommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Official Secrets Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The first thing to say is that no-one can doubt that the Official Secrets Bill is an important measure that goes to the heart of the Government's responsibilities. The Bill is a radical narrowing of the scope of the criminal law. It will repeal section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, replacing it with much narrower provisions aimed at protecting, and protecting effectively, official information whose unauthorised disclosure would cause a serious degree of harm to the public interest.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Leader of the House accept that "effectively" means that most people will have to obey the law willingly? By shoving the Bill through the House in this way, does he accept that he is destroying much of the impact which the legislation might have? Many people outside this place will be completely disillusioned by the way in which the Bill has been pushed through. Does he accept that he should not be moving a guillotine motion like this on a constitutional matter?
Mr. Wakeham: I will make those points in my speech. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If I misheard the Leader of the House, I hope that he will correct me. I believe that he used the phrase "a serious degree of harm". That is what he just read from his brief. Where does that appear in the Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: I had better make my speech in my own way. The hon. Gentleman can argue his point in his own way later.
Our proposals outline six specific categories of official information that will continue to be protected by the criminal law. That is fewer than any previous Government have proposed. Within those categories we will introduce a number of tests of harm which the prosecution will have to prove. Our proposals add up to a coherent and ambitious reform which is bolder than anything attempted by any Government in this area since the war.
The House will recall that we published a White Paper in June of last year which was debated in July. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised then to listen carefully to the points that were made and to take account of them as the Government prepared the Bill. He has done that. The Bill is a significant further narrowing of the scope
72
of the criminal law from the White Paper proposals. It has proved difficult to please everyone, but I believe that we have got our proposals right and that the time has come to settle on the successor to section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, as that section is generally recognised as being too wide and too weak.
Mr. Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Wakeham: No. I will give way later.
The House has already devoted a considerable amount of time to debating our proposals. We had a debate on the White Paper last summer. Just before Christmas, the Bill had a full day's consideration on Second Reading when the House approved it by 298 votes to 221. We have now had two sittings in a Committee of the whole House which have lasted for a total of 13½ hours. However, we have not yet finished considering the first clause and in that time have debated only three groups of amendments.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Bob Cryer rose—
Mr. Wakeham: I will give way in a minute.
There are another 17 or so debates in prospect on amendments already tabled. That is simply not adequate progress for a Bill which has only 16 clauses.
Mr. Winnick: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there was no element of filibustering in those debates and that there were no unduly long speeches or unnecessary interruptions? Will he confirm that, because, on all previous occasions when the right hon. Gentleman has moved a timetable motion, there has always been an accusation that the Bill's opponents have tried to drag out the proceedings? Will he confirm that that has not happened in this case?
Mr. Wakeham: In any of the guillotine motions that I have proposed—I have something of a record for this, as no doubt some hon. Member will tell me in a few moments—I do not believe that I have ever accused anyone of filibustering, not least because the other person will respond, "Oh well, what about Mr. Speaker? Why didn't he rule me out of order?" I do not accuse anyone of filibustering. There were some good speeches, but some of the actual and hypothetical examples of giving information were perhaps a little repetitive and a little wide of the mark. That was my reading of it, but I am not accusing anyone of filibustering.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend believe that in every respect the information given by Ministers to the House was accurate? Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends fear that a junior Minister wasted the time of the House for about an hour because he misunderstood the nature of judicial review. I make no criticism of that, as we all make mistakes. However, is that not an inevitable consequence of the proper discussion of a complicated Bill?
Mr. Wakeham: Who is complaining about proper discussion of a complicated Bill?
Mr. Budgen: The Leader of the House is.
Mr. Wakeham: No, I certainly am not. I am trying to propose a timetable motion so that all parts of the Bill can be discussed properly. That is the purpose of the exercise.

73
I understand the concern felt by some hon. Members about the Bill, but that concern is certainly not shared in other quarters. At one stage during the second day's debate in Committee there were a mere 11 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Winnick: So?
Mr. Wakeham: I am just going to make the point, if the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, that for three hours there were fewer than 20 Opposition Members present. It is difficult to reconcile the desires of some hon. Members for extended debate on this Bill with my duty as the Leader of the House to ensure that sufficient time is available for all the other measures that attract right hon. and hon. Members' concern to be properly considered by the House.
I believe that we now need to take steps to structure the rest of the discussion on the Bill in a sensible manner. We still have several important issues to debate, including the principles underlying the tests of harm, the category of information obtained in confidenece from other states or international organisations, the prior publication defence and allowing disclosure to hon. Members. By introducing a timetable motion at this stage, adequate time can be given to discussion of those and other measures.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I have no intention of involving myself in this debate. However, on every occasion when it is possible I listen to the debate. The fact that there are fewer hon. Members present is no indication of interest or involvement in the Bill. Hon. Members who come in to listen to the debate are exceptional because hon. Members have a great many other things to do at the same time.
Mr. Wakeham: Absolutely. That accounts for the fact that there are only about 20 hon. Members on the Opposition Benches at the moment. I understand that hon. Members are busy and that many other matters must come to the Floor of the House. That is why I must sometimes resort to a timetable motion to provide the proper allocation of time.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic problems of any guillotine from either side of the House is that sometimes issues are not discussed? Will he assure us that some time will be available to debate the amendment dealing with European papers? Will he endeavour to ensure that there will be time to discuss the important issues?
Mr. Wakeham: I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend and I shall address that point in a few moments.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I want to make some progress.
Mr. Skinner: It is only a small point.
Mr. Wakeham: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, another important matter of principle must be considered. That is whether some Bills are of such significance that they should not be timetabled. Governments of all persuasions have guillotined Bills of great political and even constitutional importance. On the same day in November 1977, the last Labour Government
74
guillotined the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, both of which would have fundamentally altered the nature of the Union. The Labour Government before that guillotined the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill—a controversial constitutional measure if ever there was one.
I do not claim that we have never in turn imposed a timetable on important measures. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) guillotined the European Communities Bill in 1972, and that was followed by a guillotine on the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill., which was also discussed by a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Skinner: Earlier, the Leader of the House mentioned that only 20 right hon. and hon. Members are on the Opposition Benches. He failed to say that most right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches can be added to those on the Opposition Benches who oppose the guillotine. While the Leader of the House is giving a rundown of previous guillotines, can he say whether he has introduced a guillotine on any Bill, constitutional or otherwise, when as many as 18 Conservative Members were agin it?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not know which right hon. and hon. Members are against the guillotine and which are not. We shall wait for the Division, to see whether the Government win the vote.
So that the Liberal party is not left out of the pantheon, I recall the guillotine in 1911 of the Parliament Bill, which fundamentally altered the constitutional powers of another place. That is the best example I can find, because it is a long time since the Liberals had responsibility for such matters.
Last Thursday, I said that in matters of timetable motions, I bow to the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who said, when guillotining the Scotland Bill:
"it is constitutional Bills for which guillotines arc most required…The House should not give the impression to anybody…that there is something extraordinary, improper or contrary to our traditions in the application of timetable motions to constitutional Bills."
On that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman also observed:
"to read my speeches on guillotine motions is almost a liberal education in itself."—[Official Report, 16 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 585–87.]
The right hon. Gentleman supplied an impressive list of constitutional Bills that had been guillotined. Among the more interesting were the Members of Parliament (Charges and Allegations) Bill 1888, which the right hon. Gentleman thought might have been a constitutional Bill, and the Military Training Bill in 1938–39, which he was sure involved "important questions". I recommend the right hon. Gentleman's speech to hon. and right hon. Members interested in such matters.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, during the passage of any of the Bills to which he refers, the Government of the day had an overall majority in this House of more than 100?
Mr. Wakeham: What does that have to do with it?
Mr. Rooker: The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question is simple. So far, the Government have rot moved a closure on a single debate. They can carry any

75
closure they want. The Government could impose a guillotine as the Bill proceeds, but they choose not to do so, because they do not want the Bill debated.
Mr. Wakeham: That would not necessarily be the best way to proceed. The best way to proceed is by agreement, if we can. If we cannot get agreement, we must introduce a timetable.
Mr. Rooker: The Government do not want to reach any agreement.
Mr. Wakeham: That is absolutely untrue.
I accept that the Official Secrets Bill deals with the interests of the state, as do many bills. It goes to the heart of the Government's responsibilities, and that is why it is being considered by a Committee of the whole House. However, it appears from the precedents that I have cited that there is no Bill, however profoundly it affects the constitution or even the sovereignty of this country, that may not be timetabled. Having established that, it is a matter of whether the proposed timetable is reasonable. I believe that it is.
The motion before the House will allow about another 17 hours for Committee stage on the Floor of the House, making about 30 hours in all. For a Bill of 16 clauses, that is a generous amount of time. There will be a further full day for Report and Third Reading. By the time that the Bill goes to another place, it will have been considered in this Chamber for about 42 hours.
Mr. John Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend say, from his knowledge of precedents, whether any Bill has been guillotined after 13½ hours of debate, and when the majority of time has been taken up by the speeches of Privy Councillors—as opposed to the contributions of ordinary Back Benchers such as myself?
Mr. Wakeham: If any right hon. or hon. Member struggles hard enough, he or she can probably find a precedent. There are certainly precedents for guillotining Bills even earlier. I cite as an example the 1972 anti-inflation Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Sidcup and Bexley, which was guillotined immediately after Second Reading. Two of the Bills of the right hon. Member for Blaenau, Gwent were also guillotined immediately after Second Reading.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I shall not.
While the Bill is important, it is not lengthy, and the amount of time allowed for it in Committee is more than adequate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) and I are the first two Leaders of the House to defend the use of timetable motions against criticisms from two directions. The more recent of those criticisms is that mounted by the Select Committee on Procedure, whose recommendations in the last Parliament, if put into effect, would mean that almost every Bill of significance or controversy would have a timetable motion for its Committee and further stages.
The second, more traditional line of attack will no doubt come in the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), criticising the number of
76
timetable motions that I have introduced to date. But to make that criticism is to miss an important point. On several previous occasions—particularly during the debate on procedure last November—I made it clear to the House that it is now my practice to move towards the introduction of timetable motions where necessary; and, if possible, at a time that allows for properly apportioned consideration of a Bill. That is in the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendations, although it does not go quite as far as it would like—and inevitably means that timetable motions will become slightly more routine than they once were.
Mr. Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend give way now?
Mr. Wakeham: No, I must continue a little further.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not oppose the principle of timetabling in the procedure debate, although he drew attention to the number of Bills that were guillotined last Session. I note that he added:
"However, the number was still only six, so we are not reduced to guillotining Bills too frequently."—[Official Report, 30 November 1988; Vol 142, c. 801.]
I agree, and I would like to keep it that way. I strongly believe that the best way to proceed is through discussions and agreement on the issues as they arise. I have spent a great deal of time, both as Patronage Secretary and as Leader of the House, taking matters forward in that way—as I believe is essential to preserve the flexibility that our present procedures provide.
This is an important Bill, and one that needs careful consideration, in whole rather than in part, by the House. Timetables have been imposed on politically important Bills before, and no new precedent is being set today. The motion before the House allows generous time for discussing the remaining part of the Bill.
Mr. Aitken: My right hon. Friend says that no new precedent is being set. Is he aware of the important correspondence between the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), in which the Home Secretary repudiates an important series of assurances given on the Floor of the House of Commons by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office? Surely it is right that those repudiations should be properly debated, and that room be made in the timetable for that discussion?
Mr. Wakeham: There is plenty of time to debate everything that is relevant, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will deal with the points to which my hon. Friend refers when he winds up the debate. The time allowed by the motion for discussion of the Bill is adequate, and I commend it to the House.
7.17 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: This is the third guillotine motion moved by the Leader of the House in four weeks. The first two were objectionable, but this is much worse. This latest motion is particularly objectionable because it seeks to curtail debate on proposals that go to the heart of the relationship between the citizens of this country and the state, the servants of the state, and those who, for the time being, control the apparatus of the state—usually referred to as the Government.
Tonight's debate also goes to the heart of the relationship between Government and this elected House.

77
The Government accept that the Official Secrets Bill is sufficiently important for its Committee stage to be debated on the Floor of the House. But now they want to curtail that debate, and one must ask why. So far, the Committee stage has taken just 13½ hours, spread over two days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) pointed out, on both days the Government themselves adjourned the debate. On neither day was there any question of repetition or of unnecessarily extended debate.
Even the Home Secretary has commented favourably on what he called
"the long debate which has gone to the heart of necessary"—
I emphasise "necessary"—
"discussion of the BiII."—[Official Report, 2 February 1989; Vol. 146, c. 527.]
I must admit that that was generous of the right hon. Gentleman, because those speaking against the Bill have not only outnumbered its supporters but worsted them at every stage—so much so that some Conservative Members who wandered into the Chamber out of curiosity to listen to the debate stayed to speak against the Bill. No doubt some of them were as appalled as I was to hear some modern Tories abandon Winston Churchill's motto "Trust the people" and replace it with what has been the motto of the lackey since time immemorial, "Trust the people in charge". I hope that that idea is offensive even to some modern Tories.
One problem has been the inability, or unwillingness, of Ministers to answer questions raised by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House or to provide anything approaching a lucid or convincing explanation of their own Bill. Ministers have been reduced at times to trying to reassure Conservative Members with soothing words from Home Office press releases. Unfortunately, the soothing words do not appear on the face of the Bill, and it is the Bill that we are being asked to enact, not Home Office press releases.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite continual comments and requests, no Law Officer has been present to assist the Home Secretary to answer the important legal questions which, if we are to have confidence in the legislation, the Government should be only too willing to provide?
Mr. Dobson: That is certainly the case, but perhaps my hon. Friend has more faith in the lucidity of Law Officers than I have.
The Government can scarcely complain about time being taken in debate when ministerial speeches have often raised more questions than they have answered. The Minister of State might reasonably be expected to thank the dozen hon. Members who spoke briefly between 10·30 pm and 11·30 pm on Thursday 25 January and so gave him time to find out that one aspect of the Bill would be subject to judicial review. He had thrice previously asserted that it would not. If the Home Secretary wants to save time, I suggest that he ensure that his Ministers give the right answers from the start.
All in all, the Government's response to Committee stage questioning has been contradictory and unconvincing. When pressed to explain the drafting of the Bill, they fall back on the oldest cop-out of all. They say, in effect, "Something must be done about the Official Secrets Act. This is something; therefore this must be done." That is not a good enough response on a Bill of this significance.
78
Even if the debates had been more protracted, that would be no reason to curtail them. We are not discussing trivial matters. If passed in its present form, the Bill will be, in part, contrary to the principles of natural justice and to the fundamentals of the rule of law.
Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if there was any extension to the debate it was by the Government, who sent the Whips scurrying around to get hold of some Tory hack to speak for the Bill? The views expressed on both sides of the House were 99 per cent. against the tenets of the Bill.
Mr. Dobson: I understand that a process somewhat similar to that described by my hon. Friend took place during the debate on Thursday 2 February.
We are talking about a Bill that affects the principles of natural justice and the rule of law. Hon. Members must ask the question: if the House of Commons cannot find time to debate such matters, what do the Government suggest we should debate instead? For what business should we find more time?
Mr. Budgen: Motions congratulatory of the Government.
Mr. Dobson: They do naught else at the Cabinet table.
Since time immemorial, the laws of this land have made murder unlawful. In one way or another, they have obliged every one of us, without exception, to report murder and to ensure that it is investigated and punished. If passed, the Bill will not only relieve members of the security services of that timeless obligation but oblige them not to report murder or to see it investigated or punished. We cannot tolerate the use of an Act to breach the most fundamental rule of law, which is that all are equal before the law, be they individual citizens or public servants.
The Bill seeks to introduce a noxious innovation into the law of the land. It springs from the recently invented, proposterous notion that members of the security services have a lifelong duty of absolute silence about anything they learn in the course of their work. No one has ever suggested, even in more oppressive earlier times, that such a duty was absolute. To make that duty absolute, the House is being asked to approve a Bill that does not merely countenance the possibility of a cover-up of murder by the security services but enforces it by law. That cannot be right.
I shall give an example of what might happen. The House will recall that members of the French security service, in an unforgivable act of state terrorism, blew up the British-registered Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior in harbour in Auckland, New Zealand, and killed one of the crew. Let us suppose that that or similar actions were carried out by members of the British Security Service, not necessarily with authority from the top but perhaps as an act of private enterprise on the part of some Security Service oddball such as Peter Wright or his friends.
Under the Bill, a member of the Security Service could not report such a murder except to someone within, or closely associated with, the security services. Such people in the higher echelons—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary says, "What about the police?" The matter has been raised time and time again in Committee, and he and his colleagues have failed to come up with any convincing

79
argument included in the Bill to show that what I am saying is wrong, and that a member of the Security Service could report such a matter to the police.
I remind the Home Secretary that, in the words of the Prime Minister, there is "a lifelong absolute duty" of silence, not one that can be varied so that someone can report matters to the police if he does not like what his bosses are doing.
If anyone among the higher echelons were informed of such a matter, they might prefer to keep it quiet, for what they would call "reasons of state". Such reasons would be not upsetting the Government and people of New Zealand, or the people of this country, by revealing the existence of some uncontrolled far-Right freaks roaming round in the Security Service. Is that the sort of country in which Conservative Members want to live?
Let us examine another crucial aspect of the Bill. Few can deny that it can be in the public interest to release official secrets without authority. A good example of this, which has been mentioned in the debates, was the information provided about the state of London's air defences before the second world war to Duncan Sandys. His use of that information was profoundly embarrassing to the then Government. As a result of his revelations, work to correct what was wrong was undertaken sooner than might otherwise have been the case. Who would now deny that that was in the public interest? Yet the Government at the time argued that it was not.
Up to now, civil servants or service personnel who disclosed a secret have been able to claim that the disclosure was in the public interest. That argument has not been used very often in the courts but, in a sense, it is not the use of the public interest defence but the existence of that defence which is so crucial. It existence both restrains Governments from mounting prosecutions and colours their attitude to secrecy. In Winston Churchill's words—and he should know, because he voted for it in 1911—the Official Secrets Act was
"intended for spies, crooks, traitors and traffickers in official information."
The Official Secrets Act was not intended to protect the Government from scandal being revealed or to prevent them from being found out when they lie, deceive or disinform, as all Governments do. Surely we as a Parliament have not sunk so low that we want to introduce new laws to protect official wrongdoing. That is what we could do tonight.
Under the Bill, if civil servants know that a wrong has been done, they must send their complaint up the hierarchy, so that ultimately if the top dogs decide to do nothing, wrongdoing will be left unpunished and unheard of. If by the Bill we remove the threat of exposure backed up by the plea of public interest, those in the higher echelons of the Civil Service will no longer feel under any pressure to do the right thing for fear of exposure, because all disclosure will become an absolute offence. All the Government's arguments against the public interest defence depend on the existence of whistleblowers at the top of the Civil Service. Is that realistic? As Shakespeare said,
"A dog's obeyed in office."
Perhaps we should call to mind the gyrations, over the Westland and "Spycatcher" affairs of Sir Robert Armstrong, at that time supreme guardian of the
80
professional ethics of the Civil Service or, in colloquial terms, the whistleblower-in-chief. Few can doubt that sadly, by the end of his career, he had reached the stage where "his little wooden whistle wouldn't whistle."
Let us take another example. Supposing, today, a Government press officer knows that she is being asked to peddle deceptive information, or to mislead the press about something said by an apponent of the Government from the Tory or the Labour party. To whom should she turn to complain about being forced into an act contrary to the ethics of her profession? The answer is she should complain to the head of profession for Government information officers. Who is that peerless pearl of ethical rectitude, and where can he or she be found? Since last Thursday, the answer is a Mr. Bernard Ingham, and her complaint should be addressed to 10 Downing street.
Let us suppose that the press officer does not fancy complaining about her enforced deception of the public to Mr. Ingham. Who could blame her? As she is being honest and truthful, she may decide to ring up a journalist and say, "What I told you yesterday was a lot of cock and bull. The eggs have salmonella, the hospital waiting lists have been doctored, nuclear electricity costs more than that from conventional power stations." If the information that she then discloses is classified, that honest act will be an offence under the Bill, rendering press officer, journalist or broadcaster, newspaper or television or radio station liable to prosecution without being able to mount the defence that the revised information is the truth and that it was in the public interest for the truth to come out.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Will the shadow Leader of the House tell us under what clause of the Bill persons could be prosecuted for that offence?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Dobson: There seems to be some hesitation among Conservative Members [Interruption.] If that press officer had been designated as one of the people connected with such material, and that material was classified—(HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) pointed out, the NHS review was classified as secret, and it would have been wrong to disclose it.
Mr. Hurd: Will the hon. Gentleman say in which clause of the Bill a test of classification of documents exists? The shadow Leader of the House simply has not bothered to master the Bill which he is discussing.
Mr. Dobson: If she had been notified as such a person—I am sorry if I got the phraseology wrong—she would be committing an offence. It is no good the Secretary of State pretending that it is not the case. [Interruption.] A Conservative Member is suggesting that no one in the Government press service would be notified in that way. Is he really suggesting that the chief Government press officer is not likely to be notified that he deals in matters involving the Security Service? I simply do not believe that.
Unless I am utterly off the beam, it is clear that plenty of people at the Department of Energy who deal with nuclear power stations and such matters will be notified. In the dim and distant past, because of my involvement in the nuclear side of the electricity industry, I was involved in classification of material, clearances and so on. I do not

81
think that there is any evidence that the nuclear side of the electricity industry or matters involving the energy industry have changed in any respect.
Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps the Home Secretary could help us by telling us what would happen to Colette Bowe if by some chance someone opened her bank vault? She put her account of events in a bank vault and under clause 5(2) of the Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are not discussing that subsection or any other subsection. We are discussing the motion on the Order Paper. I do not see any reference to that subsection on the Order Paper [Interruption.] Order. Mr. Dobson.
Mr. Dobson: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is on the ball again. Would the bank clerk who opened the vault be guilty under that arrangement, if the Government could find out who that person was and select him as covered by the Bill?
Everyone agrees that the existing Official Secrets Act is bad, but in many respects the new Bill is worse. It infringes our civil liberties, breaches the principle of natural justice, sets some public officials above the law and makes Ministers the sole unchallengeable judges of the public interest. We are used to seeing our country slip down the economic league table.
Mr. Gorst: The hon. Gentleman has produced a catalogue of the offences that the Bill commits to society, but he has left out one important offence. Article 10 of the European convention on human rights states:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to … receive and impart information … without interference by public authorities and regardless of frontiers."
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should address himself to that supreme violation which the Bill will commit.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will address themselves to the motion before the House.
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. is it not germane to our discussions to consider what has to be discussed under the guillotine?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman can draw to my attention the relevant part of the motion before the House, I might have some consideration for what he says.
Mr. Norman Buchan: Clause 5(2).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am talking about the motion before the House, which I hope right hon. and hon. Members will address.
Mr. Gorst: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not disputing your ruling in any way, but my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House itemised the matters for which he was allowing sufficient time. I was pointing out that there might not be sufficient time for us to consider the question of human rights.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Can we get on? Mr. Dobson.
Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the discussion of the European convention on human rights absolutely essential to the Bill—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that it is essential to the discussion of the Bill. We are not discussing the Bill; we are discussing the allocation of time motion. Mr. Dobson.
Mr. Dobson: In earlier debates in Committee and on Second Reading, there have been references to conflicts between the European convention on human rights and the provisions of the Bill. That is one reason why my right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members want more time to debate the Bill—to have the opportunity to expose the problems which arise on the European convention on human rights. I must tell the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) that the convention is more qualified than he suggested.
Everybody agrees that the Bill infringes our civil liberties. Some of the changes infringe our civil liberties more than they have been infringed already. The hon. Member—
Mr. Skinner: Muttering, "Tony Berry, Tony Berry, Blue Arrow, Blue Arrow, what have I done?"
Mr. Dobson: I think that I had better not respond to any interventions.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science recently appointed a national curriculum working group for history. He told it:
"The study of history in schools should help pupils come to understand how a free and democratic society has developed over the centuries".
As a schoolboy and as a student, I, like many others, studied just that—how our freedoms and democracy developed. Anybody who studies their development must conclude that it took a lot of effort. It was an uphill struggle. People at the bottom had to push democratic rights against all manner of obstruction from people at the top. When we study the development of our democracy, certain events, movements and individuals stand out, but they are not all on the same side. There are two lists. There are those who worked to extend democracy and those who worked against it.
Whatever the period being studied, one thing is fairly predictable—Home Secretaries seldom feature in the roll of honour. Home Secretaries are the ones against whom writs of habeas corpus are issued, who wrongfully arrest people, who issue general warrants, who suspend the law of habeas corpus, who nobble juries or even contrive, with their Dorset relatives, to get the Tolpuddle martyrs transported to Australia.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the same rules of order as apply to Back Benchers apply to Front Benchers, and that this is not a Second Reading debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dobson.
Mr. Dobson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) will be able to follow what I am saying. With the Bill, the Home Secretary is trying to inscribe his name on the list of his rather more authoritarian predecessors. How they would have loved some aspects of the Bill—its absolute duty of silence, absolute rights for Ministers to decide what is in the public interest and absolute authority to keep their secrets above the law. Until now, the people, the

83
press and Parliament have held out against the introduction of such absolutes. I like to hope that the House will hold out again tonight.
7.42 pm
Mr. Edward Heath: I asked the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday whether he would change his mind about tonight's motion. As he has not done so, I must again express my regret that he should introduce this motion and the guillotine on this Bill. I do not say, "on the Bill at this stage", but, "on this Bill".
The Home Secretary has himself emphasised the Bill's immense importance. At the conclusion of the debate on Thursday, he paid me the compliment of saying that some of my remarks had gone to the heart of the Bill, which is the relationship between the freedom of the individual and the overriding power of all-powerful Governments. Of course I still think that—it is the basis of the Bill and the important point in it.
There is much to be discussed in the Bill and there is much to be discussed on the amendments, which requires time. I am saddened by the fact that neither in his answer on the business statement on Thursday nor in his speech tonight has the Leader of the House set out a single reason why the guillotine should be introduced on this Bill. There has been absolutely no attempt to protract the time taken on it—when I have listened, and I have listened a great deal—by either side of the House.
At business questions, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House attacked the Opposition for having only 11 Members here for the debate. I would not deny that, nor would I detract from the fact, if it were true, that they were paying very little attention to it, but what concerns me is the fact that the Conservative Benches were filled for most of the time, and it was only towards the end of the debate that one or two of my hon. Friends were prepared to support the Government.
It has been apparent in debate and in remarks afterwards that the Home Secretary has not succeeded in convincing Conservative Members that he has met their points about the relationship between the individual and the Government. We have paid compliments to the Home Secretary and the Government on what they have done since the White Paper, but I must tell my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that debate on the White Paper is not the same as debate on the Bill and cannot be taken into account when considering the amount of time spent on the Bill. We have had 13½ hours of debate so far, and we are promised a total of 30.
What other arguments did my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House use? He said that he must make time for remaining legislation. With the greatest respect, that is not a justification for a guillotine. Our party has been returned to power three times in succession on the basis of our introducing less legislation, because we do not believe in it and because it does not give Parliament proper time to consider what there is. Instead, we have had more and more legislation. It has been ill prepared, half digested and not given proper consideration in the House of Commons. We are coming to rely increasingly on the upper Chamber to deal with legislation instituted by the Government, which comes from this Chamber.
84
I am old fashioned enough to think that that is not a good thing. I have never been in favour of abolishing the other place, but nor am I in favour of its having more power, which is what is happening automatically now. It has more time to consider legislation, and it votes boldly according to what it believes to be right. I cannot accept that we have to abbreviate consideration of this Bill to make way for more legislation.
Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend has often been attacked by many of our hon. Friends, who reflect that there is a certain irony here. His time as Prime Minister is now described as authoritarian, yet many of our hon. Friends use guillotines such as my right hon. Friend introduced as a precedent for being equally authoritarian. If they wish to attack my right hon. Friend, should they not learn from the mistakes of 1970–74 rather than emulate them?
Mr. Heath: I am delighted that my hon. Friend and I find ourselves together on the same side. I agree with him. I did not wish to introduce a personal element, but I intended to comment briefly on that point, because I see that some of my hon. Friends have been commenting outside the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who I think is not here this evening—he has to come from rather a long way away—referred to my "rack and thumbscrew days". I was Chief Whip of this party from 1955 to 1959. I can remember those dictatorial and authoritarian days. At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton was aged six and my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who also, unfortunately is not here tonight, was aged 10. Obviously they too were deeply affected by the rack and the thumbscrew so extensively used on those occasions. What is more, I have had the benefit of advice from people in parliamentary offices, and I see that so extensive was our use of those powers as a whole that between 1955 and 1959, during which period I was Chief Whip, the guillotine was used, altogether, twice. I hope that we stand corrected.
Then we had the period of my premiership—1970 to 1974. Of course, in those days we still had Cabinet government, and the business was arranged by the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, not by me. I see that the Home Secretary is frowning. In those terrible days—they had got much worse by that time—in those four years, the guillotine was used three times. That shows how monstrous my behaviour has been over the years.
Of course, there were those who criticised the action of the then Government over the European Communities Bill 1972—the accession legislation. I was delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in the Lobby with me last Thursday night. I think it is worth reminding ourselves what happened in 1972. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will remember that, before the actual Bill was dealt with, we had seven days' discussion, during which we reached the final decision that led to the Bill—seven days' discussion. When the Bill was introduced we had three full days' discussion. We then had 88 hours in Committee before the guillotine was introduced, and after its introduction we had some 90 hours' further discussion. The European Communities Bill was shorter than this one—it had only 11 clauses—yet that is the amount of time we spent on it. And that was after the Opposition had announced officially, as the right hon.

85
Member for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Foot) the former leader of the Labour party will remember, that they were determined to break the Bill in any way they possibly could and to use every manoeuvre to do so.
Mr. Skinner: The Government's majority was down to eight.
Mr. Heath: Well, we got the Bill. [Interruption.] Yes, we hear the question about the Prices and Incomes Bill. That too was legislation that had to be dealt with at once because it was a matter of national emergency. [Interruption.] It was indeed, and the amount of time spent on it was vast. Nobody can say that this Bill, which reforms an Act that was put on the statute book in 1911, is of such desperate urgency that we cannot treat it properly in debate on the Floor of the Chamber.
I still believe that this guillotine is a great mistake. Let me say two things. First, the Leader of the House announced in his statement tonight that he does not accept in full the recommendation of the Committee on Procedure that every Bill should be timetabled, although he tends to adopt the attitude that most of them will be. In fact, there is no change in attitude here, because under this Government, since 1979, 47 Bills have been guillotined. That is what has been happening.
Of course, consideration of a permanent guillotine for all Bills is nothing new. It was considered in 1959, when Rab Butler was Leader of the House. At that time I was Chief Whip, and I was inclined to favour a permanent arrangement. Since then, I have thought about the matter constantly, and I have been thinking about it in the context of this Bill, and it seems to me that there are very great problems. One is the problem of getting agreement about the initial timetable and about what would happen if one did not get agreement.
Secondly, if there were a timetable in respect of every piece of legislation, a large part of the pressure on a Government to consider the views expressed in the House would he removed. Therefore, I would no longer argue that we should have a timetable for every Bill, or even for most Bills.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is also absent tonight, spoke at the end of the debate on Thursday evening. He said that the Bill was absolutely right, that if it were changed to take public interest into account, offences would be committed, and it would be wrong to have offences committed. Now, this seems to me to be an unusual view from a member of the legal profession. However, I quite understand the consequences of it: there will no longer be any requirement for counsel for the defence; one just has counsel for the prosecution, and they are therefore sure of getting their fees. They do their job: they prosecute, they go away, and everything is settled.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: That is a cheap gibe.
Mr. Heath: I have an even cheaper one coming for my hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman rose—
Mr. Heath: Allow me to make my double gibe, and then I will give way to my hon. Friend.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton finished by saying, "Let us have a timetable on everything
86
and get away to bed." That is what interested him—not the freedom of the individual, not the position of the state or the Government, not the responsibilities of this House, in legislation, to our constituents and to the country. No, let us get it away and let us get to bed. The only thing that concerns him is how early he can get to bed.
That is my double gibe. I now give way to my hon. Friend.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I was observing that it was a quite uncalled for gibe against a very good member of the legal profession. The right hon. Gentleman is very rarely here, so he gets to bed very often.
Mr. Heath: I am sorry that my hon. Friend is so annoyed because I am here.
I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to think again very carefully before working on the basis that all legislation is going to be guillotined in this way.
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heath: I have taken up far too much time already.
Mr. Dykes: My right hon. Friend has just referred to the danger of the Government's getting into the habit, as would happen under these arrangements, of paying less attention to what the House says and feeling that less effort is required to get a very heavy programme of legislation through—not only this Bill, but other matters. Is he aware of, and is he disturbed by, the growing reality that the Government are really rather reluctant to accept any amendments suggested in Committee on any Bill whatsoever, other than very marginal amendments involving minuscule technical matters?
Mr. Heath: My hon. Friend has made what is, of course, a very important point. The only thing I could detect from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House this evening that justified him was that the Government have had enough of this Bill and they want to be rid of it. Indeed, he said so quite frankly. He said, "We have had enough time on it; let us get on with something else"—presumably food, since we really must find something we can eat and drink, and that now requires legislation.
Let me follow up my hon. Friend's point. I have said before that I find it unparliamentary that the Government not only take no notice of amendments or proposals but often fail to answer any questions that are put to them in debate. However, I do not want to go into that. All I want to say is that I read with astonishment the leader in The Times today opposing this guillotine. It is not customary for The Times to be out of the hands of the press office at Number 10, but with its leader today that is what happened. The significance of that leader was that it pointed out the danger to this Government of the suspicion outside of Parliament and outside this country that—to use the customary phrase—they are being economical with the truth, that the rest of the world is not being told the whole story.
Twice I have asked whether, under the new system, Irangate would become known in this country. No Minister has been prepared to give an answer to that question, because the answer is that it would not become known in this country. All that would have gone on under a Government who could hide and carry through policies

87
of that kind, knowing that they were absolutely safe. That must be sorted out. We may not yet have done it; I do not believe that we have. However, just because we have not done it does not justify a guillotine.
It is fruitless, I know, to ask the Leader of the House to withdraw the motion; however, I hope that he realises the opposition to it and how basic is that opposition. I hope that he also realises that this procedure should not be followed lightly, certainly not with constitutional Bills, in the future conduct of the business of the House.
7.59 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has made, as he did on Thursday, such a speech that he has carried all before him. I cannot imagine how the Government can provide an adequate reply to such a speech as he has delivered. I have to say in parenthesis that I did not quite recognise the beneficent regime that he operated when he was Prime Minister and Chief Whip, although he was right to quote the figures about guillotines. I happened to be in the House at that time and I opposed some of his measures. The speech that the right hon. Gentleman has made today will carry great weight in the country, even if it does not carry the vote in the House—as it should.
I suppose that I ought to be slightly flattered by what the Leader of the House said at the beginning of his speech. He sought to take shelter behind what he said were my actions in order to justify what he is doing. In a roundabout way, I suppose that I could take that as a compliment—not that I think that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pay me such a compliment. However, there are startling and sharp differences between what happened in my time and what is happening now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was right to say that it makes a very big difference if the Government have a majority of 130 or 140. That is the kind of majority that this Government enjoy. We had a majority of only two or three. If we had not introduced guillotine motions, there would not have been the slightest chance of passing any legislation. The Government apparatus would have been utterly destroyed. That is very different from the present position. If the Leader of the House had allowed the Bill to go forward according to the normal procedure for debates, the Government's ability to pass this measure and a range of other measures would not have been destroyed.
Another factor, which is interwoven with the point that I have just made, concerns timing. There have been important occasions when guillotine motions have been introduced early in the Session. However, the five excellent measures to which the guillotine was applied in one day, for which I was criticised, were introduced towards the end of a Session. There is a big difference between the introduction of guillotines towards the end of a Session and those that are introduced right at the beginning of a Session. If a guillotine is not introduced for a measure that is being debated towards the end of a Session, the measure will be lost and the legislative programme will collapse. The Leader of the House has no right to compare what was done by the Government at that time with what he is doing now.
88
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suggested that one of the major reasons for the introduction of the guillotine motion today is because of the huge Government majority. The Government do not care much about the House of Commons. The Prime Minister spends very little time in the House of Commons. She does not worry very much about what happens here. She just says to her Ministers, "Get the business through the House of Commons. It does not matter what kind of measure it is. You have a good majority. You know when to introduce the guillotine at the best time." There has been an appalling deterioration in the way in which legislation is dealt with.
I would bet that the pressure on parliamentary draftsmen during the last two or three years has been growing greater and greater. The drafting of Bills is a very skilled affair. People need time to do it. If parliamentary draftsmen are given only a short time in which to draft Bills, what comes to the House of Commons—or what, which is even more important, spills into the House of Lords—is in an appalling mess. More and more of the measures that the Government have introduced during the last few years have been so shoddy and illiterate and have been presented to the House in such a miserable form that the Leader of the House on a series of occasions, because of the log jam at the end of the Session, has had to introduce guillotine motions to get them through. That is another way in which the House of Commons has not been properly treated.
The prophecy was made by those who were subsequently removed from the Cabinet that the Government's huge majority would have an effect on the way that the country is governed. It has certainly had a huge effect on the way in which Parliament has been mangled and misused. That is happening at an increasing rate. When the Leader of the House introduces a guillotine on this measure, the offence is even greater—though not because it is a constitutional measure. The right hon. Gentleman was right to refer to what happened in 1911, the last time that the Liberal party had the chance to introduce a guillotine.
It is quite true that on constitutional matters—because of the clashes on great issues, both in the country and in this House—guillotine motions have to be introduced in order to ensure that the measures are passed. I am glad that the Leader of the House's education has been improved by reading all my past speeches, but I have never said that there can never be a guillotine on a constitutional measure just because it is a constitutional measure. That would be quite wrong. However, when a Government with a huge majority have nearly a whole Session ahead of them within which to get important measures through, it is wrong of them to choose this measure for a guillotine and to force it through in that way. It is a disgrace both to the House of Commons and to the Leader of the House.
I do not believe that even the Leader of the House would have done it, had he come here to listen to the debates. It was quite often my custom to come and listen to debates in which I did not even participate. It is the duty of the Leader of the House to do that. Before he introduced this motion, knowing what fury it would arouse on both sides of the House, he ought to have listened to the debate. Had he listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup last Thursday and to previous general debates, I do not believe

89
that he would have moved this motion, because he would have heard the demand that the Law Officers should attend the debates.
When we ask for the presence of the Government's legal representatives so that they may expound these matters, we do so not because we think that they are the only people who can help us to understand what is provided for in the Bill but because we believe that it is an important issue, particularly when there happen to be such grave differences about the way in which the Bill has been presented. We are discussing legislation that will affect the country for the next 10 or 20 years. It is a disgrace that, after all our demands, not a single Law Officer has come to listen to the debate. The Prime Minister could send her civil servants and Law Officers all over the world to defend her Government, but she did not ask them to come here to listen to what was said in the House of Commons and to give authoritative answers on these matters.
If the Leader of the House was even thinking of introducing a guillotine motion on the Bill, he ought to have taken the trouble to come here and listen to the debate. Anybody who had listened to last Thursday's debate could not honestly have come here today and said that the debate ought to be truncated. Leaders of the House whom I can recall used to listen to the debates and would not have come forward with such a proposition in the circumstances. However, we are in a new situation, thanks largely to the Government's majority, and that is why legislation that is an infringement of civil liberties goes through Parliament.
The Leader of the House or the Home Secretary may be opposed to such legislation, although I am not sure which of those two contenders is most opposed to it. The Football Spectators Bill has been introduced in the House of Lords and it is so appalling that it may be to the Government's credit that they do not have the nerve to introduce it in the House of Commons. They know how shocking that Bill is. When the Bill comes to this House, we shall have to deal with it. It is another example of the way in which the Government act. The Leader of the House must take the chief responsibility because he is the person who should tell the Prime Minister that such legislation should stop and that the House does not want any more of it. He should pluck up his courage to do that.
People used to say—even Conservatives at election times—that a Conservative Government would not have a great legislative programme like previous Labour Governments. Yet more ill-digested, shoddy legislation has been forced through in the past two years than at any time that I can recall. That is due to the fact that the legislative decisions on major matters are made not by the Select Committee on Procedure, where the Leader of the House is supposed to preside, but by the Prime Minister, perhaps on the corrupt advice of Mr. Bernard Ingham, who has now been promoted.
Certainly, the Government would never proceed without that corrupt advice being offered, either first or last. I use that word advisedly because I would not have dared to use it if it had not been so appositely employed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.
The Government, however, have made one change. I recall that in years gone by, the Government used to talk about the legislative machine of Parliament being transformed into a sausage machine. The Leader of the House has at least modernised matters. This is now a factory-farm Parliament: one privatisation measure after
90
another has been brought in which has to eat the entrails of its predecessors, so there will be an outbreak of parliamentary salmonella. No one knows where the next outbreak of the disease will be, although it seems that on this Bill, the outbreak is among Conservative Members.
It seems that we may have an intervention in the debate by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He has not attended the previous debates on the Bill, so I hope that the House will give him a proper reception if he tries to give his advice on a debate that he has not heard and does not understand. He comes here merely to serve the Government's interests. I am not sure who else's interests he is serving. There are plenty of those in his subsequent moonlighting career as well.
I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to the debate, and that the Government can learn from it and take back to the Prime Minister the instructions of the House of Commons that we are not going to have any more of it.
8.13 pm
Sir Peter Emery: No one who has attended the debate and followed, as I do, the two previous speakers, could comment that there is not some interest in the debate. Seldom have I heard my right hon. Friend :he Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) more humorous, even though I did not always agree with what he was saying.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the parliamentary draftsmen. I should like him to point out any time when the parliamentary draftsmen were not under pressure. Every Government have kept them under pressure. I was the first—perhaps the only—Minister to venture into their office, just below the Scottish Office, when I had to have some amendments dealt with quickly. It is a place that Ministers are not normally meant to visit. I found then that the permanent view was that parliamentary draftsmen were always under pressure, so that is nothing new in this Parliament or any other.
Equally, that is true of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said. Every Government that I have known since I came to the House in 1959 have said that they wanted less legislation and that they would make legislation simpler and easier for everyone to comprehend. That never comes about and every Government, of whatever politics or party, fall down completely on that.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) suggested that the guillotine was not necessary because the Government could have used their majority to introduce motions to shorten the debate. But there would have been immense criticism from Labour Members that the power of a majority was being rolled in time and time again to introduce motions to shorten or to close the debate.
Over the past four years, the Select Committee on Procedure has been trying to work for orderly debate. It is wrong for my right hon. Friend to suggest that the Select Committee on Procedure has been working for every piece of legislation to be guillotined. The view of the Committee is that we should do two things. First, we should not waste large amounts of time on the first few clauses of a Bill, so ensuring that later clauses are not debated. Secondly, we should try to ensure that every clause is debated before the

91
Bill goes to the House of Lords. If those two conditions could be brought about, the Committee suggests that we should have achieved something.
Mr. Buchan: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is, honourably, in error. It is not correct, as the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House have said, that we have been concentrating on clause 1. Clause 1 is connected to almost all the other clauses and we have been discussing the rest of the Bill in relation to clause 1. Some of the amendments seek to amend later clauses. Those on the Government Front Bench are misleading the House.
Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am saying—not only of this Bill but of all Bills—that we are concerned that time is not wasted on the earlier clauses, thus ensuring that there is not a full debate on the later clauses. It seems that if the debates on the remaining amendments to clause 1 had run as long as they had for the first three amendments in the 15 hours of debate, a guillotine would have been introduced much later and we should then not have been able to debate the later clauses.
One of the problems about the use of the timetable procedure is that every time a timetable motion is introduced, we do not debate the motion itself, but have a Second Reading debate. The speech made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was 92 per cent. criticism of the Bill and was more like a Second Reading contribution. It has nothing to do with the timetable.
It would have been better if, on the six occasions last year when we had a half-day's debate on a timetable motion, we could have worked out, from the suggestions of the Select Committee on Procedure, three days of parliamentary time—a considerable amount of time in the overall year—which could have been used for many other purposes, such as to debate European legislation. The Select Committee on European Legislation would be delighted with that. Alternatively, if extra time could be given to private Members' Bills, Private Members would be delighted. That would be much better than the arid debate tonight and on other occasions when the guillotine is introduced.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the need for proper consideration of legislation that arises from the European Economic Community. However, does he agree that one of the fundamental objections to the line that he is pursuing is that, although we would all wish every clause to be given reasonable consideration, if a date has to be set as a result of that desire, the degree of certainty for any Government increases and the degree of uncertainty diminishes. That is an important factor in keeping control of any Government. It should be kept in some uncertainty until the House decides what to do.
Sir Peter Emery: Normally, I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I must say that he is talking as though he were in "Alice in Wonderland". When the Chief Whip decides what legislation is to go through the House, he provisionally marks the dates on which it will come out of Committee, be considered on Report, and go to the House of Lords. If at any time the Government do not
92
succeed with that timetable, a guillotine motion is introduced. It is wrong to think that, since 1945, the Opposition have stopped a Bill getting on to the statute book because of the time that has been used in Committee. Never has that happened. Every Government ensure that that does not happen, by introducing guillotine motions.
Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Peter Emery: Several hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Gorst: It is a quick point.
Sir Peter Emery: I will give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Gorst: The fallacy of my hon. Friend's argument is that, on this occasion, much of the opposition to the motion comes from Conservative Members, not the Opposition.
Sir Peter Emery: When the Labour party was in power, there was certain opposition from hon. Members who are no longer below the Gangway. Guillotines were introduced to deal with any opposition. Governments do not care where opposition comes from. They will go forward with the legislation that they want. Anybody who believes the opposite does not understand what Governments are about.
The opposition to this timetable motion is a lot of nonsense. If it were serious and sincere opposition, why do I not see an amendment to it? The motion is to allow two days for debate. Why is there no amendment to allow three or four days for debate? I should have thought that that is the most obvious step to take if hon. Members were serious. If it is thought that the Government will not provide any extra time in a day, why do I not see an amendment to allow the proceedings to continue until any hour after 10 o'clock?
If the Opposition were serious—two ex-Prime Ministers have spoken about the matter—and if there had been amendments in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, it would have been difficult for the Chair not to select such amendments for debate. Hon. Members could have attracted enough support to ensure an unlimited debate all night for two nights if that would help.
Mr. Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give an example of what happens when amendments have been selected by the Chair, bearing in mind the Standing Orders under which we operate when the Government bring forward a guillotine motion? Hon. Members know that that is a waste of time. The amendments would never be put to a Division simply because of the guillotine and the Standing Orders under which we operate.
Sir Peter Emery: There is nothing to stop the Chair selecting any amendment to a guillotine motion. That has happened in the past. If tonight's opposition to the motion were as serious as it might be, it would not be like the froth on the top of a good pint of beer—nothing in substance and easy to blow away.
Mr. Heath: I have been listening with great interest to what my hon. Friend has been saying about the general attitude towards the motion. He says that hon. Members are not being serious. It is because the matter is so serious that we believe that a guillotine should not be applied. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that, because of the seriousness of the matter, we are not suggesting an

93
hour here or an extra half-hour there. The Home Secretary moved the adjournment on Thursday night—nobody else. We could have stayed here all night discussing the matter and going over further amendments, but the Government chose to move the adjournment, and that was that.
I object to being called froth on the top of the beer.
Sir Peter Emery: I understand that my right hon. Friend does not like being called froth on the top of the beer, but he will understand that, if there is agreement between the Opposition Front Bench and the Chief Whip about the time hon. Members want to adjourn, that is what happens. He knows better than most how such arrangements are made.
If there had been a desire to get the Bill through in reasonable time, the ex-Chief Whip would also know that there are methods by which that can be arranged through the usual channels. When that procedure falls down, Governments must resort to a timetable motion, and that is exactly what is happening today.
Before I vote tonight, I want an assurance from the Home Secretary. If the Procedure Committee approach is correct, and I believe that to be the case, I want an assurance from the Home Secretary that in the 16 hours that are available, every clause will be debated—I do not say every amendment—and that every major point will be pen to debate. That does not mean a prolonged debate. During the last two days of debate on the Bill, if hon. Members had restricted themselves to 10-minute speeches we would not be in this position today.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: How long has the hon. Gentleman been speaking?
Sir Peter Emery: I have been dealing with many interruptions.
May I have an assurance from the Home Secretary that every clause of the Bill will be debated? If, within the schedule that is laid down, it becomes evident that that is not possible—
Mr. Robin Corbett: What does the hon. Gentleman mean? They will make sure it is not possible.
Sir Peter Emery: Will the hon. Gentleman listen?
If that is not possible, the House would then use the procedure in paragraph 7(2) of the motion, which would allow extra consideration of specific points. Therefore, there is the possibility of a let-out for the Government. If they are not able to deal with every clause, some extra time could be found. The House has a right to be assured that every clause will be debated before the Bill goes to the House of Lords. If I have that assurance, I have the right to ask all hon. Members who are interested in reasonable procedures in the House to support the Government in the Lobby tonight.
8.27 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The speech by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) does no more than reflect that he has not been present during our debates. If he had been present, he would have understood what he plainly did not understand—that we cannot apply to a Bill of this kind, which touches upon the freedom of our citizens and the relationship between state and citizens, the kind of mechanistic framework for debate that he seeks to impose.
94
If that is the thinking of his Procedure Committee, it does not commend itself to the House. Indeed, it casts a somewhat sinister light upon the thinking of the Leader of the House in opening the debate and suggesting that that kind of thinking lies behind the move to guillotine the Bill.
Hon. Members have sometimes thought that there is some protection in the fact that we do not have a written constitution and that, in consequence, it is possible gradually to adapt our constitutional procedures to take account of changing political realities and perceptions. I found the Leader of the House's gradual adaptation of our parliamentary constitution extremely disturbing, as I did the idea that he, as spokesman for the Government's business management, could come to the House and say, "We are going to make guillotine motions the norm. They will become regular practice. This will be the way in which we shall proceed in the future—not the way that we proceeded in the past." That appeared to be the only real justification for this motion. The Leader of the House did not say anything about dilatoriness in our consideration of the Bill. He did not try to say that it is a simple Bill that we can understand and allow through on the nod. The motion is all about the convenience of the Executive organising legislation according to a preconceived timetable.
Perhaps when he replies to the debate, the Home Secretary will give us his view about whether that is an appropriate way for the Government to proceed because that is even more sinister than the imposition of a guillotine on the Bill. It is true that this Government have been more ready to introduce guillotines than their predecessors. They have done so 47 times during this Conservative Administration.
Like the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), I do not take the view that because it is a constitutional Bill and one that the Government have thought fit to debate on the Floor of the House, it is inappropriate ipso facto not to have a guillotine. There are circumstances in which it is right that when a constitutional measure is before the House, the majority in the House should be allowed to decide and the efforts of the minority to frustrate the majority should not be allowed to prevail, but that is not the case that we are considering. In all our debates on this issue, the Government have shown that they are in a position to command votes and to ensure that they have a substantial majority. It is true that a sizeable minority of Conservative Members are deeply disturbed by several important principles enshrined in the Bill and by the creation of an absolute offence in clause 1.
If the hon. Member for Honiton is surprised that we took so long to debate clause 1, he should read and understand what we said because the clause is at the heart of the issue. It is the clause that makes it impossible for what has been described as a whistleblower to stop criminality in a public service. It is the clause that provides no defence on which that exposure of wrongdoing can be invoked in the courts. It is a critical proposal and it is right that it should have taken 13½ hours to consider. Incidentally, as the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, that clause is closely linked to several other matters and to other clauses, especially to clause 5, which were also debated, and not in a dilatory fashion.
The reality is that the Government have introduced the Bill and have said, in terms, "We are not prepared to accept amendments. We are not prepared to listen to

95
arguments. We will tell you something in answer to one debate and contradict ourselves half an hour later if we get it wrong." That is what the Minister of State said on the issue of judicial review.
In this Bill the Government are treating the legislative procedure with contempt. They are not interested in the arguments. They have made up their minds. Indeed, they are not even interested in the arguments of their hon. Friends. They are interested only in concealing their hon. Friends' arguments from the public. They do not wish the public to know the extent of the dismay on their Benches. That is why they are not allowing the debate and why they are curtailing it to three days.
Many serious issues remain to be decided. There is, for example, the question of prior publication, an issue that caused Lord Armstrong to trail off to Australia and to go through the courts there rubbing the noses of our lawyers in the mud to protect the Prime Minister, who had determined to squash the Spycatcher affair. That issue has not yet been debated in Committee. We must consider it properly, not because it is a matter of partisan dispute between the two sides, but because the issue whether, if a piece of official information has been published, that fact should not constitute a defence against a charge of criminal behaviour, possibly leading to two years imprisonment, is a matter of considerable importance. The idea that that should be squeezed into a debate in just one hour when probably 20 Conservative Members—never mind Opposition Members—want to contribute and have a right to be heard is preposterous.
That is not the only serious matter that has still to be considered. There is also the whole question whether information coming from the European Economic Community should be treated with a net of criminal sanctions. The fact is—no one knows this better than the Home Secretary—that there is little in our public life today that does not pass through one of the channels to or from the European Community. The Bill represents a blanket exception. It is something that we have every right to debate for more than one hour. Goodness me—we debated joining the European Community for 80 or 90 hours, as the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent knows.
This is a matter of grave seriousness, but the Home Secretary is scuttling it through in a way that is offensive to the parliamentary process. He is trying to treat the House as though it exists just to nod through what the Executive deem shall be.
Another issue of great importance still to be considered is the departure of the Bill from the clear recommendation of the Franks committee that the criminal law should be invoked only in cases where there is serious injury to the interests of the nation. However, that phrase does not appear in the Bill. There are various tests of harm, and fine distinctions can be drawn from different sides of the argument about the six different categories of information. We want to hear the Home Secretary justify those different categories. We want to hear why he has dispensed with the recommendation of the Franks report. We want to hear more on that subject than he told us on Second Reading or in the debate on the White Paper.
Mr. Dalyell: Did the hon. Gentleman hear the Leader of the House use the phrase "serious test of harm" in his
96
opening brief? When I asked why that phrase does not appear in the Bill, I was peremptorily told that he would make his own speech. However, in a formal letter the Minister of State wrote:
"The object of the Bill is to ensure that in future the criminal law will penalise only those unauthorised disclosures of official information which cause a serious degree of harm".
Yet that does not appear in the Bill.
Mr. Maclennan: In his opening remarks the Leader of the House gave every indication of not having read the Bill either. His complete inability to answer any intervention of substance and his reliance on the argument about the Government's convenience suggest that he is prepared to leave these little problems to his colleague to deal with later.
The Home Secretary has most responsibility for what is happening. He seeks to portray himself—I no longer understand why—as the reasonable man, l'homme moyen sensuel. His behaviour with legislation this Session suggests that he is far from being the reasonable man. He is the creature of a Prime Minister who has effectively dispensed with collective Cabinet decision-making. The only possible justification for his attitude and approach, not only to the content of the Bill but to the way in which it is being handled, must be the self-justification, "If I were not here, there would be somebody worse doing the job." I am not sure whether I would not almost prefer someone else, the colour of whose eyes one could see and whose prejudices were less masked by his behaviour. I am rather tired of seeking to defend the Home Secretary from his colleagues, of trying to draw distinctions between him and his colleagues and of making excuses for the behaviour that so ill becomes him.
The Bill merits consideration for as long as the House thinks that it merits consideration. It seems to be in violation of our international treaty obligations under the European convention on human rights. It seems probable that we shall be back before the European Court of Human Rights for infringing article 10's guarantee of freedom of information. It is extremely probable that the Bill will not do what the Government hope that it will do, which is to silence the whistleblowers. Those whistle-blowers are usually men and women who are concerned about the public interest and will not be silenced by threats of this sort.
The Bill has had a rapid passage to the present position. It has had 13½ hours of debate on a serious group of amendments. I do not believe that it would take long to debate it because what has been discussed is undoubtedly the most important part. The important matters still to come would take only time which the Government could and should afford.
The Government have become contemptuous of free speech. That is implicit and almost explicit in the Bill. They are contemptuous of parliamentary and public opinion, and they are governing ever more as though Parliament does not matter. That is what is wrong with the guillotine motion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Madame Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Several hon. Members wish to take part in this debate. I appeal to hon. Members to impose a personal timetable on their speeches so that I may call all those seeking to speak.
8.43 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: I shall come down from the eloquent diatribe we have just heard to submit two practical reasons why the guillotine is premature. The first is that the Bill may not prove to be the same Bill as the one that we passed on Second Reading. The second is that I am not sure that the House is yet aware of some of the Bill's implications for the rights and freedoms of hon. Members. Let me substantiate those points.
On Second Reading I ventured to ask about the conditions on which members or former members of the secret services could be authorised to publish their memoirs. I do not want to discuss the merits: that would be out of place in this debate. I suggested several criteria which I thought the Government might apply and which were rather more liberal than the obligation of lifelong confidentiality which they had originally suggested. When the debate came to a close and my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied, he gave me in great detail the assurances which I sought.
It was an exhilarating experience. In nearly 40 years in the House of Commons, I had never had the satisfaction of hearing a Minister accept almost everything that I had advanced earlier in the debate. I had a feeling of self-satisfaction at my persuasive powers and a genuine appreciation of the understanding which the Minister had shown. I went cheerfully into the Lobby and voted in support of Second Reading. There I was greeted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister who said, "If any points remain unanswered, please write to us." There were one or two, so afterwards I wrote to them and I received in reply a letter from my right hon. Friend which, as I understand it, repudiates almost wholly the assurances that I had received.
If the House will allow me, I should like to read out the relevant passages. The Minister in his reply said:
"the sole criterion for authorising publication is whether publication of a particular piece of information will jeopardise national security directly or indirectly. It is a judgment about considerations which are relevant today, not about past history or former embarrassments.
If a point of difficulty were to be identified it might still be possible through discussion to agree with the author a change in the text to overcome the problem."
A little later he added:
"If the problem is larger than just a few minor textual changes or if agreement cannot be reached, sometimes authorisation will not be given."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144 c. 538.]
A few days later, the letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State stated:
"I must emphasise that authorisation to members or former members in respect of disclosures of information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."
There is no easy way of reconciling those two statements. I refuse to believe that my hon. Friend the Minister said what he did to lure me into the Division Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] I reject that wholeheartedly. Nor do I believe that he spoke beyond his brief, as sometimes happens with a junior Minister. I am satisfied that he and the Secretary of State were in agreement about what he said to me in his reply. Perhaps in the cold light of dawn they reflected that they had gone
98
too far. Or perhaps they consulted a higher authority—though for the senior Secretary of State, there are not many higher authorities.
I can only conclude that, on reflection and after consultation, they decided that they would like to go back on what they had said. At the minimum, that shows some confusion in Government thinking about the Bill, and that alone would justify giving a little more time for them to think it out and perhaps to take into consideration the views of the House of Commons.
But I would go a little further than that. I still hope that the Secretary of State, on further reflection, will allow the assurances given by the Minister of State to stand. After all, they are engraved in the tablets of Hansard for all to see. That is the Government's position. That is the basis of the Bill. But if my right hon. Friend is determined, as his letter suggests, to go back on what the Minister of State said, he will have to explain himself to the House, and it will not be easy. I am sure that, if he decides to repudiate my hon. Friend, he will have to admit that he, however involuntarily, had misled the House. If he does that, we shall surely be entitled to a full day's debate on the issue, on which some of us were persuaded to support the Second Reading, and to have the matter clarified. We must be given a second chance to persuade the Government to do what I believe is the right thing.
Mr. Budgen: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the way in which the courts have been extending their power, through the mechanism of judicial review, and the way in which they are increasingly examining the way in which the legislation was passed? If there is a plain error on the record in Hansard, and it is not cleared up, is there not a serious risk that the legislation will be subject to frequent judicial reviews? Would it not be much better if we spent a little more time and clarified the muddles into which Ministers, for all their grandeur—they are human and fallible—may enter? It would be much better if we spent more time on the Bill now and stopped any future litigation.
Mr. Amery: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of my views and for his further arguments in support of them.
I do not wish to over-stress the importance of the point, because I doubt whether 60 people out of nearly 60 million of Her Majesty's subjects would wish to write their memoirs on such matters. But this is what set the Peter Wright case and its subsequent folly on its way, and made a laughing stock of the Government at home and abroad.
Mr. Aitken: The House can see that the Minister of State is in his place. Would it not be appropriate for some comment to be made about this extraordinary repudiation or discrepancy? We cannot leave the matter in this embarrassing state of limbo.
Mr. Amery: I take my hon. Friend's point. Perhaps in the reply to the debate we shall have some clarification. would not wish to embarrass either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State by asking for an immediate comment on the rather awkward corner in which they find themselves.
My second point relates to the defence of public interest, on which we had an extremely interesting debate. Again, I do not wish to go into the merits of the matter, which would be inappropriate in this debate, but there was

99
an error which was frequently repeated. Some hon. Members drew attention to the information that had been given to Sir Winston Churchill between the wars. They were in error because that information was authorised, in the case of Wigram and of Desmond Morton. But there has been a convention that officials or others who speak to Privy Councillors should not be considered guilty of indiscretion.
It occurred to me to try to form a bridge between my right hon. Friend and his opponents on the defence of public interest by suggesting that it would be within the scope of the Bill if someone who wanted to make a protest, instead of speaking to the newspapers, asked his Member of Parliament to put him in touch with a Privy Councillor so that he could make his point. I do not wish to go into the merits of that line of approach, but my inquiries suggested that there was some doubt as to whether communication of such matters to Members of Parliament would be privileged, or even whether the disclosure by Members of Parliament of that information would be privileged.
My anxieties on that score were deepened when I investigated Hansard and found an exchange between the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The right hon. Gentleman said:
"If a member of the security services tells me that my telephone is being tapped without warrant and therefore illegally or that my house has been burgled without warrant and therefore illegally, is it or is it not a criminal offence for me to make that information public?"
My hon. Friend replied.
"It would be a criminal offence for the right hon. Gentleman to make that public, and quite rightly so because he has an avenue of redress. He can go to the tribunal set up under the Security Service Bill."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 1051]
The waters surrounding privilege are very deep, but the Minister of State's comments seem to fly in the face of the decision taken in the Duncan Sandys case and the much more recent opinion offered by the Committee of Privileges in the Zircon case. The Strauss case may put forward arguments the other way. We wish to know how the Government interpret the Bill. Will our correspondence be privileged? Will anything that we may say in the House be privileged? It would help if we could be told that today. If we cannot be given that assurance, would it be appropriate to move a motion asking that the Committee stage and further proceedings be postponed until we have secured the opinion of the Committee of Privileges?
I want to make my position clear. I am no crusader for open government. I do not wish to have the arrangements that pertain in the United States. Executive secrets must be kept. I do not want publication without authorisation, provided that authorisation is not unreasonably withheld. I am not very strong on the defence of public interest, subject to the right of an individual to raise his grievance through his Member of Parliament.
All I have been begging my right hon. and hon. Friend is not to screw the lid down too tight. They should not make an ass of the very law that they are trying to put forward. The Wright case should have taught us all a lesson. All I ask is that the Government should give the House and themselves a bit more time to consider the legislation before us.
100
It is, I fear, untrue that Doctor Guillotin ended his life on the machine which he had invented, but I would not like to see my right hon. and hon. Friends guillotining themselves in the course of these proceedings.
8.59 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I shall follow a chain of thought which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), when he asked about the position of the Leader of the House. I would like—I hope, politely—to ask the Leader of the House what he considers is his job in these situations. My right hon. Friend, as Leader of the House, was present almost throughout the controversial legislation—in which he may not have taken a leading part—during the Labour Government. It was the same with Dick Crossman and lain Macleod, my first Leader of the House.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I say that, had lain Macleod been the Leader of the House, the junior Minister at the Home Office would have been up at the Dispatch Box within 48 hours explaining what he did mean, because the Leader of the House would have required him to do so. I should have thought that—whereas one must not be absurd and say that the Leader of the House should be a universal expert on the most minor legislation—on major Bills such as as this, one really could expect the Leader of the House to be familiar with the Government's legislation, because, presumably, he is the Chairman of the Legislation Committee.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that the previous Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen), was dismissed because he showed some independence? Although, of course, he was always loyal in arguing the Government's case as a Cabinet Minister, he had a loyalty to the House. I suppose it was for that very reason that he was dismissed from office.
Mr. Dalyell: I certainly accept that. I also happen to believe that the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) might well have required a statement on judicial review and exactly what was involved, which was the point that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sharply raised. I believe that there would have been some explanation forthcoming. Hitherto we have had none.
Time is limited and I would just like to draw attention to yet another fundamental muddle over the concept of harm tests which juries will be asked to consider under the Official Secrets act when it becomes law. The Minister of State at the Home Office told me in a letter:
"Your fourteenth Question"—
posed during the Second Reading debate—
"is based on the assumption that the object of the Bill is to stop leaks. The object of the Bill is to ensure that in future the criminal law will penalise only those unauthorised disclosures of official information which cause a serious degree of harm to the public interest, and that such disclosure will only be an offence if the discloser has good reason to know that his disclosure was likely to cause specified harm. As a result of the Bill the unauthorised disclosure of the great majority of official information will no longer be a criminal offence."
That was written in a long and serious letter. However, Ministers have consistently turned down requests from any side of the House—mostly their side—for the "serious

101
injury" test, which was proposed by Lord Franks, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and their colleagues back in 1972.
Now, in its draft form, the Bill says that leaks of information relating to security and intelligence matters have to be "damaging" for a prosecution to succeed. The harm test for international relations leaks is that they are required to "jeopardise" United Kingdom interests abroad. The prosecution will have to prove that defence leaks "prejudice" the capability of the armed forces. Admittedly, the Home Secretary has in the past few weeks proposed that the harm test for defence leaks should be raised to "damage". However, even so, the test falls a long way short of "serious" harm or injury, or "serious degree of harm to the public interest", which were the words used by the Minister of State in his letter to me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that is surely the situation.
It is all very well for Home Office Ministers to use the phrase "serious degree of harm to the public interest" in letters, but the courts will look at what is in the Bill. On Friday night, 10 February, in a very interesting programme on Channel 4, Lord Griffiths of Gouilon, chairman of the Security Commission and an Appeal Court judge, said that the judges do not, and should not, read Hansard to find out what Parliament meant and that Lord Taylor and Sir Gordon Slynn and the other judges accepted that. In fact we all know that to be true. The fact is that no serious harm test appears anywhere in the Bill. Either the Minister of State's letter must be amended by parliamentary statement or the Bill must be changed. If Ministers were to act quickly, it might be less acceptable for the guillotine procedure to be introduced. Given their record, however, there is no feeling that Ministers will quickly accept error.
There is no serious definition of "international organisation." That term is extremely wide. What about all the EEC examples? Is the EEC's research into salmonella to come within all this? Surely we are entitled to know about EEC documents, regulations and research. With such little time available to us, I leave the point there.
Then there is the power to designate. We could have a great deal of argument with any Secretary of State about that. On what grounds should there be no appeal? As you have appealed for short speeches, Madame Deputy Speaker, I shall move on.
It is being widely said in Whitehall that the Government will try to carry out their wishes by bypassing the House and operating through the Civil Service discipline regulations. I am told that the Government need not come to the House to do that. It is said that the Government, through the regulations, will say that those who have leaked documents will lose their pension rights. Is there any talk in the Home Office, or in any other Department, about punishing Civil Service leakers by the withdrawal of pension rights? As you have appealed for short speeches, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall resume my place.
9.8 pm
Mr. Norman Tebbit: It is some time since I have spoken from the Back Benches on a guillotine motion. The debates do not change, do they? They are always the same. They are always ritualistic. The House
102
almost always shows itself at its worst on these occasions, with some extremely pompous speeches being made on the issue.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Ritualistic?
Mr. Tebbit: I have been in the House a little longer than my hon. Friend.
Mr. Shepherd: Not to debate this subject.
Mr. Tebbit: I am referring to debates on timetable motions, not to general debates on the Bills. If my hon. Friend would listen, he would understand that.
These debates are ritualistic, and this one is as ritualistic as any of them. The Opposition and others who are opposed to the particular measure that is passing through the House always claim that there has been insufficient time to discuss the Bill, however much time there has been to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) would know that if he could remember the passage through the House of Bills such as the Housing Finance Bill, as it then was, in 1972.
It is interesting that once we have a timetable motion—
this is so on almost every occasion—those who are opposed to the Bill in question tend to speak less and less and to appear on fewer and fewer occasions. I can recollect many instances when once the timetable motion has been agreed to, following all the ritualistic objections, it has been difficult for Opposition to keep debates going. Dinner breaks in Committee have become longer and longer and the rising hour has become earlier and earlier.
What I say is particularly true of Bills that are considered in Standing Committee. I know that things are different when Bills are considered in Committee on the Floor of the House. The Opposition and others who want to seek concessions feel that they have even more ability on the Floor of the House to delay the Government's legislative programme by procrastination, if nothing more. The Government dissidents see the prospect of better leverage and better prospects of obtaining concessions to meet their point of view. There is nothing wrong with that. Nor is there anything wrong with the Government taking the view that they will not make concessions unless they think that it is right to do so, and that they want to get the business through the House. I say to some of my hon. Friends, as well as to Opposition Members, that it is conceivable that they could be mistaken and that Ministers could be right. I beg them to take that into account.
There is only a limited amount that can be said on any Bill and the major difference—
Mr. Dykes: Democracy is irritating, is it not?
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend says that democracy is irritating. He knows that that is an extremely stupid and offensive remark. He does not like me saying something with which he disagrees. I fancy that that is the remark of someone who is slightly intolerant.
The great difference between Bills taken in Committee on the Floor of the House and those considered upstairs is that Privy Councillors can speak here, but not upstairs. Privy Councillors tend to take up a lot of time. They cannot speak upstairs because they are not Members of Standing Committees.
It is a great privilege, but my goodness, I sometimes wish that Privy Councillors would not be quite so keen to

103
speak in Committees of the whole House. We are not in Committee on a Bill now. This is a timetable motion and that is what I am speaking about.
In speaking to the timetable motion, my remarks differ from many that we have heard today. At times it would have been possible to imagine that this was a Second Reading debate. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a Second Reading speech, and a third-rate one at that.
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about some aspects of the Bill. As he is aware, I believe that clause 2 is lamentably weak and should be strengthened. I shall press that view on him at some stage, but I shall do so briefly and concisely. I suspect that he will advance his reasons to the contrary.
There has been some discussion this evening about precedents for timetable motions. Everyone who brings forward a timetable motion has a perfect reason for it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made a speech which would have stuck in his throat if he had made it between 1955 and 1959 or between 1970 and 1974. He obviously takes some pride in the fact that he did not use a timetable motion on his Industrial Relations Bill in 1971 whereas I had to ask for a timetable motion on my Employment Bill in 1982. Of course there was another difference between the two, but it would be slightly impolite to my right hon. Friend, and perhaps a little boastful on my part, to mention it.
Every debate on every Bill could be extended almost interminably. However, every debate on every Bill comes to an end sooner or later. The only question is, should it be sooner or later? The question that we have to ask ourselves tonight on this motion is whether this is the time to take the decision and whether another 16 or 17 hours of debate is sufficient. I am prepared to take that decision tonight. I am perfectly prepared to support my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that another 17 hours of discussion should be ample for this Bill.
9.13 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: I am not sure whether I am happy to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). I have always thought that he was one of the most unpleasant and objectionable Members of this House.
Mr. Winnick: And odious and poisonous.
Mr. Buchan: Indeed, odious and poisonous; like a polecat, he never changes his spots.
The right hon. Member for Chingford wants clause 2 to be strengthened. I do not know what he wants to happen, whether he wants people to be shot, but from his tone I am glad that he is no longer a Minister. This Government are bad enough without him.
We know why the motion is before us tonight. It is not because time has been wasted. If the right hon. Member—what a description—for Chingford had been present, he would have known that no time has been wasted and that we were dealing seriously with combinations of amendments. We were not restricting ourselves to clause 1 alone. We were extending debate on important issue after important issue in the Bill.
104
The right hon. Member for Chingford does not even seem to understand the Bill's importance, especially when he speaks so casually about clause 2. The Official Secrets Bill follows the Security Service Bill, when the Government also ensured that not a single amendment could be taken, so that matters could not be further discussed on Report. And after only 13 hours of debate on the Official Secrets Bill, the Government are introducing a guillotine.
The truth is that the Bill before the House is obnoxious. It is being guillotined because the country, and the press especially, are growing increasingly aware of how bad it is. That is the same reason why the Government ensured that there will be no Report stage for the Security Service Bill. They got away with it on that occasion, but it caused so much annoyance that the Government were less sure that they could do so again in respect of the Official Secrets Bill. Consequently, they have truncated debate. Now that people are beginning to understand the Bill's implications for our freedom and liberty, the Government are introducing the guillotine.
There is another, allied, reason for the Government's action. The people who are most worried about the Official Secrets Bill, and who honourably and openly express their concern, are the Government's own right hon. and hon. Members. Every time that more Tories listen to the debate, the more they oppose the Bill. Conservative Members listening to the debate on the Bill for the first time were later to be found in the Lobby, voting against it. In only a short period, the Government would have found themselves with neither a majority of the House, nor of Conservative Members in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Rooker: As further proof of my hon. Friend's point, and leaving aside the extra two days that the Government are making available, the fact that, this week, on consecutive days, the Government are not allowing time for mature consideration of the Bill adds further weight to the argument that they never intended to allow debate on the Bill. That illustrates, as my hon. Friend points out, the bad faith with which Members on the Government Front Bench have approached the passage of the Bill, right from its Second Reading.
Mr. Buchan: What has been an extraordinary experience has been the sheer lack of understanding by Members of the Government Front Bench of their own Bill. We require time to debate the Bill because on every single point, Ministers were getting it wrong. The more they spoke about the Bill, the more contradictions we heard. We have heard another terrifying contradiction tonight. I refer to the correspondence between the Home Office and right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). No answer has yet been given. The Home Secretary says that something is white, but then the right hon. Gentleman receives a letter from the Home Office saying that it is black. The Government say, "We will resolve that difficulty when we wind up the debate."
It is an appalling Bill, and for the right hon. Member for Chingford to enter the Chamber for the first time and try to defend it, and to say that it should be made stronger, is also appalling. On both Committee days, the Government moved the adjournment, which is also extraordinary. After only two days of single debates, the Government moved the adjournment. I should like to know the last occasion on which adjournment in respect of

105
a guillotined Bill was moved by the Government. Those of us who were prepared to debate the Bill all night were unable to do so, because on at least two occasions the Government prevented discussion. They then introduced the guillotine, on the ground that there had been sufficient discussion. It was the Government who destroyed earlier opportunities for debate.
There is no excuse for the Bill, and I do not believe that the Government themselves understand it. The Government have shown their ignorance of several issues already raised this evening. Another is the question of harm. There is nothing in the Bill to say that harm must be shown, and neither has it been defined in relation to different clauses of the Bill. I shall give another example that requires investigation. I did not put down an amendment on this point, because, until last week, I did not expect the current state of affairs to be thrown upon us. Not only is the subject of harm not mentioned, but the Government do not define examples.
Clause 2 relates to defence and raises an issue that I mentioned mildly last week. There has been no answer, no comment and no public statement on the issue, which related to what the word "harm" referred to. If there is a radiation leak from a nuclear base on the Clyde which is not disclosed by the authorities, but is disclosed by an honest whistleblower who is concerned that health precautions should be taken, the Government will claim that, in the clause, "harm" is the harm done to our defence establishments by the knowledge of its inadequacies and the truth of its function. However, we would be concerned about the harm to the health of the people in that district which would not he a defence. The whistleblower would automatically he guilty, although the harm would have been done to the health of the people nearby.
It is not right for that sort of problem to be left in the air without proper time for discussion—or even time to let the poor Minister of State, who has been thrown into the debate on this Bill, receive some answers from the Box.
I do not want to speak for too long, because many Conservative Members, as well as Opposition Members, wish to speak, but I am horrified by the decision. I have been a Member of the House for more than 20 years, and I know that not all guillotines are the same. I have never known a guillotine to be introduced with such speed after adjournments have been moved time after time by the Government; the Government have shown their own inadequacies and failed to answer questions; and the more hon. Members have listened, the more opposition has built up against the Bill. The present guillotine is unique.
The Bill is concerned with the freedoms and liberties of the people of this country. It involves their most precious freedom, that of the word and the honesty of speech—along with other Bills that truncate the same freedoms of speech in the media. The Home Secretary is a dab hand at cutting and savaging the BBC. People whose task it should be to expose the iniquities of executives and Governments, have been silenced. The Bill is in the interests of the Executive, not of Parliament or the people of this country. It preserves the secrecies of a Government who not only have too large a majority for anybody's sake, but have been in government too long for any good that they have done. They have substituted for the sovereignty of Parliament the sovereignty of the Executive.
We still need to know who will have the authority if the Home Secretary gets it wrong and backs up the Minister of State when he gets it wrong. Whose decision will be
106
superimposed? Surely only that of No. 10, and perhaps Bernard Ingham's now that he has been relatively ennobled. That is frightening. The motion should be thrown out with contempt.
9.23 pm
Mr. Terence Higgins: I have lost count of how many guillotine motions I have voted against when in opposition and how many I have voted for when in government. I have never previously had the opportunity or occasion to speak in such a debate, although I was recently reminded that I was a member of a Government who introduced a guillotine motion before the Committee had even begun to consider the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Bill.
The crucial point about that measure was that it dealt with a matter of extreme urgency. I greatly regretted the situation that gave rise to it and I am glad that the policies of the present Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, have not resulted in any such urgent action on economic matters. However, that was an urgent matter, and the measure was only temporary in that it carried out a proposal that was to last for 90 days. That was in marked contrast with the Bill that we are considering this evening.
It is difficult to envisage a Bill less urgent than this Bill. We have been waiting and waiting for such a measure to come forward, and we have been told that the Home Secretary has spent many weeks, months and even years considering what should be in it. Yet, when the House of Commons is to consider what ought to be in the Bill, arid its detailed proposals, we are told that it must be rushed through on a guillotine. The measure to which I referred a moment ago lasted merely 90 days, but in this Bill we are probably legislating for a generation or more. Therefore, not to give the House adequate time to consider the measure at this stage seems a serious mistake.
As right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out, in no sense has there been a filibuster in our debates so far. Thre has been no tendency for proceedings to be prolonged unduly by either side of the House. On the contrary, we have had a major debate on major issues and on the whole everyone has made thoughtful, cogent and reasonably short speeches. So the usual argument for a guillotine, which is that a measure is being obstructed unreasonably, most certainly does not apply.
The importance of the measure is illustrated by the fact that is being debated on the Floor of the House. We have a duty to examine the detailed proposals in the Bill. I do not accept the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that we have already had a day to discuss the White Paper and a day on Second Reading. This is our chance to examine the Bill in detail. Our progress so far has made it absolutely clear that there is considerable uncertainty about the detail of the Bill.
Today, we have all referred constantly to the problem of judicial review. It was very clear that the Government and Ministers were not clear about the true position. Therefore, the House has a duty to examine in detail what is proposed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) pointed out the real confusion which arose between Second Reading and the letter which he received. That problem should he debated on amendment or on a clause stand part debate. However, we all know that the real trouble with the guillotine is that

107
it is likely that some amendments will not be debated because the chopper will fall. The same applies to clause stand part debates. We shall probably not have adequate time to discuss many points that require debate.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary very kindly has written to me on a couple of points about which I expressed concern to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. That is all very well, but a letter from the Minister spelling something out is not the same as the scrutiny which takes place in the House and the way in which aspects of the Bill may be revealed to Ministers. I recall that, however much time my officials and I had devoted to trying to get the drafting right on a Finance Bill, if the Opposition of which ever party were doing their job, suddenly one would see a horrible flaw in the legislation which one had not observed previously—because the House of Commons was doing its duty and looking in detail at specific proposals.
Therefore I deeply regret the fact that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has proposed this motion this evening. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), I do not agree that it is all a ritual. I have a strong feeling that there is real and profound concern on both sides of the House that the measure is not being dealt with in the way in which the House of Commons should deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that I have profound respect for him and for the way in which he carries out his duties. I believe that the task of the Leader of the House is immensely difficult in defending the interests of Back Benchers while representing to the House the views of the Government, but I have to say that the guillotine on this particular Bill is premature, and it is wrong that the House should agree to it.
9.29 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: This is the first time during almost 25 years in the House that I have taken part in a timetable motion debate, but I have listened to a great many. Working on that experience, I do not propose to make any of the extravagant claims which often characterise these debates, but some of the facts are beyond dispute.
The first is that this guillotine has no friends except the Government and their acolytes. The Times condemned it. The Daily Telegraph condemned it. If even The Times and The Daily Telegraph in their present form cannot bring themselves to support the Government, who in heaven's name can? [HoN. MEMBERS: "The Sun."] I propose to deal later with sycophants who were wheeled in solely to support the Bill.
The second fact has been established on both sides of the House. The House accepts that nothing in the two days of Committee justifies a guillotine now. It would be wrong to say that absolutely no time was wasted. Time was wasted by the Minister of State, who could not, or would not, give answers to questions. Fearing that we should have a debate such as this, I took the precaution, two weeks ago, of writing to the Secretary of State saying that we would make speedier progress if his junior Minister was better briefed in future.
Time was also wasted by the Government when, late on each of the two sitting nights, they discovered that no hon. Member had supported the Government, so they
108
persuaded sycophants to come in and make brief, supportive but ill-informed speeches from the Back Benches. Apart from those two examples, time has been used as sensibly as it is possible to use it in the House.
I want to say something about that to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who is not here and is therefore unable to receive my apology directly. Until this evening, I believed that he was the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure. I realise now that I must have been wrong to make such an assumption, for he misunderstood entirely the nature of debates in Committee stages. He talked to the House as if the debate so far concluded were concerned exclusively with the early lines of clause 1.
The debate so far concluded has been concerned with fundamental principles which underlie clause after clause. That is why many of the amendments were debated but not voted on immediately after the debate was finished. The idea that the House has spent 13 hours on two lines is palpable nonsense. It has spent two days' debating time on two fundamental principles. If the hon. Member for Honiton had understood either the Bill or the principles which govern the behaviour of a Committee stage conducted on the Floor of the House, he would not have made the gross error that he made this evening.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there had always been conversations and discussions between the two sides. I confess freely that I had conversations with the Home Secretary and, insofar as it is possible to have a conversation with the Government Chief Whip, a conversation with him. The message I conveyed, which I have no doubt was the right message to convey, was that the Bill was not suitable for a carve-up between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government. It is a matter on which the House takes a view. It is a matter on which Tory Back Benchers take a view. It would have been an impertinence—indeed, it would have been an impossibility—for us to say that we would carry with us, on specific dates, Members on both sides of the House who have independent positions and rightly want to express their opinions as free and independent Members of the House of Commons.
When I had conversations with the Home Secretary and what passes for conversation with the Government Chief Whip, I came, as early as the first evening of our consideration, to a clear conclusion—that the Government were determined to guillotine the Bill from the moment it was published. There has never been any intention to have full and free debate on it. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the way in which the debate has proceeded.
The debate proceeded, on the first day, on the fundamental question of lifetime secrecy. It is perfectly true that I then said to the Home Secretary that it would be intolerable for us to start late at night on the crucial question of a public interest defence. But it would have been possible to have a procedural motion to allow us to do other things at that time.
On the second day, knowing that the Home Secretary is not always quite as arcadian and palladian and superior when he is debating as when he is speaking to groups of Conservatives outside, and knowing that he would take advantage of any suggestion that we were not prepared to go on, I went out of my way to put on record in Hansard our willingness to continue to debate, so that there should be no suggestion that the Opposition wanted to bring

109
discussion to a speedy conclusion. But a fortnight ago the Home Secretary insisted that the debate should be concluded at what, for the House of Commons, was a comparatively early hour, confirming my view that from the beginning the Government have intended to guillotine this Bill.
I want to say to the hon. Member for Honiton that I understand—no one wants to be foolish about this—that Governments sometimes need to guillotine debates in order to get their business through. It is the Government's right—perhaps it is their duty—to get their business through. But there was no question of this Bill not passing into law. This guillotine is proposed not in order that the Bill shall proceed with good order and discipline, but in order that it shall proceed with the minimum of public debate.
If we had any doubts as to the need for public debate, and the consequences for the Government of public debate and their reasons for wanting to curtail public debate, we would need to do no more than look at the first two days. It was through debate in this House that we learned that, if a man's house is illegally burgled by the security services, or if a woman has her telephone illegally tapped by the security services, and if he or she is told about it by a member of the security services, it is a criminal offence to reveal that illegality—a criminal offence carrying a prison sentence.
It is clearly not in the interests of the Home Secretary, who poses as a reformer, that such facts should be prised out during the debate. It was only through the debate in this House that we discovered that the illegality I have just described could not be spoken of to the victim's laywer without the victim being subject to prosecution and possible prison sentence. Indeed, it was only through the debate that the Minister of State learned that that was the case, for initially he gave a categorically inaccurate answer, which we are still waiting for him to correct.
Again, it is not in the Government's interests, and not in the interests of a Home Secretary who, as recently as 72 hours ago, announced that he was the natural heir to Mr. R. A. Butler, that the nature of his proposals should see the light of day in the way that the debate makes possible.
Let me give another example of how the Home Secretary's behaviour shows why he and his colleagues want this debate to be curtailed. Speaking in Cambridge on Friday evening, he announced—if The Daily Telegraph is to be believed—that if the debate last week had resulted in a public interest defence being included in the Bill, that would have provided a defence for any member of the security services who had wanted to reveal the battle plan of the British Army of the Rhine. If the Home Secretary had said that in the House of Commons, he would have been laughed out of the Chamber, because that was given in the debate as exactly the sort of episode that could not be cited in a public interest defence. The Home Secretary finds it better to discuss these matters in front of the gullible Conservatives of Cambridge than in front of the House of Commons, where they should be debated. That is the basic reason and intention of this debate.
Yet the issues we ought to be discussing here are issues that go to the heart of the freedoms which this society should enjoy and which affect a crucial parliamentary issue—the balance of power between the courts, the Government and individuals. This Bill takes to the Government power that should reside in the courts and, as a result, it reduces the liberty—I put it not higher than this
110
—of a substantial part of our population. The guillotine was intended to obscure the revelation of that sort of fact, and it is because of the desire to muddy the waters, not only that the guillotine is introduced at all, but that the concluding days of the Committee stage are to be rushed through on consecutive sitting days in the wholly inadequate circumstances of a Thursday and Wednesday afternoon.
There is a second reason for the introduction of the guillotine. In my view, its introduction is all the more deplorable when one considers the issues that are yet to be debated. During the next two days we are to discuss whether it is reasonable to suppress information that has already been published abroad. Many of us will want to argue that the suppression of information that is available in other countries has nothing to do with security but everything to do with Government management.
To say that the British people cannot know what is already known in the Kremlin is not something that concerns the safety of the realm. It concerns the Government's convenience. No wonder that the Government do not want the issue to be debated at length.
During the next two days we shall discuss whether information from abroad is to be suppressed simply because it comes from abroad and whether the tests of harm—about which the Home Secretary speaks so eloquently, and no doubt he will do so again—are adequate tests to protect the man or woman who feels entitled to reveal trivial or unconsequential matters or matters that the Home Secretary should not himself have the power to proscribe.
Because of the nature of the debate, it is all the more important that the House of Commons should be allowed to continue the debate, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said, for as long as the House of Commons wishes and for as long as it continues to debate these matters in a responsible and sensible fashion. I fear, however, that the nature of the debate was only one of the reasons that prompted the Government to introduce the guillotine.
The second reason is more alarming than the first. It is the Government's impatience with the proper processes of democracy. The Prime Minister says openly—I think that she was talking about her Cabinet colleagues, but I have no doubt that she holds the House of Commons in equal contempt—that she has no time to waste on argument. Very often, democracy depends on argument continuing unchecked. To the Prime Minister, criticism is something to be suppressed. Opposition is something to be bullied or bought off.
It is the duty of a democratic Government and of a democratic Prime Minister to facilitate discussion. Were the Home Secretary to allow it, the Bill that emerged would be a great deal more satisfactory than the one we are now debating, and his reputation would be a great deal more secure than it will be if he pushes through an instrument that, time after time, will be demonstrated to be inadequate for the purposes that he claims it will serve—those purposes being an attempt to safeguard that information which it is necessary to hold secret and, on the other hand, to allow freely the exposition of facts which, if they are published, do no harm to the national interest.
The Home Secretary, however, who must know these things—or who knew them once and who once would have resented and resisted the Prime Minister's autocracy and her determination to have measures passed by Parliament

111
without adequate discussion—is now prepared to act as her lapdog. I suspect that those who sit on the Benches behind the Home Secretary will provide sufficient votes for the guillotine motion to be passed. I suspect, too, that having done so they will provide sufficient votes on Wednesday and Thursday to ensure that the Bill, in more or less its present form, becomes law.
Many hon. Members—I see some of them in their places now—will be persuaded to speak at such length that the Minister of State will never be able to correct himself about the position and duties of lawyers as concern their clients, and he will never be able to get straight the issue with which he so confused the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). The Home Secretary will make little, darting speeches that assert his good intentions without demonstrating them with reference to the Bill.
There will be two days of debate during which the Home Secretary will play the worst trick of all. He will describe the Bill not by referring to its clauses but by referring to the Home Office handouts which, as we know, have constantly given a false impression of what the Bill contains. I suspect that the Bill will pass into law, thanks to the supine Members who sit on the Back Benches on the other side of the House, but when it is passed into law it wil be a bad day for democracy and a contemptible day for Parliament.
9.43 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I agree with this much of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said—that the Bill deals basically with the relationship between the courts, Parliament, Government and the individual.
The debate has turned, as it should, on two basic points. The first is whether there should be a timetable motion for the Bill and, and if so, whether the timetable proposed is a reasonable one. The second is whether, as the Opposition argue, this motion fits into a pattern of Government unreasonableness and arbitrariness on the subject. I shall deal with both those points.
The ground on the first point was thoroughly covered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The Bill is important and goes to the heart of the functioning of Government. With 16 clauses, it is a relatively short Bill. It severely reduces the present scope of the criminal law and within the information still to be protected by the criminal law, it ties down the prosecution, for the first time, with a number of specific tests of harm. That is a fair description of the Bill and we decided—and the whole House agreed—that the Committee stage should be held on the Floor of the House.
I listened carefully, as did the House, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). The right hon. Gentleman, like others, made a basically defensive speech about his own past and his ingenious attempt to distinguish between his passionate love affair with the guillotine, which I remember well, and my right hon. Friend's motion. He did not persuade any hon. Member—perhaps not even himself.
It is not my place to attack my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup for authoritarian
112
tendencies, and I do not know what my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) or my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) were referring to in that respect. I would defend him on the episodes mentioned, but although I listened carefully to the case against timetabling every Bill and agree with it, I do not think that my right hon. Friend succeeded in making the case that this Bill should not be timetabled at all.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook touched on this point just now. We have had two days of debate, yet we are not within clear sight of the end of clause 1. I am not complaining about that or making accusations of filibustering, any more than my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House did. However, after long and unrestricted debate, the Committee has come to a conclusion on two important matters. The first is whether there should be a special offence applying to members and former members of the intelligence and security services and others notified because of their close connection with that work. The second is whether, although there is no general right of prosecution on the ground of public interest, there should be such a right for the defence. Those were the matters discussed and dealt with in Committee.
The pace has been slow and, as the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook may confirm, there were no grounds for supposing that progress would have accelerated. On the first evening, we dealt with two groups of amendments only. The Government would have been ready, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to continue into the public interest defence debate, but he made strong representations—which after a short time of reflection, we decided were reasonable—that we should not do so. I wonder what he would have said if we had started switching the order of business, which he now suggests as an alternative. He would have been in a state of outrage.
Mr. Hattersley: I would have thanked the Home Secretary for accepting my suggestion.
Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman would not have said anything of the kind, and he knows it.
As a result of the agreement mentioned, on the second day we had the debate on the public interest defence and that came to and end after a long discussion at a similar hour—after 11 pm but before midnight. At my suggestion, the House did not proceed further that night. There is no reason to suppose that we would have made any further substantial progress that night and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook has simply confirmed what I am about to say. There is no reason—rather the reverse—to suppose that the informal arrangements that we all know about would have had any validity in the continuing debate. The right hon. Gentleman is plainly wrong in supposing that we started to discuss the matter believing in our hearts that there would have to be a guillotine. I had no such conviction. A guillotine was obviously a possibility, but I hope that the House will accept that it was not an aim or a conviction.
The case for a timetable motion at this stage is overwhelming. Of course, the timetable must be reasonable. A press report misled some of my right and hon. Friends. It stated that we were proposing that the House should be asked to deal with the Bill completely this week. That was never our intention. I believe that two further days in Committee, sitting late—making four days

113
in all—is reasonable. A provision, which will certainly be needed, for a third day on Report and Third reading is reasonable.
I now refer to some specific points that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) made a particularly telling contribution. He asked me about a debate on every clause. As he knows, the Business Committee is entrusted with the task of organising the debate in accordance with the motion. Its aim should be to ensure that every clause is debated. I confirm that paragraph 7(2) of the motion, which is normally relied upon on occasions to cope with the possibility of Standing Order 20 applications, provides for extra time should that prove to be necessary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) raised two important points. First, he dealt with his letter to me on the authorisation of memoirs of members of the Security Service. He did not refer—his account would have been more complete if he had—to the fact that, after my hon. Friend the Minister of State used the words on Second Reading, some of which he quoted, there was a debate on new clause 6, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), to which my hon. Friend the Minister of State replied:
"It will not come as any surprise to those concerned to know that authorisation to members and former members to disclose information about their work will be rare and given only in exceptional circumstances."—[Official Report, 25 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 11031]—
[Interruption.] That was at a later stage.
I accept the importance of what my right hon. Friend has raised. There will certainly be further opportunities in our proceedings to deal with the point. It is necessary to complete—not to contradict—my hon. Friend's account of proceedings in the House.
My right hon. Friend raised a second point concerning the privileges of this House. He rightly said that that was deep water. I do not intend to enter it tonight, except to say two things. First, the privileges of the House are not and never have been in the hands of Government. They are in the hands of the House and then in the hands of the courts. That has always been the position. The Bill contains no trenching on or addition to the privileges either way. There are already on the Order Paper amendments that would enable the Committee to deal with these matters.
Mr. Amery: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend as he is short of time. Was the statement made in the Minister of State's reply to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) correct? Is that consistent with what my right hon. Friend has been saying?
Mr. Hurd: On privilege?
Mr. Amery: No. As I remember it, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook asked whether he would be in breach of the law if he revealed that he had been told by a secret agent that his telephone had been illegally tapped. The Minister said that he would be in breach of the law. That seems to throw doubt on whether our communications or our disclosures in the House are privileged.
Mr. Hurd: I do not believe that the House, which is the master of its privileges, has ever asserted that communications to an hon. Member are privileged.—
114
[Interruption.] I do not think so. That is a point on which there are amendments and new clauses, and they will certainly fall to be discussed.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), with the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), took the lead in making the second charge, which is one of—
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, privilege in this House's very much a matter for the Chair. Would you, Mr. Speaker, rule on whether a communication to a Member of Parliament is or is not privileged and whether the Government of the day have the right to interfere with the privilege of this House?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I should get involved in this debate, but as the rules stand at present a communication from someone outside the House to an hon. Member is not privileged.
Mr. Bermingham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not privilege for a Member of the House to repeat in this House information that he has known and is he not privileged in that respect?
Mr. Speaker: That is a different matter. Members of the House have freedom of speech.
Mr. Hurd: It is entirely a different matter, and I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker.
I take on now the second blade of the attack which, in a way, goes deeper. It is the accusation of authoritarianism in our handling of such matters. I strongly rebut that. If one looks at proceedings on this matter in the past 12 months, one realises that that attack cannot be sustained. If one considers the White Paper and remembers how, it contrasted vividly with the predictions made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook—[Interruption.] Well, it departed totally from ministerial certificates and left the matter to a jury. That came as a great surprise.
Let us look now at the contrast between the Bill and the White Paper and the way in which we took on board several of the criticisms expressed in the debate on the White Paper. I had been going to say that I believe that there is now a wider understanding of what is in the Bill and what is not—that is, until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. He drew examples from the public interest that could not possibly come within the scope of the Bill.
When the hon. Gentleman realised that he was in difficulty, his hon. Friends tried to help him out of the pit by suggesting that the chief press officer concerned might have been notified because her work was connected with the security services. What nonsense. She would not have been notified and even if she had been, clause 1 makes it absolutely clear that to come within the Bill, disclosure must relate to security and intelligence. The hon. Gentleman had clearly not bothered to develop the slightest acquaintance with the Bill or the timetable motion.
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way—
Hon. Member's: Give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hurd: No, I have put paid to that argument, and I hope that we have put paid also to the argument that matters released from the criminal law by the Bill are trivial. There has been some reference to the safety of food. Is the safety of food trivial? We do not seem to hear very much about anything else at present. I do not condone the purloining or publishing of papers on matters such as public safety if they are confidential.
What I am saying in the context of the Bill is that such activity, however reprehensible, will not be a criminal offence. We have dealt with that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) gave specific examples earlier, but the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras did not bother to acquaint himself with that. The Government—
Mr. Dobson rose—
Mr. Hurd: No, I am answering a point made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was harsh on me. I respect his passion and conviction in such matters, but I have never asked him to defend or excuse me. He knows better than that. He was wrong to say that the Bill would make the Government the arbiter of what is and is not secret. There are no ministerial certificates. What we are doing in the Bill is removing—
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Hurd: No, I am not giving way. What we are doing is removing from the prosecuting authorities the wide discretion that they now have. We are asking Parliament to lay down the detailed framework and then—
Mr. Hattersley rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Hurd: It will be for the jury to decide on each case.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whose arguments I respect, spent his whole time talking about the possible misdoings of public servants, but the safety of the citizen must surely be our chief concern. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we sometimes have to strike the balance between protecting the safety of the community as a whole and sustaining the rights of the individual in particular. The Bill shifts that balance drastically in the direction and in the favour of the individual, but it does not abandon the need to protect the citizenry as a whole.
I ask the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland in particular—and the House—to look at the test of harm which deals with our armed forces and the safety of our citizens. There is nothing here about the authority to prosecute because of some embarrassment to Government or vague general interest.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Hurd: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman made an attack on the general handling of the Bill, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
The secrets which we have to protect effectively are needed for the protection of the citizen. They are at one remove the secrets of the citizen, and the effective protection of those secrets is the protection of the citizen against the criminal and political—
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81 (Allocation of time to Bills).
The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 213.

Division No 91]

[10.00pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Dorrell, Stephen

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Amess, David

Dunn, Bob

Amos, Alan

Durant, Tony

Arbuthnot, James

Eggar, Tim

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Aspinwall, Jack

Evennett, David

Atkins, Robert

Fallon, Michael

Atkinson, David

Favell, Tony

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Baldry, Tony

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fishburn, John Dudley

Batiste, Spencer

Fookes, Dame Janet

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forman, Nigel

Bellingham, Henry

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Bendall, Vivian

Forth, Eric

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bitten, Rt Hon John

Franks, Cecil

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Freeman, Roger

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

French, Douglas

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gale, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bottomley, Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Goodlad, Alastair

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bowis, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

Gow, Ian

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Gower, Sir Raymond

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Bright, Graham

Gregory, Conal

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

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

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Grist, Ian

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Ground, Patrick

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Grylls, Michael

Buck, Sir Antony

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

Burt, Alistair

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Butcher, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Butler, Chris

Hannam, John

Butterfill, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hayes, Jerry

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hayward, Robert

Carrington, Matthew

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carttiss, Michael

Heddle, John

Cash, William

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Chapman, Sydney

Hind, Kenneth

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Churchill, Mr

Holt, Richard

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

Hordern, Sir Peter

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Howard, Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

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

Colvin, Michael

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Conway, Derek

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Couchman, James

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Cran, James

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunter, Andrew

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

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Irvine, Michael

Day, Stephen

Irving, Charles

Devlin, Tim

Jack, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Jackson, Robert

117

Janman, Tim

Raffan, Keith

Jessel, Toby

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rathbone, Tim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Redwood, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Renton, Tim

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Rhodes James, Robert

Key, Robert

Riddick, Graham

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Knapman, Roger

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Rost, Peter

Knox, David

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Sackville, Hon Tom

Lang, Ian

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Latham, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Lawrence, Ivan

Scott, Nicholas

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Shelton, Sir William

Lightbown, David

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Lilley, Peter

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Shersby, Michael

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Sims, Roger

Lord, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Luce, Rt Hon Richard

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Soames, Hon Nicholas

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Speller, Tony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Madel, David

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Major, Rt Hon John

Steen, Anthony

Malins, Humfrey

Stern, Michael

Maples, John

Stevens, Lewis

Marland, Paul

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Marlow, Tony

Stokes, Sir John

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Sumberg, David

Mates, Michael

Summerson, Hugo

Maude, Hon Francis

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Miller, Sir Hal

Temple-Morris, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Mitchell, Sir David

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Monro, Sir Hector

Thorne, Neil

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Thurnham, Peter

Moore, Rt Hon John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trippier, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Trotter, Neville

Mudd, David

Twinn, Dr Ian

Neale, Gerrard

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Needham, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Nelson, Anthony

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Neubert, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walden, George

Nicholls, Patrick

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Walters, Sir Dennis

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Page, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

Paice, James

Watts, John

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Wells, Bowen

Patnick, Irvine

Wheeler, John

Patten, Chris (Bath)

Whitney, Ray

Patten, John (Oxford W)

Widdecombe, Ann

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wiggin, Jerry

Pawsey, James

Wilkinson, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilshire, David

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas

Portillo, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Powell, William (Corby)

Wood, Timothy

Price, Sir David

Woodcock, Mike

118

Yeo, Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Mr. David Maclean and

Younger, Rt Hon George

Mr. John Mark Taylor.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Aitken, Jonathan

Foster, Derek

Allen, Graham

Fraser, John

Alton, David

Fyfe, Maria

Armstrong, Hilary

Garrett, John (Norwich South)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

George, Bruce

Ashton, Joe

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Barron, Kevin

Gordon, Mildred

Battle, John

Gorst, John

Beith, A. J.

Gould, Bryan

Bell, Stuart

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hardy, Peter

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

Harman, Ms Harriet

Benyon, W.

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Bermingham, Gerald

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Blair, Tony

Haynes, Frank

Boateng, Paul

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Bradley, Keith

Heffer, Eric S.

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Henderson, Doug

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hinchliffe, David

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Home Robertson, John

Buchan, Norman

Hood, Jimmy

Buckley, George J.

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Budgen, Nicholas

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Caborn, Richard

Howells, Geraint

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hoyle, Doug

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Clay, Bob

Illsley, Eric

Clelland, David

Ingram, Adam

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Janner, Greville

Cohen, Harry

Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

Coleman, Donald

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Corbett, Robin

Kirkwood, Archy

Corbyn, Jeremy

Leadbitter, Ted

Cousins, Jim

Leighton, Ron

Critchley, Julian

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Crowther, Stan

Lewis, Terry

Cryer, Bob

Litherland, Robert

Cummings, John

Livingstone, Ken

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Livsey, Richard

Cunningham, Dr John

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dalyell, Tam

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Darling, Alistair

Loyden, Eddie

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

McAllion, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McAvoy, Thomas

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

McCartney, Ian

Dixon, Don

Macdonald, Calum A.

Dobson, Frank

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Doran, Frank

McKelvey, William

Douglas, Dick

McLeish, Henry

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Maclennan, Robert

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

McNamara, Kevin

Dykes, Hugh

McTaggart, Bob

Eadie, Alexander

McWilliam, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Madden, Max

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Marek, Dr John

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fatchett, Derek

Martlew, Eric

Fearn, Ronald

Maxton, John

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Meacher, Michael

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

Meale, Alan

Fisher, Mark

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Flannery, Martin

Michael, Alun

Flynn, Paul

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

119

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Short, Clare

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

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

Mowlam, Marjorie

Snape, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Soley, Clive

Murphy, Paul

Spearing, Nigel

Nellist, Dave

Squire, Robin

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, William

Stott, Roger

O'Neill, Martin

Strang, Gavin

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Straw, Jack

Parry, Robert

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Patchett, Terry

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pendry, Tom

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Pike, Peter L.

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Turner, Dennis

Prescott, John

Vaz, Keith

Primarolo, Dawn

Wall, Pat

Quin, Ms Joyce

Wallace, James

Radice, Giles

Walley, Joan

Randall, Stuart

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Redmond, Martin

Wareing, Robert N.

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Reid, Dr John

Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

Richardson, Jo

Wigley, Dafydd

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Winnick, David

Robertson, George

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Robinson, Geoffrey

Worthington, Tony

Rooker, Jeff

Wray, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Salmond, Alex

Sedgemore, Brian

Tellers for the Noes:

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Mrs. Llin Golding and

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. Ken Eastham.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:
Committee, Report and Third Reading
1.—(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on the second of those days.
(2) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
Report of Business Committee
2.—(1) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions—

(a) as to the proceedings in Committee on the Bill not later than 14th February 1989; and

(b) as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the proceedings in Committee on the Bill are concluded.

(2) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (1) above and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
Proceedings on going into Committee
3.When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question, whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
4. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
Order of proceedings
5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which
120
proceedings in Committee or on consideration of the Bill are taken but the Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time on allotted days
7.—(1) On the first and second allotted days paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock on either of those days under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideraton) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and on the first or second allotted day that period shall be added to the said period of two hours.
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and

(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion

121
of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Official Secrets Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Crown Court (Barrow)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]
10.16 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate on the proposals for the future of the Barrow in Furness Crown court. I speak in a dual capacity as the Member for Barrow and Furness and as a former practising solicitor in the north-west of England.
The consultation paper proposals relate to the Crown courts of Barrow in Furness and Kendal, but I confine my remarks to the Barrow in Furness Crown court, though many of the general comments apply equally to the Kendal Crown court, which comes within the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
The Barrow in Furness Crown court building was constructed in the mid-1950s and was opened by the then Home Secretary, Mr. R. A. Butler. The building and its facilities are typical of the many similar court buildings that were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1986, a scrutiny was commissioned to consider the best structure for the operation and management of the Crown court system in England and Wales, and it is to the proposals for the Crown court in Barrow in Furness that I address my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General.
The consultation paper, which was issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department in October 1988, is entirely devoid of any facts or figures to support the statement and opinions that are contained within it. In a sentence, the consultation paper is a disgrace to rational debate and discussion. It bears all the hallmarks of a civil servant sitting behind his desk in Whitehall or Preston, thinking of his own administrative convenience, picking up a map of Cumbria and a ruler and measuring the distance between Barrow and Carlisle, Barrow and Kendal or Barrow and Lancaster, and reaching conclusions, while being blind to the fact that between Barrow and all those places lie mountains, lakes, rivers and estuaries, and probably the worst road system in England.
The consultation paper begins:
"The results of subsequent examination of the Crown Courts at Barrow and Kendal, which are operated from Preston and Carlisle respectively, have led to the conclusion that these satellites are inefficient, in that they lead to delays in trial, are wasteful of resources and that there is a strong case for closure."
The consultation paper's proposals for Barrow state:
"Barrow is situated on the west coast of Cumbria 48 miles from Lancaster by road and 32 miles by rail … Crown Court sittings are held in a Magistrates' Court alongside the police station. The courtroom is adequate, though dark and dingy. Facilities for the judge, jurors, the Bar, solicitors and witnesses are minimal. Prisoners are brought from Risley remand centre, Warrington neatly 100 miles away, and have to stay in police cells with totally inadequate provision for hygiene, catering and exercise … The court is administered and served from Preston, more than 60 miles distant."
When it details the disadvantages of the present system, the points in the consultation paper immediately invite questions. The document states:
"The short sitting day which can be achieved at each court, the small case load and interval between sessions leads to inefficient listings and delays."
That invites the question: why short sitting days? The document continues:

123
"A case not reached at one session must wait at least four weeks before it can be listed again."
Why?
"A case which may last two or more days is usually transferred to Lancaster for trial."
Why?
"There will continue to be an inefficient use of scarce resources in terms of judicial and staff time."
Why? It states:
"costs incurred in travel and subsistence by members of staff serving … Barrow from Preston will also continue."
Perhaps therein lies the nub. The document states:
"At Barrow a great deal of money would have to be spent to bring the cell accommodation up to reasonable standards. While this would improve the conditions for prisoners, the cell area would still be shared with the local police, a practice which is accepted only with great reluctance by the Prison Service."
I query that statement because there is no evidence to back it up.
The benefits listed in the Lord Chancellor's consultation paper include:
"The cessation of sittings at … Barrow will yield significant savings in costs to the court, prison and probation services."
However, it totally fails to take into account the increased costs that will be incurred by those who have to attend the court at Lancaster, principally witnesses, the police, solicitors, jurors, probation officers, magistrates and social service personnel.
As another benefit, the document states:
"Prisoners would be dealt with less delay and more efficiency and would not be subject to such degrading conditions as those at Barrow."
The document continues:
"It is appreciated that some witnesses may be inconvenienced in terms of the distance they will have to travel to court, but their loss of earnings, travel and subsistence expenses would be reimbursed. Some justices would be similarly affected but again their expenses would be reimbursed … The closure of Barrow would extend the level of disenfranchisement, but not significantly, since although the area is large, the population density is comparatively low."
In marshalling my arguments against the proposals, I can do no better than quote from some of the many representations and responses submitted which oppose the proposals in the consultation paper. Perhaps one of the most damaging criticisms is made by the chief constable of Cumbria, Mr. Leslie Sharp, who said:
"As far as Barrow is concerned I have serious reservations about the possible closure of the Crown Court. It is accepted that costs for the Judiciary and your staff would be reduced, but this would be at the expense of additional costs to the police and other witnesses. I see additional travelling, subsistence and overtime payments for police officers being far in excess of the sum you have quoted in respect of the Judiciary. Another issue directly related to this point is the loss of police time from operational duties. When cases are heard at Barrow, officers are able to deal with other tasks and duties whilst waiting for their case to be heard or immediately it finishes. If work is transferred to Lancaster, we will lose officers for a full day without the ability to use them for other purposes. As far as witnesses are concerned, whilst their expenses would be reimbursed, inevitably their costs are going to be much higher if they have to travel to Lancaster.
Another point of major concern is that many people will be reluctant to travel from Barrow-in-Furness to another court. There was a recent example of this when an appeal on behalf of Manhattan's Night Club at Barrow against the curbing of their public entertainments licensing hours, was to be held before Lancaster Crown Court. Many elderly residents who had attended the initial hearing before the local
124
authority, and later an appeal before the Magistrates' Court, expressed reluctance to travel to Lancaster. When representations were made to your Department, it resulted in that case being transferred back to the Barrow Court. If we cannot gather and encourage community support in this type of case, and when criminal offences have been committed, there is a distinct possibility our activities in these areas of responsibilities will be seriously affected. There have also been occasions when witnesses have failed to attend the Crown Court at Barrow, and it has been a fairly simple task to locate them during the time of the Court sitting. This would not be possible if cases were held at Lancaster and could result in adjournments which would add to the Court's backlog of work."
He continues:
"I am surprised to see that the amount of time spent on Crown Court business at Barrow has decreased over the past four years at a time when there has been an increased case load. This is perhaps merely an indication that more cases are being diverted to other courts. If the Crown Court at Barrow sat more regularly, I would suggest that any backlog of work could be disposed of more quickly. There have been occasions in the recent past, for example in July this year, when Court sittings were reduced from three days to one and then in September when Court business was cancelled because of the unavailability of staff. On those occasions it would seem little consideration was given to defendants, which is one of the points you make in the Consultative Paper at paragraph 3, that the court delays adversely affect defendants held in custody and could prejudice the right to justice.
I cannot agree with the statement that the Court Room at Barrow is dark and dingy. In my opinion, the court is reasonably comfortable and provides good accommodation for officials and the public. The same cannot be said about Lancaster, which is a rather depressing and uncomfortable building."
He concludes:
"I do think it is important that every effort is made to retain the Crown Court at Barrow. I am sure you know that there are plans for a new Magistrates' Court to be constructed in that area in the early 1990s and this could present an ideal opportunity for a joint development with your Department."
That was the opinion of, and representations from, the police.
I turn to the representations made by the judges who serve the area. His Honour Judge Sir Sanderson Temple and His Honour Judge Brian Duckworth state:
"There is a long tradition of criminal jurisdiction … Barrow was given Quarter Sessions status after the 1939/45 war, specifically to obviate the necessity of litigation and those involved therein having to travel to Lancaster or Preston."
Barrow and Kendal are both
"active, prosperous communities in their own right, and centres for the surrounding countryside … entitled to enjoy Crown Court status and facilities. If the work is sent to Lancaster, it will involve substantial expense and inconvenience for parties, jurors and witnesses … from Barrow, the train time is similar"—
1¼hours—
"but there is no through bus service: the train fare is £4·80 … For those who live in outlying areas, the problems will be greater and will involve considerable hardship … it is unlikely … that magistrates from Furness … will be able to play any real part in the administration of justice at Crown Court level, and … that jurors will not be recruited from those outlying areas to go to Lancaster or Preston; thus the inhabitants of those areas will be denied the opportunity to participate in Crown Court justice by way of jury service. By reason of the extra travelling expenses incurred by those involved any administrative savings achieved by consolidating the work at Lancaster will be largely nullified.
Unless and until the repairs at Lancaster Castle are completed and the Castle's future as a Crown Court building confirmed, the provision of Court facilities there must be considered unsatisfactory and uncertain.
Considerations of administrative convenience and economy must not overwhelm public convenience. Ever since the Statute of Westminister II (1285) the concept of the Courts

125
travelling the country to bring justice to the people has been well established. Thus the people of South Cumbria are entitled to have their own Crown Courts, as are the local Magistrates, and they should not have to travel further afield. It has long been a Common Law principle that a man shall be entitled to be tried in his own County; and as a matter of public relations, justice should be done and be seen to be done within the community where the litigation arises. It is hoped that these proposals.… proceed no further …It is understood that their Honours Judge Edmondson and Judge Bell, who also have connections with the area have already expressed similar concern to the Circuit Administrator.
Those are the words of the judges; let us turn now to the magistrates. The clerk of the magistrates for the petty session divisions of Barrow in Furness with Bootle and Lonsdale North says:
"It was the unanimous request of Justices that I write to you deploring the taking of such a step. I am asked in particular to refer to the basic concept of criminal law that justice should be delivered on a local basis in order to maintain confidence in the justice system. Further, whilst Magistrates' personal convenience cannot be placed above the requirements of justice, the difficulties in supplying Magistrates to sit at Lancaster or Preston, as opposed to Barrow in Furness, are only too clear. It seems to the Magistrates appropriate therefore that sittings continue in Barrow in Furness to ensure the local element in sittings of the superior court."
So speak the magistrates. Let me now quote from letter written by the chairman of the bench of North Lonsdale, Major Gordon Hudson, who says that the consultation paper is
"unduly weighted towards cutting administrative costs at the considerable inconvenience and expense to those attending courts. Reimbursement in the circumstances is an inadequate recompense. In particular the stop gap solution of only five years at Lancaster is a fresh, quite unacceptable solution."
The local Law Society branch, Furness and district, also made representations stating:
"This Society strongly opposes the closure of the Crown Court at Barrow."
Mentioning the delay mentioned in the consultation paper, it states:
"The statistics given show receipts, but not disposal rates. From the figures given, however, it is clear that the Crown Court at Barrow has increased in efficiency during the period 1984 to 1987 in that in 1984 100 cases were received in 128 hours of sitting time compared with 200 cases in 116 hours in 1987. Cases are being dealt with more quickly and this Society is convinced that the disposals rate of the Barrow Court are far better than many city courts … the facilities at Barrow … are far better than those at the Court which it is proposed will take all Barrow cases, i.e. Lancaster.
At Lancaster, there are pitifully inadequate facilities for the interviewing of witnesses, and the public waiting areas are extremely lacking in comfort. The cell accommodation is also poor. One argument put forward in support of closure is that the travelling time of remand prisoners would be reduced. The only saving in this regard would be 1 hour each way, and this must be compared to the similar travelling time of solicitors, police, and probation officers and witnesses if cases were dealt with at Lancaster.
Furthermore, there are presently plans to construct new Magistrates' and County Courts at Barrow. If the LDC is prepared to expend monies in the construction of new courts in Barrow, then it would be prudent and sensible for those plans to include new Crown Court accommodation. The present facilities would then be upgraded at little extra cost."
It also deals with expense and the purported savings outlined in the consultation paper:
"Any costs saved in administration by transferring all court business to Lancaster would be lost in the additional expense to the court in paying witnesses to appear, to the Police and Probation services, both in increased travelling and waiting time, and in time lost from other work, and to the legal aid fund in meeting the cost of solicitors travelling to
126
Lancaster. Solicitors will also have to spend more time out of their offices, to the detriment of their other work. Administration costs are therefore only the tip of the iceberg, and it would be wrong to base a decision for closure upon this aspect alone without a full study of the additional costs to be borne by transferring all cases to Lancaster.
The consultation paper indicates that closure would not significantly extend the level of disenfranchisement of jurors. To close the Crown Court at Barow would remove approximately 80,000 adults from the list of potential jurors, and defendants would no longer be tried by their local peers with local knowledge …
In conclusion, this Society considers that the paper's arguments in support of closure are, at best, not fully thought out and that insufficient weight has been given to the questions of the increased costs and inconvenience to those involved."
Those are the words of Mr. David Dawson, secretary of the Furness and District Law Society.
So far, the police, the judges, the magistrates and the local law society are opposed to the proposals. Let us consider the views of someone who is not involved in the legal profession. Among the many representations that I have received was a letter from the Cumbria-Westmorland Federation of Women's Institutes. The letter, from Mrs. Rawson, is eloquent about being tried locally:
"It has hitherto been the right of defendants to be judged by their peers within their own locality. It must be obvious that the customs and conventions characteristic of a community are best known to those resident in its locale, and consequently it follows that those who contravene what are locally regarded as essentials to living there, should be judged first by those who understand them …
It is easy to fortell what will ultimately occur—the ratepayers in the communities in this area, who would once have been eligible for Jury Service will become disenfranchised—the argument then being that the cost to transport so many people to the seat of judgment would prove too great and selection will no longer be made from amongst them."
So far as I am aware, no single organisation or individual which has been involved in the consultation process supports the proposals for the Barrow in Furness Crown court. Two local solicitors from Barrow in Furness made representations which embodied my earlier comments to the Furness and District Law Society.
Miss Barbara Forrester, a local solicitor who specializes in criminal work in the Crown court, wrote:
"It is virtually unheard of for any defendant to criticise the facilities at Barrow. It is also far easier for relatives of defendants to visit them at Barrow than at Lancaster."
Mr. Kenneth Fisher, another local solicitor, wrote that on 15 January he was involved in a case that originated at Barrow magistrates court, and was heard at the Crown court in Blackpool, in which all the solicitors and witnesses came from Barrow. He informed me that fewer than half the cases which originate at the Barrow and Bootle or
North Lonsdale magistrates' courts are now heard at the Barrow Crown court. Will my right hon. and learned
Friend the Attorney-General explain why that is so?
I could quote many other cases, but time is limited. The consultation paper has caused considerable dismay in my constituency. Because of its geography, the Furness peninsula tends to be overlooked and isolated. Nevertheless, it has a long and proud record of independence, not least in the administration of justice. The catchment area for the Crown court at Barrow is large enough in size and population to warrant a Crown court being located in Barrow. There has been no change whatsoever in circumstances since Barrow was given Crown court status.
The argument of administrative convenience—the perpetual plea and excuse of all administrators—should

127
always be secondary to the interests of those the administrators are paid to serve. The administration of justice should serve the local community and the general community, the accused and the society which it is alleged he has offended against. It will be a sad day for justice when administrative convenience is allowed to be paramount and to subsume the overriding interests of the community.
I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that Furness people are taxpayers like the rest of our citizens, and they are entitled to the same administration of justice as the rest of the country.
10.39 pm
The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) for raising this matter on the motion for the Adjournment. As he rightly said a few moments ago, time is limited. The length of his excellent speech means that I have only six minutes in which to reply to the many issues that he has raised.
I appreciate the sensitivity of the issue in my hon. Friend's constituency and the strength of the feelings that he reports and shares. He said that the proposal emanates from a review of the Crown court at Barrow, instituted by the circuit administrator, following the Lord Chancellor's Department's internal scrutiny on the court management structure, the purpose of which is to secure better management. My hon. Friend did less than justice to the local knowledge of the circuit administrator who was responsible for the review.
Sittings of the Crown court in Barrow are held in a magistrates court. The courtroom is adequate. I note the chief constable's view that it cannot justifiably be described as dark or dingy, but it lacks many of the amenities that are normally regarded as minimal requirements today. Facilities for the judge, jurors, barristers and solicitors and witnesses are sparse.
Prisoners are brought from Risley remand centre in Warrington nearly 100 miles away, and have to stay in cells with inadequate provision for hygiene, catering and exercise. The conditions for the police, prison officers and staff have been the subject of frequent complaints, especially by the prison service. Meals have to be purchased from the police canteen, and there are only very basic facilities for eating. Indeed, no tables or chairs are available in the cells.
Although the cells have integral lavatories, there is only one wash-hand basin in the corridor. There are no facilities available for visits to the cell area by solicitors or barristers. Such visits therefore have to be conducted within the cells with no seating available. Visits by relatives of defendants have to be held at the grille gate leading to the cell area, again with no seating.
There are only six cells. Inmates therefore have to share overnight if their number exceeds cell availability. The facilities for prison staff are no more acceptable, amounting to one room, measuring 10 ft. by 6 ft., which is sparsely furnished and in which prison staff spend up to 14 hours per day.
A great deal of money would have to be spent to bring the cell accommodation up to reasonable standard. While that would improve conditions for the prisoners, the cell
128
area would still be shared with the local police, which I understand does not accord with good practice. Remand prisoners, who are of course unconvicted and may never be found guilty, would continue to be subjected to inordinately lengthy journeys to and from court.
I now come to whether there is sufficient work to justify the continued presence of a Crown court. In 1988, a total of 121 cases for trial were committed to Barrow, with 35 appeals and cases for sentence. Of those committed for trial, about 70 per cent. pleaded guilty, leaving only 35 jury trials.
That is clearly insufficient to justify other than occasional sittings, particularly since some trials cannot be accommodated at Barrow because of their estimated length of hearing. The sitting arrangements at Barrow are limited to a maximum of three days at a time because the courtroom is required thereafter for sittings of the magistrates court. That provides an answer to one of my hon. Friend's questions. Accordingly, a case which may last for two or more days is usually transferred to Lancaster for trial. More than 30 per cent. of cases committed to Barrow are tried at Preston and Lancaster. That has been the case now for several years, as I understand the situation.
Let me return to the proposal that is advanced in the light of the features I have described. It is that, as an alternative to Crown court sittings at Barrow, the work should be dealt with by the Crown court at Lancaster. The journey from Risley would be reduced by half—to 50 miles. It is contended that conditions for prisoners and prison officers would be improved, and there would be significant benefits and savings in cost to the court and to the prison and probation services.
An increase in the work load and sittings at Lancaster would make better use of available accommodation, reduce the likelihood of wasted days, reduce waiting times, and make for more effective listing of cases. Here, I think, it is relevant that the scrutiny to which I have already referred noted the difficulties that generally are faced by small Crown court centres, which are generally satellites of a larger parent court.
The length of the average sitting day at Barrow is typical of those difficulties, in that it is particularly short. In 1988 the average was 3·98 hours. Even this figure is artificially high, as it is often the case that the court is only technically sitting while awaiting a jury's verdict, there not being work available to be dealt with in court during that time.
A prime function of the court service is to facilitate the just, speedy and economical disposal of cases. The short average sitting day that can be achieved at the court at Barrow, the small case load, and the interval between sessions makes for inefficiency and delay in spite of the best efforts of all concerned—and they are very good. A case not reached at one session must wait at least four weeks before it can be listed again at that venue, which, for some defendants, means waiting in custody.
I should like, of course, to deal at greater length with the points that my hon. Friend has made, but, alas, there is insufficient time by reason of the detailed and excellently presented speech he made. I would just say, however, that, uncharacteristically, he is not accurate in saying that the responses received so far by the Lord Chancellor's Department to these proposals have been all one way. Judicial opinion is by no means unanimous, and, of those who have responded to this proposal, the probation

129
service, the prison service, the Crown prosecution service, and, I understand, the high sheriff also, have indicated some approval or support for the scheme—
The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes before Eleven o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Overseas Students
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to increase the number of students from west Africa who are offered places in further education or higher education in the United Kingdom; what is the present total of such students; and if he has any target figures for future years.

  Mr. Eggar
  In 1986–87, the latest year for which there are complete figures, there were almost 4,000 students from west African countries studying at universities and public sector institutions of higher and further education in the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government gave, under various schemes, financial support to a large proportion of these students. The number of students receiving such support will he nearly 1,700 in the current financial year. We expect this figure to increase in future years.

  Rudolf Hess
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in full all post mortem reports on the body of Rudolf Hess.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. Publication is a matter for Hess's family.

PRIME MINISTER

  Meetings
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times she has met Mr. Rupert Murdoch at 10 Downing street in the last 12 months.

  The Prime Minister
  As I have told the House before, my normal practice is neither to confirm nor deny whether meetings with private individuals have taken place, even in those cases where no such meeting has occurred.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Top-up Loans
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will put his proposals for a student top-up loan scheme out for competitive tendering by banks and building societies.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I am exploring with a variety of private sector financial institutions and other potential agents the most cost-effective approach to the administration of top-up loans. The scheme offers the financial institutions access to over 2 million graduate accounts: I expect there to be competition for this opportunity.

  Creche Service
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of children of pre-school age in inner London cared for in a creche within an ILEA adult education institute; and what plans have been made to ensure that resources are made available to individual boroughs to maintain and expand this service.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information requested is not available centrally. The provision of creches for adult education students and staff will be a matter for the inner London boroughs to consider, in the light of the overall resources available to them.

  National Curriculum (Documents)
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the standing arrangements for the distribution of documents relating to the national curriculum to(a) schools, (b) parents and (c) others; and whether he has any plans to change those arrangements.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Arrangements for the distribution of particular documents are made in the light of their nature and status. Circulars, statutory orders and regulations which concern the curriculum responsibilities of head teachers and school governing bodies are sent direct to all schools. Under regulations to be made under section 22 of the Education Reform Act, parents will have access at the school to all such documents. Copies are sent to LEAs and representative bodies, which are also consulted on draft documents; such drafts are available to others on request.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list in the Official Report the titles of documents relating to the national curriculum which have been made available to schools; and in respect of each document (a) how many have been sent to each school and over what period following publication, (b) whether any charge has been made, and (c) whether any delays in dispatch have occurred.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department has sent out two final circulars relevant to chapter 1 of the ERA—circular 1/89 on local arrangements for the consideration of complaints, and circular 3/89 on religious education and collective worship. Both were sent free of charge to all maintained schools—two copies to every head teacher and one for each governing body. The full circulation took just over two weeks in each case, because of heavy pressure on the dispatch services. The National Curriculum Council is responsible for the distribution of proposals for statutory attainment targets and programmes of study. It has sent copies of such proposals covering mathematics, science and primary English to all maintained schools.

  A number of draft documents and consultation papers relevant to chapter 1 of the ERA have been sent to LEAs and representative organisations, but made available free of charge to schools and others on request. There have been no delays in dispatching these documents, but postal delays may have affected delivery of some.

  Grant-Maintained Schools Trust
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the non-financial assistance being given to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My Department provides information on the Government's grant-maintained schools policies to anyone who seeks it: the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust has from time to time sought and received such information.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has made any representations to the Charity Commission about the application by the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust for charity status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  No.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has given any financial support to the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust.

  Secondary schools in England—1986–87

  Examination results

  Expenditure per pupil £

  percentage of leavers attaining 5+ higher grades at O-level/CSE

  Ranking

  Local education authorities

  ILEA

  2,345

  14·7

  88

  Waltham Forest

  1,915

  6·2

  96

  Brent

  1,805

  19·6

  69

  Manchester

  1,660

  13·6

  92

  Ealing

  1,650

  21·3

  56

  Harrow

  1,600

  31·0

  11

  Croydon

  1,535

  19·6

  68

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  1,530

  32·6

  6

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  1,530

  17·4

  78

  Hillingdon

  1,520

  18·3

  74

  Knowsley

  1,515

  8·2

  95

  Barnet

  1,510

  41·4

  2

  Havering

  1,510

  23·7

  45

  Hounslow

  1,505

  23·5

  47

  Sheffield

  1,490

  17·8

  75

  Coventry

  1,485

  20·5

  61

  Barking

  1,470

  10·7

  94

  Redbridge

  1,465

  28·0

  17

  Rochdale

  1,460

  17·5

  77

  Wigan

  1,460

  28·5

  14

  North Tyneside

  1,455

  24·0

  42

  Liverpool

  1,445

  15·9

  84

  Walsall

  1,430

  19·3

  70

  South Tyneside

  1,430

  15·4

  87

  Bromley

  1,420

  33·2

  4

  Sandwell

  1,410

  12·5

  93

  Wolverhampton

  1,395

  17·1

  79

  Leicestershire

  1,390

  24·0

  43

  Salford

  1,385

  20·3

  62

  Enfield

  1,380

  20·1

  64

  Bexley

  1,370

  27·1

  23

  Nottinghamshire

  1,365

  21·0

  58

  Gateshead

  1,360

  19·8

  67

  Cleveland

  1,355

  27·9

  8

  Dudley

  1,350

  20·8

  59

  Hertfordshire

  1,350

  28·7

  13

  Oxfordshire

  1,350

  26·6

  26

  Birmingham

  1,345

  15·5

  86

  St. Helens

  1,340

  23·1

  50

  Bury

  1,340

  32·6

  5

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1,330

  27·1

  22

  Calderdale

  1,330

  16·3

  81

  Barnsley

  1,325

  16·6

  80

  Merton

  1,325

  24·3

  41

  Tameside

  1,325

  24·3

  40

  Doncaster

  1,325

  19·0

  72

  Buckinghamshire

  1,320

  31·8

  9

  4
  Mrs. Rumbold
  No. My right hon. Friend is, however, currently considering an application by the Grant-Maintained Schools Trust for financial support in connection with the provision or proposed provision of educational services in grant-maintained schools.

  Examinations
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all local education authorities in England in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil per year, starting with the highest spending authority, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving five or more O-levels at grade A to C or CSE grade 1, in the latest year for which figures are available and in which these examinations were sat.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is as follows
  5

  Examination results

  Expenditure per pupil £

  percentage of leavers attaining 5+ higher grades at O-level/CSE

  Ranking

  Trafford

  1,315

  32·1

  8

  Cumbria

  1,315

  25·9

  30

  Avon

  1,310

  24·7

  38

  Sunderland

  1,305

  19·3

  71

  Derbyshire

  1,305

  20·6

  60

  Sutton

  1,300

  42·3

  1

  Wakefield

  1,290

  17·7

  76

  Shropshire

  1,285

  28·1

  16

  Wirral

  1,280

  23·8

  44

  Solihull

  1,280

  32·1

  7

  Berkshire

  1,280

  27·8

  19

  Sefton

  1,275

  24·7

  39

  Stockport

  1,270

  25·1

  33

  Humberside

  1,270

  21·9

  53

  Gloucestershire

  1,260

  27·6

  20

  Surrey

  1,260

  36·5

  3

  Essex

  1,255

  23·6

  46

  Oldham

  1,255

  14·4

  89

  Staffordshire

  1,255

  23·0

  51

  Lancashire

  1,255

  23·1

  49

  Kirklees

  1,250

  23·4

  48

  Northamptonshire

  1,250

  18·4

  73

  Bedfordshire

  1,250

  26·0

  29

  North Yorkshire

  1,240

  30·4

  12

  Bradford

  1,235

  16·1

  83

  Cheshire

  1,235

  26·7

  25

  East Sussex

  1,235

  24·7

  37

  Leeds

  1,230

  19·9

  66

  Norfolk

  1,230

  20·3

  63

  Rotherham

  1,230

  15·7

  85

  Bolton

  1,230

  25·2

  32

  Wiltshire

  1,230

  20·0

  65

  Northumberland

  1,230

  28·4

  15

  Devon

  1,225

  22·9

  52

  Durham

  1,225

  21·0

  57

  Hampshire

  1,220

  27·4

  21

  Warwickshire

  1,220

  24·8

  36

  West Sussex

  1,220

  31·5

  10

  Cambridgeshire

  1,205

  24·9

  35

  Somerset

  1,195

  21·9

  54

  Dorset

  1,190

  26·5

  27

  Lincolnshire

  1,185

  26·2

  28

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,180

  26·7

  24

  Cornwall

  1,175

  25·0

  34

  Suffolk

  1,165

  21·4

  55

  Isle of Wight

  1,150

  16·2

  82

  Kent

  1,145

  25·8

  31

  Haringey

  n/a

  13·7

  91

  Newham

  n/a

  14·0

  90

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) if he will list the number of children sitting(a) CSE exams, (b) O-level exams, and (c) A-level exams in each local education authority in England as a percentage of the total number in the relevant year groups in each authority for the latest available year in which their examinations were sat;

  (2) if he will list by each local education authority in England the total number of children achieving (a) CSE grades 2–5, (b) O-level grades A-C and CSE grade 1, and (c) A-level grades A to E as a percentage of the total number of pupils in the relevant year group in each authority, for the latest available year in which these examinations were sat.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is not available.

WALES

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the average waiting times for the following operations at each of the district general hospitals in Wales(a) hip and knee replacements, (b) hernias, (c) cataracts, (d) ear, nose and throat and (e) varicose veins.

  Mr. Grist
  Information is not available for patients currently on waiting lists. The average waiting times given in the table relate to patients admitted on waiting list and booked or planned cases, and discharged during 1987. Information is given for each of the main general acute hospitals and each of the teaching hospitals in Wales.
  7

  Average Waiting Time (days)

  Hip or Knee replacements

  Hernias1

  Cataracts

  Ear, Nose and Throat

  Varicose Veins

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  2

  83

  —

  154

  —

  Maelor General

  110

  122

  121

  144

  284

  Bronglais

  129

  98

  2

  50

  2

  West Wales General

  267

  85

  53

  112

  92

  Nevill Hall

  156

  178

  —

  2

  2

  Royal Gwent/St. Woolos

  355

  112

  179

  110

  194

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  139

  65

  105

  102

  96

  Princess of Wales

  54

  78

  2

  2

  84

  East Glamorgan

  2

  109

  —

  212

  227

  Prince Charles

  2

  209

  88

  220

  254

  Morriston

  186

  96

  —

  2

  2

  Singleton

  —

  72

  228

  106

  250

  Neath General

  2

  2

  —

  2

  2

  Withybush

  2

  209

  2

  147

  464

  University Hospital of Wales

  274

  129

  131

  124

  501

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  —

  48

  —

  2

  2

  Llandough

  —

  120

  —

  2

  242

  1 Includes inguinal and femoral hernias, abdomial operations on diaphragmatic hernias, abdomial hernias and secondary repairs

  2 Average waiting times have not been calculated for hospitals with less than 50 cases

  Surplus Food
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report details of the localities and the numbers of each qualifying group which obtained free butter and beef under the European Community free food scheme in each year during which the scheme was operated.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The EC surplus food scheme has operated for one year and a list of the organisations designated to operate the scheme was placed in the Library of the House on 21 April 1988 by the then Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). The information on numbers of each qualifying group is not available.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the allocation to Wales of free butter and beef under the European Community free food scheme in each of the years during which the scheme operated.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  In Wales 176 tonnes of butter and 332 tonnes of beef were allocated to and distributed by designated organisations under the EC surplus food scheme in 1988.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report the names and locations of charitable organisations who applied for free butter and beef under the European Community free food scheme in each year during which the scheme was operated and those who were designated to operate the scheme.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Charitable and non-profit-making organisations were invited to apply to operate the EC surplus free food scheme in 1988 and 1989. The list of designated organisations has been placed in the House. As organisations and individuals submitted applications on a confidential basis it is not possible to release details of those who were unsuccessful.

  Examinations Expenditure
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all local education authorities in Wales in rank order of expenditure per secondary pupil per year,8
  starting with the highest spending authority, together with their position in the table of examination results for school leavers achieving five or more O-levels at grades A to C or CSE grade 1 in the latest available year for which figures are available and in which these examinations were sat.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is available for the 1986–87 financial and academic years and is as follows:

  Expenditure per secondary school pupil (£)

  Examination result position1

  West Glamorgan

  1,507

  4

  Gwent

  1,363

  6

  Powys

  1,332

  1

  Gwynedd

  1,296

  7

  Dyfed

  1,283

  2

  Clwyd

  1,282

  5

  Mid Glamorgan

  1,268

  8

  South Glamorgan

  1,268

  3

  1 Ranked in order of the percentage of school leavers with five or more O levels at grade A to C or CSE grade 1.

  Urban Investment Grant
  Mr. Raffan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an announcement about his plans to introduce a new urban investment grant in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The consultation exercise which we conducted recently prompted a positive response from the public and private sectors alike. With very few exceptions, the proposal to simplify the grant regime aimed at stimulating private sector investment in rundown sites in all deprived urban areas of Wales was welcomed. As a result of the views expressed I have decided that the threshold for the new grant will be set at the lower level of £150,000 when the grant is introduced in April of this year. Detailed guidance notes setting out arrangements for the new scheme are now available. Copies of the notes have today been sent to all those who responded to the consultation.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  North Africa (Desertification)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the combating of desertification in north Africa.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We contribute to the fight against desertification through our participation in the work of a number of multilateral institutions. We also support measures to combat desertification in countries bordering the Sahara through our contribution to the European development fund; our share of projects that have been approved so far under the sixth EDF amounts to some £24 million.

  Zambia (Ministerial Visit)
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during the recent ministerial visit to Zambia, he held discussions regarding British aid.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  During her recent visit my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs held discussions which included reference to present and future British aid.

  Pest Control
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure co-operation between the Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute and national institutions concerned with pest control.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The ODNRI has a long history of collaboration with centres of pest expertise in Britain and abroad. The role of such links is carefully considered when customer divisions in the ODA commission work from the institute. The £7 million special programme to support pest control in Africa, on which I instructed the institute to embark in 1987, is an excellent example. Under it the ODNRI is collaborating with eight institutions in Britain and 12 in developing countries.

  Somalia
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what practical steps are being taken by the Department to offer an aid package to help resettlement of refugees and economic recovery in northern Somalia in the light of Government moves to encourage an end to internal hostilities in Somalia.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We have given some £275,000 in support of the relief activities of British voluntary agencies in the wake of the civil conflict in northern Somalia. We stand ready to give prompt and sympathetic consideration to further requests from such organisations for humanitarian assistance.

  IMF and World Bank
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the president of the World Bank; and what matters they propose to discuss.
  10
  Mr. Chris Patten
  Relations with the International Monetary Fund are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards a meeting with the president of the World Bank, I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Lady on 23 January, at column 370.

  Caribbean Countries
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to the Caribbean countries.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  In the most recent year for which figures are available (1987), British bilateral aid to the Caribbean amounted to £29·06 million. I recently visited several countries in the Caribbean and heard for myself the appreciation with which our aid programme is received.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of official development assistance to Bangladesh.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Net official development assistance from the United Kindom to Bangladesh in 1987—the latest year for which figures are available—was £34·8 million. I anticipate that in the current financial year total expenditure will be about £50 million.

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current United Kingdom contribution to the international fund for agriculture development, and on current negotiations on future funding.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Since its establishment in 1977, the United Kingdom has committed some £47 million to IFAD, including £7 million to its special programme for sub-Saharan African countries affected by drought and desertification. Disbursements against these pledges total roughly £28 million to date. Negotiations for the third replenishment of IFAD's resources are in progress. A statement is awaited from OPEC donors on their intended level of support.

  Malawi
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the assistance offered to Malawi during the last three years and how it was used.

  Mr. Couchman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to Malawi.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  British bilateral aid to Malawi in the latest three years for which figures are available was as follows:

  £000

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Total

  14,008

  15,019

  24,868

  Projects

  3,134

  3,168

  2,342

  Aid and Trade Provision

  143

  87

  1,657

  11

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Programme Aid and Debt Relief

  3,153

  2,657

  7,573

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  1,092

  1,976

  5,478

  Technical Cooperation

  6,486

  7,131

  7,807

  Disaster Relief

  —

  —

  11

  Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the annual meeting of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I attended the annual consultative conference of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference (SADCC) in Luanda on 2 and 3 February. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, informed the House on 2 February, at column 333, I was able to announce continued British support for SADCC. Both SADCC member states and donor representatives considered the conference a success.

  Overseas Development Administration (Relocation)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is considering the relocation of further London-based posts with the Overseas Development Administration to the administration's offices in East Kilbride.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have recently decided that 15½ posts concerned with personnel issues and the engagement of consultants should be relocated from London to East Kilbride. I have at present no plans for the relocation of further London based posts, although the position will be kept under review.

  The Overseas Development Administration already has over 40 per cent. of its headquarters staff in East Kilbride and by the end of 1990 will have nearly 60 per cent. of its total staff outside London.

  Lomé IV
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current progress on the Lome IV negotiations.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Negotiations on a successor to the third Lome convention, which expires in February 1990, were opened formally in October last year. The first EC-ACP ministerial negotiating meeting, which I shall be attending, is in Brazzaville later this week.

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assistance he is giving to efforts to preserve the tropical rain forest in Brazil.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  We are supporting research in forest regeneration through the Maraca rain forest project. As I told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 19 January, we also support the efforts of the World Bank and other international organisations to strengthen the application of environmental considerations in Brazil.

  Colombia (Rural Development)
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to meet representatives of the Colombian Government to discuss rural development programmes involving alternative crops for areas where narcotics are grown.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I have no plans to do so. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs discussed the problem of drug control with Colombian Ministers and officials during his visit to Colombia last August. Her Majesty's Government are already assisting Colombia in the control of drugs.

  Aid Projects (Assessment)
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the field tests of the new manual to help project managers decide how much environmental assessment is required in the case of each aid project.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The draft manual was field tested by Overseas Development Administration staff on visits to a number of countries and was found to be a useful tool for helping to assess environmental concerns. Comments and suggestions for improvements in substance and format, from staff and from over 50 international bodies and non-governmental organisations, are being incorporated in the final version.

  Tanzania (Aid)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Ministers of the Tanzanian Government to discuss future aid projects in that country; and what projects were discussed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend visited Tanzania last September. He discussed a number of potential aid projects in the transport and natural resources sectors. He also signed an agreement for a further £6 million of project aid. He stressed the importance of Tanzania's economic reform programme in support of which Britain has pledged over £80 million in the last two years.

  Development Assistance
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to announce the 1988 level of United Kingdom official development assistance as a proportion of gross national product.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I hope to be able to provide this information before the end of June.

  Crown Agents
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Crown Agents holding and realisation board last met, and what was discussed.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Crown Agents holding and realisation board last met on 27 April 1988. At that
  13
  meeting, members noted a report on the status of CAHRB loans and investments and approved the annual accounts for 1987.

  Conservation
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he gives, when allocating aid, to projects which safeguard and provide for the development of natural resources.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Helping to develop natural resources has long been an important part of our aid programme, the prime aims of which are poverty alleviation and sustainable development. We are currently pursuing an initiative to commit more of our resources to forestry.

ODA

  Voluntary Agencies (Funding)
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase the financial support available to voluntary agencies for their long-term development work.

  Mr. Christ Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval, I propose to make a total of £16 million available to British voluntary agencies in 1989–90 under our joint funding scheme. This represents an increase of 43 per cent. on this year's allocation of £11·2 million. Our total support for the voluntary agencies last year came to more than £42 million, approximately half of which was spent on long-term development work. The increases I am announcing today are in recognition of the important role that many voluntary agencies play in promoting economic and social development at a grassroots level amongst some of the poorest communities in developing countries.

  AIDS
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what research his Department has commissioned into the socio-economic impact of AIDS on developing countries.

  Mr. Christ Patten
  My Department has commissioned three research projects into the socio-economic impact of AIDS in developing countries: "A review of sources on sexual behaviour"; "Traditional Health practitioners and the spread of the HIV virus"; and "Community coping mechanisms in circumstances of exceptional demographic change". In addition, we are funding a major research project on the demographic and economic impact of AIDS in developing countries.

EMPLOYMENT

  Restart
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment why the restart interview form in section 7 dealing with qualifications ignores Scottish educational qualifications.

  Mr. Lee
  Question 7 of the restart interview form contains a space in which details can be inserted of qualifications held which are not included on the form.
  14
  Scottish educational qualifications can be shown in this box. The hon. Member's point about Scottish educational qualifications will be considered when the form is reviewed.

  Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what number of adjudication officers were in post at the end of each reporting year since 1983; and what proportion of such officers had over 12 months' experience of adjudication work.

  Mr. Lee
  Three annual reports of the chief adjudication officer have been published, covering the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87. The information given in these reports is as follows:

  Year

  Adjudication officers in post

  1984–85

  334

  1985–86

  345

  1986–87

  505

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 26 January 1988 at column 159, showing 524 adjudication officers in post at that time.

  Information about the levels of experience amongst adjudication officers is not routinely collected.

  Child Employees
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he proposes to ratify International Labour Organisation convention No. 138 on the minimum age for the employment of children.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Government have no intention of introducing legislation to effect the changes that ratification of this convention would require.

  Benefit Office (Durham)
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people use the unemployment benefit office in Langley park, Durham, and with what frequency.

  Mr. Lee
  There are 245 people registered a s unemployed at Langley park part-time unemployment benefit office, of whom 185 attend fortnightly and 60 attend quarterly.

  International Labour Organisation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill of 3 February, what considerations of policy led to the conclusion that the amendments to legislation required to give further effect to the provisions of the International Labour Organisation convention No. 111 are unnecessary and undesirable.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The main consideration is the difference between United Kingdom law and the terms of the convention concerning the Civil Service and armed forces. Nationality rules for these two groups are specifically excluded from the scope of the Race Relations Act 1976.
  15
  The Government consider the maintenance of these rules essential to ensure the close identification of the personnel concerned with the United Kingdom.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Lindholme Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the present establishment figure for prisoners at Lindholme prison; what are the actual figures for prisoners held at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The certified normal accommodation at Her Majesty's prison Lindholme is 1,001. Two

  North Yorkshire Police—Richmond Division

  Main Police Stations

  Village Police Stations

  Northallerton Sub-Division

  Richmond Sub-Division

  Ripton Sub-Division

  Bedale

  Borrowby

  Askrigg

  Bagby

  Catterick Garrison

  Brompton

  Aysgarth

  Coxwood

  Legburn

  Crakehall

  Barton

  Dishforth

  Northallerton

  Great Broughton

  Catterick Village

  Kirkbymalzeard

  Richmond Divisional Headquarters

  Great Smeaton

  Colburn

  Kirklington

  Richmond Sub-Divisional Headquarters

  Hutton Rudby

  Eppleby

  Masham

  Ripon

  Leeming

  Gilling West

  North Stainley

  Scorton

  Norton on Swale

  Hawes

  Thornton le Moor

  Stokesley

  Osmotherley

  Hunton

  Topcliffe

  Thirsk

  Swainby

  Middleham

  Wath

  Middleton Tyas

  Redmine

  Reeth

  Details of the police stations which have opened and closed since 1979 are as follows:

  (i) In 1986, the police station at Great Ayton was closed and replaced with a police office;

  (ii) In 1988, the police house and office at Crathorne was closed and replaced with one at Hutton-Rudby;

  (iii) In the same year, the police station at Racecourse Lane, Northallerton was closed and replaced with one in Northallerton High Street; and a police office was opened at North Stainley.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the number of police employed to cover the Richmond division of the North Yorkshire police area annually from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Police strength at 31 December

  1979

  209

  1980

  190

  1981

  193

  1982

  193

  1983

  203

  1984

  205

  1985

  220

  1986

  215

  1987

  230

  1988

  226

  Immigration
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice or training his 16
  hundred and fifty of these places have been taken out of use for refurbishment and upgrading of physical security standards. The establishment's population on Tuesday 7 February was 723.

  North Yorkshire (Police)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the Official Report the village and main police stations in the Richmond division of the North Yorkshire police area in the latest year for which figures are available; and which have opened and closed since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The current list of main and village police stations is as follows:

  Department offers to airlines on United Kingdom immigration legislation and rules; and if he will encourage airlines to ensure that their staff at ports outwith the United Kingdom are made aware of current legislation and rules.

  Mr. Renton
  Advice and training is provided to airlines, on request, in the context of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. Our policy is to encourage carriers to take advantage of such advice and training which, subject to the payment of travelling and subsistence costs by the airline, extends to their staff outside the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for every week of 1988 the number of(a) notices served, (b) representations made, (c) cases where discretion was exercised, (d) demands made, (e) payments made and (f) payments waived under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987;

  (2) if he will list for each week in 1988 the number of persons and their nationality refused entry on arrival at (a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Dover.

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

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for every week in 1988 the average occupancy and the number of nights that accommodation was full at(a) Harmondsworth, (b) Annexe (building JA), (c) Queen's building, (d) Beehive and (e) Latchmere.

  Mr. Renton
  The available information is as follows:
  17

  Average occupancy figures with numbers of nights that accommodation was full in parenthesis

  Week ending

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Harmondsworth

  Annex (building JA)

  Queen's building

  Beehive

  Latchmere

  9 January 1988

  61·0

  (1)

  26·0

  (0)

  10·5

  (4)

  8·0

  (0)

  96

  (1)

  16 January 1988

  57·0

  (0)

  23·0

  (0)

  10·0

  (4)

  6·7

  (0)

  97

  (1)

  23 January 1988

  59·5

  (0)

  28·1

  (0)

  10·5

  (4)

  9·7

  (0)

  97

  (4)

  30 January 1988

  62·0

  (1)

  29·0

  (3)

  —

  8·4

  (0)

  97

  (3)

  6 February 1988

  60

  (0)

  29

  (1)

  —

  10·0

  (1)

  96

  (2)

  13 February 1988

  62

  (0)

  29

  (6)

  —

  14·0

  (7)

  97

  (5)

  20 February 1988

  62

  (0)

  29

  (4)

  —

  8·0

  (1)

  98

  (7)

  27 February 1988

  61

  (0)

  30

  (7)

  ——

  10

  (4)

  98

  (7)

  5 March 1988

  61

  (0)

  29

  (2)

  —

  12

  (0)

  93

  (0)

  12 March 1988

  57·4

  (1)

  28·7

  (2)

  —

  7·9

  (2)

  98

  (7)

  19 March 1988

  60·7

  (2)

  27·8

  (2)

  —

  10·4

  (3)

  97

  (6)

  26 March 1988

  57·8

  (4)

  29·4

  (5)

  —

  11

  (2)

  98

  (7)

  2 April 1988

  65

  (7)

  29·2

  (4)

  —

  11

  (2)

  98

  (7)

  9 April 1988

  63·5

  (2)

  30

  (6)

  —

  13

  (4)

  98

  (7)

  16 April 1988

  64·5

  (3)

  28·5

  (4)

  —

  14

  (7)

  96

  (1)

  23 April 1988

  64·5

  (3)

  28·5

  (4)

  —

  8

  (1)

  94

  (1)

  30 April 1988

  62

  (1)

  26

  (1)

  —

  8

  (1)

  98

  (7)

  7 May 1988

  61·7

  (1)

  15·8

  (0)

  —

  11

  (2)

  97

  (1)

  14 May 1988

  55·8

  (0)

  25·8

  (2)

  —

  11

  (2)

  96

  (2)

  21 May 1988

  56

  (0)

  26

  (2)

  —

  9

  (1)

  97

  (3)

  28 May 1988

  49

  (0)

  21

  (0)

  —

  7

  (1)

  95

  (1)

  4 June 1988

  55

  (0)

  27

  (1)

  —

  8

  (2)

  95

  (0)

  11 June 1988

  65

  (0)

  25

  (0)

  —

  12

  (5)

  93

  (0)

  18 June 1988

  63·1

  (1)

  26·8

  (0)

  —

  11

  (2)

  89

  (0)

  25 June 1988

  63

  (0)

  28

  (1)

  —

  13

  (5)

  93

  (0)

  2 July 1988

  59

  (0)

  27

  (I)

  —

  13

  (3)

  97

  (5)

  9 July 1988

  49

  (0)

  25

  (0)

  14

  (4)

  12

  (3)

  95

  (1)

  16 July 1988

  56

  (1)

  27

  (0)

  13

  (2)

  10

  0)

  96

  (2)

  23 July 1988

  62

  (0)

  26

  (1)

  15

  (4)

  10

  (2)

  96

  (2)

  30 July 1988

  59

  (0)

  24

  (0)

  12

  (3)

  11

  (2)

  94

  (1)

  6 August 1988

  62

  (1)

  26

  (0)

  15

  (6)

  8

  (0)

  90

  (0)

  13 August 1988

  58

  (1)

  31

  (3)

  14

  (5)

  12

  (2)

  71

  (0)

  20 August 1988

  61

  (1)

  28

  (4)

  14

  (5)

  7

  (0)

  60

  (0)

  27 August 1988

  56·3

  (0)

  25·7

  (1)

  12

  (2)

  23

  (7)

  63

  (0)

  3 September 1988

  60

  (1)

  26

  (0)

  12

  (1)

  11

  (2)

  84

  (0)

  10 September 1988

  58

  (0)

  25

  (1)

  14

  (4)

  13

  (4)

  89

  (0)

  17 September 1988

  58

  (0)

  27

  (1)

  13

  (4)

  14

  (6)

  92

  0)

  24 September 1988

  63·5

  (2)

  28

  (3)

  14·5

  (5)

  14

  (7)

  90

  (0)

  1 October 1988

  59

  (0)

  25

  (1)

  14

  (5)

  14

  (5)

  96

  (4)

  8 October 1988

  62

  (3)

  28

  (1)

  14·5

  (5)

  13

  (5)

  97

  (3)

  15 October 1988

  61

  (1)

  27

  (2)

  15

  (5)

  12

  (4)

  91

  (0)

  22 October 1988

  52

  (0)

  28

  (1)

  14

  (5)

  12

  (3)

  90

  (0)

  29 October 1988

  60

  (0)

  25

  (0)

  14

  (4)

  7

  (1)

  86

  (0)

  5 November 1988

  59

  (0)

  25

  (0)

  14

  (2)

  11

  (2)

  91

  (0)

  12 November 1988

  60

  (1)

  29

  (3)

  15

  (5)

  12

  (5)

  91

  (0)

  19 November 1988

  60

  (1)

  29

  (3)

  13

  (5)

  11

  (2)

  91

  (0)

  26 November 1988

  62

  (1)

  27

  (3)

  11

  (2)

  11

  (3)

  93

  (1)

  3 December 1988

  53

  (1)

  28

  (2)

  11

  (3)

  13

  (5)

  90

  (0)

  10 December 1988

  61

  (1)

  26

  (0)

  15

  (6)

  13

  (5)

  90

  (0)

  17 December 1988

  61·0

  (2)

  33·0

  (0)

  14·0

  (6)

  14·0

  (6)

  93

  (0)

  24 December 1988

  650

  (4)

  300

  (7)

  150

  (5)

  170

  (7)

  94

  (0)

  31 December 1988

  65·0

  (7)

  30·0

  (7)

  15·0

  (7)

  17·0

  (7)

  94

  (3)

  Note:—The Queen's Building detention accommodation was closed for refurbishment from 19 January 1988 until June 1988.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what record is maintained of applications made by persons arriving at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Dover claiming political asylum; what records are maintained as to the action taken on each request; whether records are maintained as to the initial destination of persons removed from the United Kingdom at the time of seeking asylum; and if such information is made available to (i) any other Government or agency within the European Economic Community and (ii) any other Government; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list for each week in 1988 (a) the number of persons arriving at (i) Heathrow, (ii) Gatwick and (iii) Dover and claiming asylum, (b) of which countries they were nationals and (c) how many were (1) refused leave to enter and removed, (2) refused leave to enter and
  18
  were detained, (3) refused leave to enter and granted temporary admission and (4) granted temporary admission pending a decision;

  (3) what information on persons seeking asylum in the United Kingdom is made available to Governments and agencies of (a) countries within the European Economic Community and (b) other countries; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what information on persons or groups of persons seeking (a) leave to enter the United Kingdom and (b) asylum in the United Kingdom is made available to Governments within the Trevi group; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what information is held on immediate action taken on persons seeking asylum within the United Kingdom; and to whom it is made available.
  19
  Mr. Renton
  Some information on applications for asylum is collected at Heathrow, Gatwick and Dover for inclusion in a weekly return providing management information for internal use. I will write to the hon. Member giving the numbers and nationalities of persons arriving at these ports and claiming asylum in each week in 1988.

  The limited information on outcomes of cases contained in the weekly returns is accurate only for the time at which the returns are compiled. It is not updated to take account of subsequent action and is not aggregated, since it would not give a meaningful picture. Information from the weekly returns is not made available systematically to any other Government or agency.

  Comprehensive published statistics on asylum applications and on outcomes are derived from the refugee index computer which is maintained centrally and includes details of all asylum applications made at ports, from within the United Kingdom and from abroad; however, full details of detention, temporary admission and removals are held only on individual files.

  In advance of the published statistics, provisional information on applications received and decisions taken is made available quarterly to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. These returns are produced from the refugee index. Copies are placed in the Library. Similar information is given quarterly to the European Community working group on immigration. Information is not sent to Governments within the Trevi group as such or to other countries or agencies.

  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each week in 1988 the number of passengers and of which country they were nationals arriving and claiming United Kingdom citizenship and who were refused entry or who were requested to submit to further examination at(a) Heathrow, (b) Gatwick and (c) Dover, in each case showing the action taken in respect of the passengers.

  Mr. Renton
  Information in the form requested has not been collected centrally since September 1988. Between 1 January and 3 September 1988, a total of 129 passengers claiming British citizenship on arrival were either refused entry or were required to submit to further examination.

  Catholic Marriage Advisory Council
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Government funds are currently allocated to the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council; and upon what conditions those funds are made available.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office grant in aid to the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council in 1988–89 is £121,910. One condition of the grant in aid is that it be used in support of the headquarters unit of the organisation in order to encourage voluntary work. The other conditions are standard for Government grants and seek to ensure probity and the effective, efficient and economic use of resources.

  Marion Gaima
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations he received with regard to the case of Marion Gaima; and how many replies or acknowledgements were sent.
  20
  Mr. Renton
  Just over 1,000 letters, plus a small number of petitions, have been received about this case. Replies have been sent to 85 Members of Parliament, Members of the House of Lords, and Members of the European Parliament; two letters from Members of Parliament, which were received recently, have not yet received replies. Some of the correspondence from members of the public registering support for Miss Gaima did not call for a specific reply. One hundred and fifty-three acknowledgements and 131 replies to other official correspondence have been sent so far. We hope to reach a decision on the case shortly, and at that stage replies will be sent to the remaining letters as necessary.

  Broadcasting (Deaf and Hard of Hearing People)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has received any representations on the White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s", regarding the provision of broadcasting services to Scottish viewers who are deaf or hard of hearing; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what discussions have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and representatives of deaf and hard of hearing people with regard to the White Paper, "Broadcasting in the '90s"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  We have received a number of representations in connection with our broadcasting proposals from hon. Members on behalf of constituents who are deaf or hard of hearing. Careful account will be taken of these comments and we would welcome any further comments during the consultation period which ends on 28 February.

  London Fire Brigade
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has regarding the steps taken by the London fire brigade to implement recommendations 30 and 31 of the Fennell report.

  Mr. John Patten
  I am informed by London fire brigade that it has reviewed and strengthened its instructions and training arrangements for command and control on the fireground at both junior and senior officer level. The brigade has also completed its review of protective clothing. As a result, a new fire tunic is currently being introduced; provision of the new tunic should be completed by the end of June. In addition, new improved gloves are being purchased, the delivery of which is expected before the end of March.

  Mr. Abdullah Hassan Yousef
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in the case of Mr. Abdullah Hassan Yousef following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Mr. Berrehab.

  Mr. Renton
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 8 February and I have subsequently arranged to meet him on 15 February.

  Prisons
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently being
  21
  held in each prison in England and Wales, and in total, and how many prison officers are currently in each prison in England and Wales, and in total.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 6 February 1989]: The latest available information is given in the table.

  Population of and prison officers in post in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales: by establishement

  Total population on 31 December 1988

  Total grade VI-VIII officers1on 1 January 1989

  Acklington

  425

  155

  Albany

  384

  321

  Aldington

  119

  47

  Ashford

  202

  116

  Ashwell

  365

  84

  Askham Grange

  109

  39

  Aylesbury

  280

  154

  Bedford

  316

  172

  Birmingham

  1,013

  408

  Blantyre House

  78

  42

  Blundeston

  410

  134

  Bristol

  566

  252

  Brixton

  1,048

  717

  Brockhill

  237

  110

  Buckley Hall

  73

  42

  Bullwood Hall

  147

  64

  Camp Hill

  494

  157

  Campsfield House

  58

  37

  Canterbury

  328

  171

  Cardiff

  465

  201

  Castington

  233

  116

  Channings Wood

  522

  131

  Chelmsford

  399

  206

  Coldingley

  297

  156

  Cookham Wood

  121

  52

  Dartmoor

  626

  217

  Deerbolt

  383

  134

  Dorchester

  180

  92

  Dover

  183

  95

  Drake Hall

  209

  64

  Durham Male

  1,027

  354

  Durham Female

  36

  26

  East Sutton Park

  84

  24

  Eastwood Park

  75

  41

  Erlestoke

  211

  85

  Everthorpe

  358

  104

  Exeter

  387

  199

  Featherstone

  538

  119

  Feltham

  666

  354

  Ford

  493

  72

  Foston Hall/Sudbury

  496

  81

  Frankland

  395

  384

  Full Sutton

  256

  370

  Garth

  336

  190

  Gartree

  309

  287

  Glen Parva

  604

  275

  Gloucester

  247

  128

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  429

  165

  Guys Marsh

  108

  69

  Haslar

  49

  39

  Hatfield

  170

  58

  Haverigg

  275

  98

  Hewell Grange

  116

  43

  Highpoint

  794

  187

  Hindley

  342

  140

  Hollesley Bay

  385

  183

  Holloway

  467

  286

  Hull

  651

  266

  I-1 untercombe/Finnamore Wood

  268

  84

  Kirkham

  537

  69

  Kirklevington

  90

  42

  Lancaster

  258

  86

  Latchmere House

  166

  69

  Leeds

  1,212

  384

  Leicester

  383

  216

  Lewes

  559

  197

  Leyhill

  370

  70

  Lincoln

  620

  246

  Lindholme

  702

  225

  Littlehey

  441

  130

  Liverpool

  1,323

  388

  Long Lartin

  401

  323

  Lowdham Grange

  222

  65

  Low Newton Male

  184

  88

  Low Newton Female

  30

  25

  Maidstone

  540

  175

  22

  Total populationon 31 December 1988

  Total grade VI-VIII officers1 on 1 January 1989

  Manchester

  1,652

  514

  Morton Hall

  155

  27

  The Mount

  324

  156

  New Hall

  92

  84

  Northallerton

  164

  74

  Northeye

  223

  70

  North Sea Camp

  89

  36

  Norwich

  588

  232

  Nottingham

  295

  119

  Onley

  402

  137

  Oxford

  206

  108

  Parkhurst

  235

  320

  Pentonville

  897

  277

  Portland

  480

  145

  Portsmouth

  143

  61

  Preston

  575

  159

  Pucklechurch Male

  103

  75

  Pucklechurch Female

  42

  42

  Ranby

  344

  100

  Reading

  257

  143

  Risley Male

  553

  392

  Risley Female

  110

  110

  Rochester

  325

  175

  Rudgate

  306

  54

  Send

  102

  44

  Shepton Mallet

  239

  73

  Shrewsbury

  290

  114

  Stafford

  798

  210

  Standford Hill

  387

  87

  Stocken

  294

  104

  Stoke Heath

  409

  119

  Styal

  268

  110

  Swaleside

  392

  168

  Swansea

  286

  144

  Swinfen Hall

  143

  93

  Thorn Cross

  198

  77

  Thorp Arch

  155

  59

  Usk/Prescoed

  129

  67

  The Verne

  594

  133

  Wakefield

  729

  421

  Wandsworth

  1,506

  440

  Wayland

  475

  123

  Wellingborough

  326

  110

  Werrington

  93

  42

  Wetherby

  139

  65

  Whatton

  164

  67

  Winchester

  596

  277

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1,083

  502

  Wymott

  726

  195

  Total

  47,961

  19,649

  1 Include in all discipline and specialist Grade VI-VIII prison officers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  International Organisations
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those international organisations on which his Department is represented and the total cost of these commitments.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Department is represented on a large number of international organisations and associated committees, and no central register of such bodies is maintained. Some of these give rise to identifiable membership costs, and the forecast total for these membership costs for 1988–89 is some £9 million. Nearly half of this total arises from membership of two organisations: these are the International Telecommunications Union and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

  Freight Forwarders
  Mr. Ashby
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many foreign-controlled freight forwarders were being used in 1988 by all Government Departments; and how many British ones were used.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not held centrally. My Department does not have co-ordinated arrangements for employing freight forwarders and is not a substantial user of their services.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list in the Official Report (a) the main post offices and (b) the sub-post offices in the Hambleton and Richmondshire areas, and in North Yorkshire as a whole in the latest year for which figures are available; and which have opened or closed since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  I have consulted the Post Office, which has supplied the following information. There are currently 18 main and sub-post offices in the Hambleton and Richmondshire areas, and 527 in North Yorkshire as a whole. There has been no change in the provision of main post offices in these areas since 1979. During the same period, two sub-offices have opened in North Yorkshire and 38 have closed. These sub-offices are as follows:

  Hambleton

  Opened—0

  Closed—3

  Chopgate

  Danby Wiske

  Londonderry

  Richmondshire

  Opened—0

  Closed—5

  Patrick Brompton

  Keid

  Harwood

  Thwaith

  Moulton

  North Yorkshire

  Opened—2

  Blight street

  Nether Poppleton

  Closed—30

  Fewston

  Kettlesing

  Merchanted vessels built overseas for United Kingdom registration By type of vessel

  Number

  Year

  Tanker

  Bulk carrier

  Cargo

  Supply vessels

  Container ship

  Other

  Total

  1979

  6

  1

  13

  6

  2

  6

  34

  1980

  12

  —

  7

  5

  —

  5

  30

  1981

  4

  10

  2

  —

  1

  3

  20

  1982

  4

  5

  5

  3

  1

  4

  22

  1983

  —

  1

  2

  2

  —

  5

  11

  1984

  —

  3

  2

  2

  —

  3

  11

  1985

  2

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  8

  1986

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  3

  7

  1987

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  6

  11988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1 First nine months.

  24

  Cromer street

  Heslington road, York

  Lawrence road, York

  Lineman road, York

  Popleton road, York

  Barlby road, Selby

  Askham Bryan

  Ellerton

  Hutton le Hole

  Poppleton

  Skipton Bridge

  Thornton-Le-Street

  Upsall

  East Cottingwith

  Thormanby

  Acklam

  Appleton-Le-Street

  Butlin's Holiday Camp (Filey)

  Scagglethorp

  Scampston

  West Lutton

  Wretton

  Yedingham

  Egton Bridge

  Fearby

  Appletreewick

  Conistone

  Burnside

  National Girobank
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when his Department expects to announce a buyer for National Girobank.

  Mr. Forth
  Discussions with potential purchasers are continuing and we have set no timetable for completing the sale.

  Shipbuilding
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many merchant vessels of more that 500 gross registered tonnage were built outwith the United Kingdom for United Kingdom shipping firms in each of the past 10 years; what types they were; and in which countries they were built.

  Mr. Atkins
  The information available, which relates to vessels built overseas for United Kingdom registration, is shown in the table.
  25

  By country of build

  Number

  Year

  Japan

  Denmark

  Netherlands

  Poland

  Germany

  Other

  Total

  1979

  17

  3

  —

  2

  2

  10

  34

  1980

  11

  6

  4

  —

  4

  5

  30

  1981

  6

  —

  5

  3

  —

  6

  20

  1982

  4

  2

  4

  2

  1

  9

  22

  1983

  1

  2

  —

  —

  1

  7

  11

  1984

  2

  —

  1

  —

  1

  7

  11

  1985

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  4

  8

  1986

  —

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  7

  1987

  1

  —

  —

  —

  3

  2

  6

  1988

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1 First nine months.

  Note:

  Only vessels of over 500 gross tonnes are included.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will press for international action to eliminate excessive shipbuilding credit arrangements and for the rationalisation of the world shipping industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's objective is to achieve a reduction in subsidies across the range of officially supported export credits on a multilateral basis. Any consequent reduction in shipbuilding credits should contribute to the rationalisation of world shipping.

  Fur and Fur Products
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly,Official Report, 12 January, column 733 (a) what were the species whence the fur and fur products were derived, and (b) what were the quantities of red fox pelts involved.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The species were:—

  mink

  rabbits and hares

  Persian, Astrakhan, Caracul and similar lambs

  Indian, Chinese, Mongolian and Tibetan lambs

  sea-lions. fur seals and other seals

  sea otters, nutria and beaver

  musk-rats and marmots

  wild felines

  sheep

  other animals.

  The quantities of red fox pelts are not identified separately in the "Statistics of Overseas Trade".

  Post Office Board (Bonuses)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been paid as profit-related bonuses to the chairman and members of the Post Office Board; and if he will list such payments.

  Mr. Forth
  In 1987–88 performance-related bonuses were paid to the chairman and members of the Post Office Board against a range of targets including profit. Profit-related payments amounted to £11,240.

  UK Goods
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he has taken to encourage people to purchase goods made in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Ministers repeatedly point out the advantages of buying United Kingdom goods where they 26
  are well designed, of good quality and competitively priced. My Department's policies are geared to helping businesses achieve this.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Industrial Development (Grants)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the terms of the package of grant assistance promoted by the Industrial Development Board, Northern Ireland, available to investors in Northern Ireland and the investment grants available in all other regions of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Viggers
  A wide range of support is available to companies and individual investors in Northern Ireland including:

  Accommodation:—Stocks of land and industrial premises for purchase or lease.

  Capital Grants:—Up to 50 per cent., depending on location within Northern Ireland, of the cost of new buildings, machinery and equipment whether purchased or leased.

  Employment Grants:—Paid on a per capita basis over, typically, 3–5 years.

  Rent Grants:—Paid for up to five years towards the cost of renting privately-owned industrial premises or property leased on commercial terms from the IDB.

  Interest Relief Grants:—In respect of loans obtained from the private sector.

  Loans:—Against approved security.

  Share Capital:—Through ordinary or preference shares, often with a buy-back option or redemption terms.

  Management Incentive Grants:—Paid to help companies overcome exceptional management recruitment problems.

  All of the above assistance is subject to certain limits and to constraints applied by the European Commission.

  In addition, eligible companies can apply for the following assistance:
  R and D Grants:—Up to 50 per cent. of expenditure on approved projects for research and development work related to new products or processes for manufacture or application in Northern Ireland.
  Marketing Development Grants:—Grant can amount to 40 per cent. of eligible marketing costs incurred in implementation of a marketing plan, up to a maximum of £60,000 in one year.
  Alternatively, companies may receive 40 per cent. of eligible identifiable costs, up to a maximum of £30,000, to help develop a strategic approach to their marketing planning and implementation.

  Grants available to industry in Great Britain are the
  responsibility of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry, Wales and Scotland.

  St. Vincent de Paul Society
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will raise the subject of support by the Republic of Ireland Government for the St. Vincent de Paul Society in Northern Ireland at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No. I do not regard this as a matter which falls within the scope of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

  Water Courses
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what circumstances a designated water course is de-designated; and in what state of maintenance such water courses are handed over to those landowners with riparian rights.

  Mr. Viggers
  Water courses are de-designated by the Northern Ireland Drainage Council in circumstances where their maintenance at public expense is no longer justified. Such water courses become the responsibility of the riparian landowners in their existing condition.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Finance
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those local authorities which have received allocations under the Estate Action funding scheme for 1988–89 and the proposals for 1989–90; and if he will indicate the figures in each case.

  Mr. Trippier
  At 23 January 1989, the following local authorities in the regions indicated had received allocations of extra resources under the Department's Estate Action programme for 1988–89.

  For 1989–90, local authorities are currently working up their detailed proposals and allocations have not yet been made.

  Figures

  North-West

  Allerdale

  451,000

  Barrow-in-Furness

  1,920,000

  Blackburn

  1,460,000

  Blackpool

  270,000

  Bolton

  17,000

  Bury

  100,000

  Chorley

  200,000

  Copeland

  387,000

  Hyndburn

  750,000

  Lancaster

  1,558,000

  Manchester

  3,816,000

  Oldham

  1,802,000

  Pendle

  1,001,000

  Preston

  1,919,855

  Rochdale

  5,634,000

  Rossendale

  1,671,000

  Salford

  4,716,932

  Stockport

  2,470,000

  Trafford

  264,000

  Vale Royal

  750,000

  Warrington

  751,701

  West Lancashire

  1,264,000

  Wigan

  3,586,042

  London

  Brent

  289,000

  Camden

  632,000

  28

  Figures

  Enfield

  790,000

  Greenwich

  4,490,690

  Hammersmith

  141,000

  Haringey

  1,585,000

  Islington

  850,000

  Kensington

  1,228,000

  Lewisham

  1,985,379

  Newham

  3,712,545

  Southwark

  3,257,500

  Tower Hamlets

  4,073,000

  Waltham Forest

  1,460,000

  Wandsworth

  781,000

  Westminster

  61,530

  East Midlands

  Bassetlaw

  193,581

  Chesterfield

  175,000

  Derby

  2,478,909

  High Peak

  152,000

  Leicester

  2,236,769

  Mansfield

  1,347,027

  Nottingham

  962,688

  South Holland

  422,000

  South Kesteven

  641,269

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  690,000

  Bromsgrove

  200,000

  Cannock

  881,000

  Coventry

  2,856,890

  Dudley

  1,733,500

  East Staffordshire

  433,000

  Redditch

  554,500

  Solihull

  644,560

  Stoke

  1,076,000

  Walsall

  1,292,000

  Wolverhampton

  714,000

  Worcester

  528,000

  Wyre Forest

  825,133

  Northern

  Chester-le-Street

  277,550

  Derwentside

  446,333

  Easington

  433,318

  Gateshead

  2,307,343

  Hartlepool

  1,446,107

  Langbaurgh

  474,000

  Middlesborough

  810,177

  Newcastle

  2,144,547

  North Tyneside

  569,723

  South Tyneside

  744,650

  Stockton

  472,000

  Sunderland

  1,224,654

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  927,358

  Bradford

  2,595,632

  Calderdale

  76,500

  Hull

  1,307,227

  Kirklees

  840,000

  Leeds

  820,825

  Sheffield

  5,780,357

  Wakefield

  730,161

  Merseyside

  Halton

  1,162,245

  Knowsley

  3,201,411

  Sefton

  617,048

  St. Helens

  1,330,633

  Wirral

  3,052,400

  South East

  Brighton

  343,000

  Spelthorne

  1,772,000

  Eastern

  Harlow

  222,000

  Milton Keynes

  430,000

  29

  Figures

  South West

  Salisbury

  264,000

  Geomorphological Surveys
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive the geomorphological surveys for(a) Ventnor and (b) Luccombe; and whether he intends to publish the findings.

  Mr. Chope
  I expect to receive a report of geomorphological studies for Luccombe in mid-March and for Ventnor in January 1990. The results will be published as soon as possible thereafter.

  Chief Officers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance he gives to local authorities on the extent to which more than one chief officer post should be held by the same individual.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Subject to a few statutory exceptions, local authorities are free to appoint such officers as they think necessary for the proper discharge of their functions. The Government propose in the Local Government and Housing Bill to require each council to appoint a head of its paid service, who will be responsible for advising the council on the organisation, appointment and proper management of the council's staff.

  Chandeliers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North of 1 February,Official Report, column 212 regarding chandeliers, when he anticipates (a) completing the research necessary and (b) forwarding his advice to the Select Committee.

  Mr. Chope
  I expect that the results will be available by Easter.

  Warrington and Runcorn New Town
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether details of changes in the cost-floor calculations have been made available for Warrington and Runcorn new town development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  No changes have yet been made. Section 122 of the Housing Act 1988 is to be brought into effect shortly.

  Brodsworth Hall
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his full day's itinerary during his recent visit to Brodsworth hall, near Doncaster, in South Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  I paid a private visit to Brodsworth hall on 4 January when passing through the area.

  Council House Sales (Torbay)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation in respect of 30
  the sale of council housing stock, in the light of Torbay council's decision to reject his advice to hold another ballot.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have no plans to do so.

  Yorkshire Water Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement as to what performance targets the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority achieved to receive a bonus for the year 1987–88; if he will list for the four previous years the annual bonus the chairman received; and if he will list by year for the past five years his basic salary.

  Mr. Moynihan
  In response to the first and second parts of the hon. Member's question I refer him to the answer I gave to his earlier question on 7 February at column 598.

  The basic salary of the chairman of the Yorkshire water authority in each of the past five years has been as follows:

  Year

  Salary (£)

  1 July–30 June

  1984–85

  26,093

  1985–86

  35,424

  1986–87

  37,548

  1987–88

  41,724

  1988–89 (up to 30 September 1988)

  45,900

  1988–89 (from 1 October 1988)

  51,000

  The chairman increased his time input on 1 July 1985 and has served on a full-time basis since 1 October 1988.

  Archaeology
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the current archaeological funding being paid to archaeological societies in the three counties of Yorkshire; what was the comparable figure(a) five and (b) 10 years ago; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for English Heritage.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the level of funding provided to English Heritage for rescue archaeology; if he has any proposals o increase funding; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: I am aware of no recent specific representations concerning the level of funding to English Heritage for rescue archaeology. It is for English Heritage to determine priorities within its overall resources.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to introduce legislation to enable him to serve an order prohibiting development on sites of archaeological significance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: Provision already exists, under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to schedule any monument which appears to him to be of national importance. The provisions of that Act also control

  31
  development by making it an offence for any person to execute or cause to execute specified works to a scheduled ancient monument without the written consent of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what archaeological mapping vertical aerial photographs have been taken in the three counties of Yorkshire; where these are stored; and what facilities are available for members of the public and students of archaeology to study them.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: An extensive collection of archaeological aerial photography material is held by the Royal Commission on historical monuments of England and is available for public consultation at the commission's London headquarters. I have asked the secretary to the commission to write to the hon. Member to explain what material is available on Yorkshire.

  Football Clubs (Membership Scheme)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from (a) Darlington football club, (b) Leeds United football club, (c) Middlesbrough football club and (d) York City football club concerning the proposed football identity card scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have not received any direct written representation from these football clubs. However, a letter from the chairman of Darlington football club to the Football League expressing concern about the proposed national membership scheme for football spectators was brought to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon). I have replied to him. The chairmen of Darlington, Leeds United and York City attended a meeting which the Secretary of State for the Environment and I held with Football League club chairmen in the House on 17 January.

  Water Pollution (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report the location and ownership of all boreholes on agricultural land in North Yorkshire that have been shut by his Department as a result of excess nitrates in the water supply.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I understand from the Yorkshire water authority that the only public water supply boreholes which it has closed on the grounds of high nitrate concentrations are Kirby Hill borehole, Boroughbridge, in 1985; Baldersby-St-James borehole, Baldersby, early in 1988.

  Use Classes Order
  Sir Neil Macfarlane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the workings of the Use Classes Order between his Department and planning authorities; and if he will make a statement on any callings currently before his Department.

  Mr. Howard
  We propose to commission research later this year on the impact of the Use Classes Order 1987, and I am interested to receive any relevant information about 32
  its effects. I cannot comment on individual planning applications called in for my right hon. Friend's decision; applications are normally called in only if they raise planning issues of more than local importance.

  Disconnections
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about disconnections from households with persons of pensionable age and young children.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has made representations on how customers, particularly the elderly and those with young children, could be further protected from any risk of disconnection of water supply for non-payment of bills. Since then the water industry has announced important additional customer safeguards in its proposed revised code of practice on disconnections, to which my hon. Friend the Minister for Water and Planning referred in his parliamentary answer of 9 February at columns 772–73.

  Private Sewers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any assessment of the potential costs to water authorities of being obliged to adopt private sewers connected to a public main in cases where the private sewers have proved to be defective, and no liability can be exercised upon the original construction.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No precise estimate of these costs would be practicable, but the results of a sample survey of private sewers in one water authority area suggest that if water authorities were required to adopt all private sewers, they would incur annual renewal costs, excluding normal maintenance, in the region of £75 million.

  67 Tufton Street
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the increase in the weekly rent paid by the Property Services Agency to Bourne Association Ltd. for the lease of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, which resulted from the new letting agreement, reached during August 1979, that the Property Services Agency should pay an increased rent of £10 per sq ft per week.

  Mr. Chope
  The rental charges paid by the PSA on leasehold buildings are determined on a strictly commercial, and therefore confidential, basis.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the unexpired term of the leasehold agreement made between the Property Services Agency and Bourne Association Ltd. for the rent of 67 Tufton street, Westminster, in August 1979 before new terms were negotiated.

  Mr. Chope
  There was no unexpired term of the leasehold agreement in August 1979. At that time, negotiations were in progress about the renewal of the previous lease which had expired in June that year.

  Homelessness
  Sir Antony Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Birmingham university research report on local authority policy and practice on homelessness will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Copies of the report have been placed in the Library today. It highlights the variation between authorities, both in how they interpret the legislation and in the efficiency and procedures they adopt in providing assistance to the homeless.

  The research shows that people applying to local authorities for help find the system bewildering and often feel they are kept in the dark about what is happening. Some authorities take an excessive time to process applications, which sometimes become entangled in long-drawn-out and complicated checking processes. Others deal with applicants quickly, thus reducing the time that families spend in temporary accommodation.

  In some cases, staff have genuine difficulties in interpreting the legislation. This can lead to uneven treatment, so that households with similar problems may be dealt with in a completely different way in one part of the country compared with another.

  There is also room for improvement in the allocation of permanent housing. Systems for allocating homes for homeless people are not always properly integrated into general allocation and waiting list systems, meaning that people in the greatest housing need sometimes have to wait longer in temporary accommodation. Nor is best use made of housing association properties, and there are problems in fitting in with their allocation systems.

  The report identifies a number of key areas in which local authorities could improve their performance to provide a more consistent and efficient service to the homeless. The research findings provide a valuable input into our current review of the homelessness legislation.

  New Housing (North-West)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average cost of building a new two-bedroom two-storey house in the north-west during 1987, and estimated for 1988 by (a) local authorities and (b) housing associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 3 February 1989] : Information provided by those local authorities in the north-west region which have so far made returns to the Department show that the average of tenders accepted for the building of new two-storey two-bedroom houses, including all works but excluding professional fees and land, was £17,546 in the financial year 1987–88 and £20,816 in the first half of the financial year 1988–89.

  Comparable information for housing associations is not available.

  Water
  Mr. Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) under what arrangements and for what purpose the Southern water authority has purchased shares in the Folkestone water company;

  (2) under what arrangements and for what purpose the Southern water authority has purchased shares in the Eastbourne water company;
  34
  (3) under what arrangements and for what purpose the Southern water authority has purchased shares in the West Kent water company;

  (4) under what arrangements and for what purpose the Southern water authority has purchased shares in the Mid Sussex water company.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 3 February 1989]: Southern water authority purchased shares in these companies under the powers available to it under the Water Act 1973. I understand that Southern hopes to use its shareholding to promote co-operation with the companies to reduce costs.

  Legionella
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the findings for the last time that the water systems of the Houses of Parliament were tested for legionella.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The cooling towers for the air conditioning system and the standby generator serving the underground car park are dosed regularly to minimise microbiological contamination, and the water quality is bacteriologically tested every month by an approved specialist contractor. The most recent sample, taken on 9 January 1989, was satisfactory. No separate routine testing is undertaken specifically for legionella alone.

  Landfill
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will revoke the licences of Colliers Industrial Waste in the light of evidence of unauthorised dumping of unsuitable waste at landfill sites.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: Revocation of any disposal licence is a matter for a waste disposal authority to decide under section 7(4) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring arrangements are in place to regulate the disposal of clinical wastes in private sector landfill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: Monitoring arrangements for the disposal of controlled waste, including clinical waste, are matters for waste disposal authorities under part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, with advice and guidance from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what representations he has received about arrangements for rebate of water charges and standing charges for those on low incomes.

  Mr. Cohn Moynihan
  We have had no recent formal representations from consumer groups about rebates on water charges for people on low incomes.

  Football Grounds (Minister's Visits)
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list (a) the Football League

  35
  grounds, and (b) the Football League matches visited by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State since his appointment in his capacity as the Minister with responsibility for sport.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 19 January 1989]: I have attended the following Football League matches since my appointment as Minister for Sport:

  Charlton Athletic v. Arsenal—3 October 1987

  Tottenham Hotspur v. Wimbledon—31 October 1987

  Charlton Athletic v. Chelsea—20 December 1987

  Manchester United v. Charlton—I January 1988

  36

  Luton Town v. Derby County—16 January 1988

  Charlton Athletic v. Liverpool—23 January 1988

  Hartlepool United v. Crewe Alexandra—27 February 1988

  Derby County v. Arsenal—26 March 1988

  Charlton Athletic v. Newcastle United—23 April 1988

  Millwall v. Newcastle United—19 November 1988

  Charlton Athletic v. Luton Town—14 January 1989

  I have also attended international matches and a
  number of matches between league clubs in other
  competitions.

  In addition I have visited the grounds of Reading FC, Liverpool FC and Aston Villa FC on non-match days.

ENERGY

  Wind Energy
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what progress has been made at the experimental wind turbine sites at (a) Langdon common, (b) Capel Cynon and (c) Cold Northcott.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  At the proposed experimental wind turbine site at Cape! Cynon, developments are proceeding and an anemometry mast is expected to be erected on the site before the end of this month. Negotiations are also proceeding between the CEGB and the landowners and it is expected that section 2 consent under the Electric Lighting Act 1909 will be sought later this year.

  At the Langdon common and Cold Northcott sites, negotiations are continuing between the CEGB, local landowners and other interested parties, in relation to planning permission.

  Uranium
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will set out his policy towards the flag-swapping and origin-swapping of uranium, with regard to the application of international safeguards; and if he is satisfied with the interpretation of flag and origin-swapping made by (a) the Euratom supply agency in Brussels and (b) the Euratom safeguards divison in Luxembourg.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We follow internationally accepted practices of accounting for nuclear material. These reflect the fact that conversion and fabrication of uranium oxide is a continuous process in which materials of different origin are routinely blended and lose their identity and that it is not therefore feasible to trace the origin of any particular batch of nuclear material. Moreover, exchanges of safeguards obligations (flag-swapping) do not affect the origin of nuclear material.

  The Euratom supply agency and the Euratom safeguards office do not accept origin swaps but accept that the established practice of exchanging safeguards obligations in respect of nuclear material is compatible with proper safeguards. The Government share this view.

  Wave Energy
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many navigation lights and radar reflectors could be mounted on an offshore wave device.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The number of navigation lights and radar reflectors which could be mounted on an offshore wave energy device would depend upon the size of the device.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the impact of the reported increase in Atlantic wave amplitudes on the economics of wave energy.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Any established trend in changes to Atlantic wave amplitudes would need to be taken into account when assessing the economics of wave energy. Wave conditions affect both device productivity and capital cost.
  38
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will list those contracts on wave energy research in which final signatures of the papers by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority officials was more than six months after the start of the contract and if he will give the length of delay in each instance;

  (2) if he will list the number and amounts of payments for work on wave energy in which the settlement of the invoice by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority was more than six months after the submission of the invoice; and if he will give the length of delay in each case.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) if he will explain his Department's concern about the risks which could be posed to shipping by offshore wave power devices;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the environmental problems associated with offshore wave devices on water of 100 m depth off the west coast of Scotland; and whether such devices would be visible from the shore.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The possible risks to shipping and environmental aspects including visual amenity of offshore wave energy devices were discussed in section 13 of the report on wave energy by the energy technology support unit, ETSU R26. This report was published in 1985 and copies were placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will compensate wave energy researchers for the consequences of any inaccurate comments by his officials concerning their work.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The wave energy programme was redirected as part of the Department of Energy's continuing assessment of the priorities for renewable research and development and no question of compensation arises.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what length would be required of the most productive type of offshore wave device, as identified by his Department's consultants in their report of June 1983 and by subsequent analysis of reliability by Dr. Taylor at ETSU, to generate electricity output equivalent to that of Sizewell B on the basis of (a) peak output and (b) mean annual output, on the assumption that Sizewell B will operate on a capacity factor equivalent to that of existing Central Electricity Generating Board nuclear plant.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  If such an offshore wave device could be developed and if such a comparison were meaningful the approximate lengths would be:

  (a) 25 km.

  (b) 50 km.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for East Lothian, 20 January,Official Report, column 343, if he will publish the recent correspondence between the manager of his Department's wave programme, Mr. Peter Davies, and Professor Salter, relating to the circulation of papers to the wave energy steering committee.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My Department is not aware of any recent correspondence between Mr. Peter Davies and Professor Salter.

  North Sea Oil
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy at what date he expects the North sea oil industry to be back to full production; what efforts he is taking to overcome the loss of output due to recent accidents; what measures he is taking to encourage the economic replacement of this lost production; what has been the cost to date to the Exchequer; what is the estimated total cost; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  The Government have created the conditions which encourage the exploration and development of our North sea. Despite low oil prices, commitment to new investment is at its highest level for more than four years, and exploration activity is currently at a record level. Up to the end of January production of some 9·5 million tonnes, worth some £670 million at today's prices, has been deferred as a result of the recent accidents. It is too early to say when all this production will be resumed and hence to estimate the final cost.

  CEGB (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will ask the Central Electricity Generating Board to list by location and type its total landholdings in the county of South Yorkshire to date.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member on 3 February at column 424.

  Hinkley Point
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, what policy considerations underlay his decision not to present evidence to the Hinkley Point C public inquiry on (a) plutonium production and end use, (b) radioactive waste management and (c) safeguarding of nuclear materials arising from Hinkley Point C, if built.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  My right hon. Friend made an official witness available to the Hinkley Point C inquiry to provide any necessary clarification of Government policy as set out in his answer of 17 December 1987 to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and in the White Paper "Privatising Electricity" (Cm. 322), in particular paragraphs 44–49. Such clarification therefore formed the basis of the departmental witness's proof of evidence.

  At the inquiry and in correspondence arising from his appearance, the departmental witness answered questions on a wide range of issues including on matters raised at (a) and (c) in the question.

  Radioactive waste management is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment on whose behalf evidence is being separately presented to the inquiry by an official witness from the Department of the Environment.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, if he will obtain a copy of the report by Bill Keepin and Gregory Kats entitled "Greenhouse Warning: A Rationale for Nuclear Power", for his Department's library; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department's library has made arrangements to obtain a copy of the report.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what were electricity prices for consumers of 40 MW/8,000 hours supply, 10 MW/6,000 hours supply and 4 MW/4,000 hours supply, expressed in pence/kWh, in each European Community country in each quarter of 1988;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the competitive position of United Kingdom electricity consumers of 40 MW/8,000 hours supply and 10 MW/6,000 hours supply, in relation to similar consumers in other European Community countries;

  (3) what is his policy with regard to future electricity price increases affecting United Kingdom consumers of 40 MW/8,000 hours supply and 10 MW/6,000 hours supply and the effect on the United Kingdom's competitive position.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department does not collate information in the form requested. The following table shows industrial electricity prices in the European Community for a range of consumption patterns. It shows that industrial electricity prices in England and Wales are in the mid-range of prices in the European Community. After privatisation large industrial consumers will be able to take advantage of the new competitive environment to purchase electricity from the cheapest available source.

  Prices in pence/k Wh as at I July 1988

  Maximum demand Load factor

  2·5MW

  10MW

  40 per cent.

  60 per cent.

  80 per cent.

  Belgium

  4·07

  3·09

  2·59

  Denmark

  2·38

  2·00

  1·71

  France

  3·72

  2·85

  2·57

  Germany

  6·23

  4·90

  4·34

  Greece

  4·46

  3·89

  3·42

  Ireland

  4·23

  3·47

  3·22

  Italy

  4·57

  3·23

  2·61

  Luxembourg

  3·96

  3·27

  2·90

  Netherlands

  3·14

  2·84

  2·55

  Portugal

  4·78

  4·02

  3·76

  Spain

  4·76

  4·35

  3·86

  England and Wales

  4·20

  3·61

  3·37

  Source International
  Electricity Prices Quarterly, Electricity Council, October 1988.

  Open University
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department obtained the two Open university documents which he agreed to procure in his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 12 February 1988, column 394; and what cost was incurred by his Department in their procurement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The Department's library acquired a copy of Open university research group report, "Reflections on Britain's Nuclear History, A conversation with Lord Minton" by David Lowry, in February 1988 at a cost of £9. Dr. Lowry's thesis, "Nuclear Powers—An Assessment of Nuclear Decision Making, 1932–1979, with Special Reference to the Anglo-American Atomic Relationship", is not commercially published. It is available on loan from the Open university and was borrowed by the Department's library in March 1988.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legal Profession (Green Paper)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the response to the Green Papers on the legal profession.

  The Attorney-General
  No. The papers are discussion documents, on which comments have been invited by 2 May 1989. These responses will be considered once the consultation period has elapsed.

  George Blake (Escape)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Attorney-General what discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions regarding the escape from prison of George Blake and the subsequent confessions by named individuals.

  The Attorney-General
  The matter is under investigation by the police at the request of the director, who is keeping me informed.

SCOTLAND

  Crossroad Attendant Schemes
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of crossroad attendant schemes payments and plans available in(a) August 1988, (b) January 1989 and (c) estimated for March 1989 or on similar dates for which information is readily available.

  Mr. Lang
  Comprehensive information on payments to crossroads care attendant schemes is not available. Some crossroads schemes participate in employment training as sub-contractors. Some previously participated in the community programme on the same basis. The Training Agency is not directly involved in funding arrangements between training managers and sub-contractors. However, under the community programme payments totalling £77,615 were made in August 1988 to nine crossroads schemes directly contracted to the Training Agency.

  Health boards and local authorities have powers to make grants to voluntary organisations such as crossroads but no records are held centrally of the sums paid by them to individual recipients.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the organisations which have made representations about the impact of employment training on voluntary sector projects.

  Mr. Lang
  The organisations which have made representations about the implications of employment training for voluntary sector projects are set out below:

  Aberdeen District Council

  Aberdeen Youth Information Centre

  Age Concern Scotland

  A & M Projects

  Apex Trust, Glasgow

  Bearsden and Milngavie District Council

  Beith Pre-School Nurseries

  Bonhill Community Organisation

  Brechin Day Centre

  Castlemilk Family Support Group

  42

  Central Edinburgh Resource Team

  Charities Experiment and Church Action with the Unemployed

  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

  Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes

  Dalmuir Day Centre

  Disablement Income Group

  Dumfries and District Women's Aid

  Dundee Association for Social Services

  Dundee District Council

  Dundee Liaison Committee on Homelessnes

  East Irvine Nursery Action Group

  Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce

  Edinburgh District Council

  Educational Institute of Scotland

  Erskine Community Council

  Forfar Day Centre

  George Inn Lane Centre

  Gingerbread

  Girvan Community Council

  Glasgow Council for Voluntary Services

  Glasgow District Council

  Glencryan Resource Centre, Cumbernauld

  Gourock Community Organisation

  Gourock Day Centre

  Hamilton Organisation Platform for the Elderly

  Heatsave

  Heatwise

  Heckling Shop, Irvine

  Inverurie Advice and Information Centre

  Kilbirnie Pre-School Nurseries

  Kilmacolm Day Centre

  Kinross Day Centres

  Kirriemuir Day Centre

  Liberton Area Handicapped Association

  Lochaber District Council

  Montrose Day Centre

  Murray Community Transport, East Kilbride

  National Association of Local Government Officers

  National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  Old Kilpatrick Community Council

  Open Door Club Lodging House, Glasgow

  Possilpark Anti Vandalism Project

  Renfrew District Council

  Renfrew District Disability Council

  Royston Youth Action Committee, Glasgow

  Scottish Association for Mental Health

  Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations

  Scottish Trades Union Congress

  Springburn Single Parent Association

  Standing Forum on Special Employment Measures

  Strathclyde Elderly Forum

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Tayside Services Liaison Committee on Alcohol

  Tidy Britain Group

  Training Services Ayrshire Ltd

  Transport and General Workers Union

  Wester Hailes Representative Council

  Whiteinch Day Centre

  Wintercare Scheme, Inverclyde

  Wishart Centre, Dundee

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide a breakdown of the unemployment statistics for Cunninghame, North constituency by local electoral division, or on another convenient basis.

  Mr. Lang
  On 8 December 1988 (the latest date for which information is available) the number of unemployed claimants in each electoral ward of the Cunninghame, North parliamentary constituency was as shown in the table below.
  43

  Ward

  Unemployed claimants

  Ardrossan North

  315

  Ardrossan South

  416

  Arran

  240

  Beith

  215

  Dalry

  217

  Fairlie, Skelmorlie and Cumbrae

  197

  Garnock East

  192

  Kilbirnie North

  229

  Kilbirnie South

  256

  Largs North

  239

  Largs South

  124

  Saltcoats East

  281

  Saltcoats North

  306

  South Beach

  352

  West Kilbride

  198

  Constituency Total

  3,777

  This information is available in the Library.

  Education Survey
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the terms of reference for the survey of parents' views on school education being carried out by the MVA consultancy; when it is expected to report; whether that report will be published in full; and what is the total cost of the operation to the Scottish Office.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The terms of reference for the market research survey of parents' views on school education in Scotland are to carry out a survey of parents' attitudes towards, and perceptions of, school education; and to ascertain parents' experience of, and opinions on, the education provided by the schools their children attend.

  The MVA consultancy is due to report in June 1989 and I envisage that the main findings would be made public.

  The cost of the survey is £121,715.

  Child Care Workers
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of his Department's appropriate grant aid budget has been allocated to the training of child care workers over the last five years to date.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Provision of social work services in Scotland is primarily a responsibility of local authorities. Information is not available on the level of expenditure incurred by local authorities in training child care workers.

  Over the last five years the Scottish Office has paid to voluntary social work agencies in the child care sector, training grants under section 9 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 totalling approximately £0·5 million and representing some 30 per cent. of the grant scheme budget. Section 9 expenditure in 1988–89 also includes the initial instalment of a grant of £60,000 annually for three years in the first instance awarded to the university of Dundee for the setting up of a programme of training for social workers handling child abuse cases.

  Caravan Sites
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of caravan sites not licensed by local authorities operated under the auspices of voluntary organisations in Scotland.
  44
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Thirty-eight sites are operated in Scotland by organisations holding certificates of exemption from the Secretary of State issued under paragraph 12 of the first schedule to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total number of caravan sites licensed under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by local authorities in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Health Boards (Press Releases)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether health boards must clear their press releases with his Department before release to the press.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No.

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the average waiting times at the Inverclyde royal hospital over the past five years for(a) hip and knee operations, (b) hernia operations, (c) cataract operations, (d) ear, nose and throat operations, (e) gynaecological operations and (f) varicose veins operations.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The table sets out the information requested for patients discharged from the hospital during the calendar years listed.

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital Mean Waiting Time in Days

  Specialty or Operation

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  (a) Hip and knee operations

  315·2

  295·6

  296·5

  170·8

  174·0

  (b) Hernia

  193·7

  274·1

  221·1

  334·5

  328·3

  (c) Cataract

  177·5

  211·1

  228·2

  220·4

  180·3

  (d) ENT

  117·3

  115·5

  108·5

  92·0

  105·9

  (e) Gynaecology

  100·5

  71·3

  53·1

  49·4

  57·6

  (f) varicose Veins

  480·9

  572·0

  692·7

  918·1

  1,003·0

  Consultants
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report the total number of consultants employed by the National Health Service in Scotland who also undertake private work in the specialties of ear, nose and throat, orthopaedics and obstetrics and gynaecology.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Hospital Building
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the building costs estimated and actual for hospitals started since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of all hospital developments are not held centrally as minor capital projects are delegated to health boards and the Department only keeps records of all projects over £1 million.

  The relevant information is detailed below:
  45

  Projects started since 1979

  £ million

  Total tender cost

  Total cost1

  Argyll and Clyde

  Dunoon and District General Hospital

  0·9

  1·0

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Biggart Hospital

  1·2

  1·2

  Borders

  Hay Lodge, Peebles

  2·3

  2·4

  Borders General, Huntlyburn

  23·7

  30·5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annan Hospital

  1·1

  1·l

  Fife

  Whytemans Brae, Kirkcaldy

  3·6

  5·6

  West Fife District General Hospital

  8·7

  10·5

  Forth Valley

  Bonnybridge

  3·3

  3·3

  Royal Scottish National Hospital

  2·4

  2·5

  Sauchie Hospital

  1·0

  1·2

  Falkirk Royal Infirmary

  7·9

  8·5

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  11·4

  18·1

  Greater Glasgow

  Stobhill Hospital, Glasgow

  1·5

  1·6

  Gartloch Hospital, Glasgow

  2·0

  2·2

  Leverndale Phase I

  4·6

  4·5

  Lennox Castle

  2·4

  2·6

  Highland

  Raigmore Hospital, Inverness

  17·2

  31·0

  Caithness Phase II

  7·3

  9·1

  Lanarkshire

  Kirklands Residential, Bothwell

  1·1

  1·0

  Kirklands Phase I

  1·9

  2·4

  Kirklands Phase I

  1·8

  2·3

  Lothian

  Astley Ainslie Hospital, Edinburgh

  1·6

  2·0

  Hermanflat Hospital, Haddington

  2·4

  2·7

  Royal Victoria Hospital, Edinburgh

  5·9

  7·0

  Western General Phase II

  7·4

  7·7

  Shetland

  Montfield Hospital

  2·3

  2·6

  Tayside

  Murray Royal, Perth

  0·9

  12

  Perth Royal Infirmary, geriatric assessment

  0·9

  1·4

  Royal Liff, Dundee

  1·0

  1·0

  1 The total column represents the most up-to-date information available. Building contracts lasting more than 2 years are subject to variation of price clauses; costs therefore increase in line with inflation in the building industry.

  Department of Registers
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has been any change in his policy with

  Table 1: Estimates and projections of the Scottish civilian labour force 1985–891 2

  thousands

  Mid-1985

  Mid-1986

  Mid-1987

  Mid-1988

  Mid-1989

  16 years and over

  Males

  1,419

  1,403

  1,418

  1,436

  1,435

  Females

  1,015

  1,008

  1,021

  1,044

  1,049

  Total

  2,434

  2,411

  2,439

  2,481

  2,484

  46
  respect to the conversion of the department of the registers for Scotland into an agency; and whether a date has been set for the establishment of such an agency.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The possibility that the department of the registers of Scotland might become a next steps agency remains under consideration. No date for its establishment as an agency has therefore been fixed.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an estimate of the number of people in Scotland with more than one job for 1975, 1979, 1983, 1986 and 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  The information available from the labour force surveys is given below.

  Persons in employment with second jobs

  Scotland

  Thousands

  1979

  33

  1983

  52

  1986

  47

  1987

  54

  These estimates are based on samples of some 5–6,000 private households in Scotland and are subject to substantial sampling error.

  The results of the 1988 survey are not yet available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide figures for each parliamentary constituency giving the retrospective estimates for unemployment for the second quarter of 1979, 1983 and 1986 calculated on a comparable basis to the current unemployment claimant count.

  Mr. Lang
  This information is not available.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give figures on(a) the estimated or projected size of the civilian labour force in Scotland, males and females aged 16 years or above, on a quarterly basis between mid-1985 and mid-1989 and (b) the recorded size of the civilian work force in Scotland, employees in employment, self-employed, participants in Government work-related trading schemes without contracts of employment, unemployed, on a quarterly basis between mid-1985 to the most recent date for which the information is available.

  Mr. Lang
  Estimates and projections of the civilian labour force in Scotland are available only at mid-year. Subject to this qualification information on(a) is set out in table 1 and on (b) in table 2. Considerable uncertainty surrounds estimates of labour force and employment growth, particularly at regional level. Revised estimates of employment growth await the results of the 1987 census of employment and the 1988 labour force survey later this year.
  47
  1The figures for 1985–1987 are estimates, and for 1988 and 1989 are projections by Department of Employment.

  2Estimates of the civilian labour force at the end of June each year are produced by combining activity rate estimates and projections with mid-year estimates and projections of the resident population of Scotland produced by the general register office. Activity rate estimates projections are based on sample estimates from the annual labour force surveys. All estimates are subject to sampling and other errors and although estimates are given to the nearest thousand, they are not accurate to this degree. Estimates for individual years must be treated with extreme caution.

  Table 2: Scottish civilian workforce and its constituent parts June 1985 to September 1988 (unadjusted for seasonal variation)

  thousands

  June 1985

  September 1985

  December 1985

  March 1986

  June 1986

  September 1986

  December 1986

  March 1987

  June 1987

  September 1987

  December 1987

  March 1988

  June 1988

  September 1988

  Employees in employment1

  1,904

  1,912

  1,897

  1,875

  1,887

  1,886

  1,874

  1,862

  1,886

  1,879

  1,877

  1,868

  1,888

  1,884

  Self employed2

  200

  201

  203

  204

  205

  202

  200

  197

  194

  196

  198

  200

  202

  203

  Work-related Government training programmes

  21

  24

  21

  22

  24

  28

  27

  30

  34

  40

  37

  40

  41

  45

  Civilian workforce in employment

  2,125

  2,137

  2,121

  2,100

  2,117

  2,116

  2,101

  2,089

  2,113

  2,115

  2,113

  2,108

  2,131

  2,132

  Unemployed3

  346

  356

  353

  359

  351

  363

  365

  364

  340

  333

  324

  316

  289

  285

  Civilian workforce

  2,471

  2,493

  2,474

  2,459

  2,468

  2,479

  2,466

  2,453

  2,453

  2,448

  2,437

  2,424

  2,420

  2,417

  1 Recent Department of Employment quarterly estimates of employees in employment are based upon the results of the 1984 Census of Employment and include an allowance based on the annual Labour Force Surveys to compensate for persistent undercounting in the regular quarterly sample surveys of employers. Individuals with two jobs as employees of different employers are counted twice. These estimates are subject to revision when subsequent information from the 1987 Census of Employment becomes available later this year.

  2 Estimates of the self-employed up to mid-1987 are based on the 1981 Census of Population and the results of the 1981, 1983, 1984, 1986 and 1987 Labour Force Surveys. The provisional estimates from September 1987 are based on the assumption that the average rate of increase between 1981 and 1987 has continued subsequently. The Scottish sample from the Labour Force Survey is small and results are subject to relatively large sampling errors. Estimates for recent quarters are subject to revision when information from the 1988 Labour Force Survey becomes available later this year.

  3 The unemployment figures are not adjusted for seasonal variation and do not allow for changes in the coverage of the unemployment statistics over the period.

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what action he intends to take to bring up to the standard required by the European Community the drinking water of Strathclyde regional council; and if he will will make a statement;

  (2) what action he intends to take to bring up to the European Community standard the public water supplies which are at present above the European Community recommended limits for aluminium, manganese, iron and lead;

  (3) what action he intends to take to reduce the aluminium content in the water supplied to consumers in Gourock/Linwool, and surrounding areas of Renfrew.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for the quality of public drinking water supplies lies with the water supply authorities, the regional and islands councils. Improvement works covering public water supplies which do not yet comply fully with the relevant EC directive (80/778/EEC) are in progress in Strathclyde region and elsewhere and programmes are reviewed regularly by the Scottish Development Department. Supply areas where the aluminium or lead standards may be exceeded are included in such programmes. The directive allows derogation for naturally occurring iron or manganese but in such cases water authorities make improvements whenever possible. Reduction of the aluminium content of supplies in the areas mentioned will be achieved by the introduction of new treatment works and refurbishment of others over the next few years. Water authorities were recently asked to provide updated programmes, with costs, of works required to bring all supplies up to EC standards.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will name the water reservoirs which supply drinking water in Scotland which at present cannot meet European Community standards;
  48
  (2) if he will name the water reservoirs in Scotland which supply drinking water and have received additional time to bring their water up to European Community required standards.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  All public water supply reservoirs in Scotland meet the requirements of the European Community directive (75/440/EEC) on the quality required of surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water. For details of water supplies which are the subject of derogation from, or delay in, compliance with the directive (80/778/EEC) relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption, I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quinn) on 7 February 1989, columns 555–59.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends to take in response to the report submitted to Strathclyde regional council water and sewerage committee on 24 January on the capital expenditure required to overcome the deficiencies regarding the aluminium parameters in accordance with the requirements of the European Community directive and the possibility of completing the necessary works within the requisite time scale of the present level of capital spending.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Development Department wrote on 31 January to all regional councils asking them to submit up-to-date programmes, with costs for individual schemes, of works to bring all supplies up to the standard required. Aluminium features prominently in these plans.

  The need for improvements is taken into account in setting the capital expenditure allocations for authorities each year. On 12 December 1988 I announced a 14 per cent. increase in the planned provision for capital expenditure on water and sewerage services in 1989–90. The allocations shortly to be announced will enable faster progress to be made.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of pupils in independent/non-maintained schools in each of the years 1979–80 to 1987–88, identifying separately those granted aid school pupils before 1984–85.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The numbers of pupils at September each year in independent and in grant aided schools are set out in the table below.

  Independent

  Grant aided

  1979

  16,364

  18,931

  1980

  16,044

  18,652

  1981

  15,831

  18,186

  1982

  15,160

  17,901

  1983

  14,977

  17,850

  1984

  15,396

  17,882

  1985

  31,899

  1,506

  1986

  32,218

  1,484

  1987

  32,510

  1,470

  1–2 Highers

  3–4 Highers

  5+ Highers

  Number

  per cent

  Number

  per cent

  Number

  per cent

  1982–83

  600

  17

  900

  24

  1,400

  38

  1983–84

  600

  18

  800

  24

  1,300

  38

  1984–85

  600

  17

  800

  23

  1,400

  38

  1985–86

  600

  16

  800

  22

  1,300

  37

  1986–87

  600

  16

  800

  20

  1,500

  38

  Departmental Offices (Public Meetings)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what guidelines exist concerning the use of public offices owned or occupied by his Department for the purposes of political meetings;

  (2) whether he authorised the meeting of Scottish Conservatives which took place at Dover house on Wednesday 8 February;

  (3) whether an account for the let of the building will be submitted to the Scottish Conservative party in respect of the meeting of Scottish Conservatives held at Dover house on Wednesday 8 February; and how much the let will cost.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I invited a number of Members of Parliament and Members of the European Parliament together with several others to meet my ministerial colleagues and myself on 8 February in Dover house. No departmental accommodation was made available to anyone and the question of a let does not arise.

  Lurcher's Gully
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his latest inquiry into Lurcher's Gully.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The last public local inquiry into proposals to expand skiing facilities at Cairngorm, including development at Lurcher's Gully, was held in 1982. Planning permission was subsequently refused. Highland regional council has published a consultative draft of a proposed new structure plan, which contains a proposed policy on development at Lurcher's Gully, but there is no proposal for such development before my right hon. and learned Friend at present.

  Employment Training
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of community 50
  Block grant under the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools Regulations ceased in 1985 when the schools concerned became independent.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of pupils in independent/non-maintained schools who obtained(a) six or more higher, (b) three or more higher and (c) one or more highers, and as a percentage of S4, S5, S6 in that section for each of the years 1982–83 to 1987–88 inclusive.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information relating to the number of pupils in each stage in independent schools is not available. Readily available information relating to the number and percentage of all school leavers from independent and grant-aided schools who obtained highers is shown in the table below.

  programme support projects which have (a) closed down as being unsuitable for transfer to employment training, (b) been transferred to employment training, (c) will close down at the end of the project life on 31 March because of their unsuitability for employment training and the total number of places involved in each category for the most recent date for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]The Government do not accept that former community programme projects were unsuitable for transfer to employment training. A number of community programme sponsors chose not to participate in employment training: no count was made of the number of projects and places affected. Nor was a count made of the number of former community programme projects that joined employment training or the places they offered. A count now could be made only at disproportionate cost. However, by the end of March 1989, 21 community programme projects which did not transfer to employment training and which have contracts which are not yet completed will close down. These projects currently provide 260 places.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Weapons (Transport)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will list details of all accidents on roads in Scotland involving a transporter vehicle carrying(a) nuclear warheads, (b) defence nuclear materials or (c) rocket or missile delivery vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There have been no incidents during the movement of nuclear warheads or defence nuclear materials in the United Kingdom which have given rise to a radiological risk to members of the public. For security reasons, however, I cannot comment on whether
  51
  nuclear weapons or defence nuclear materials are present in particular vehicles at particular times, and therefore I cannot comment on whether there have been any road accidents involving such vehicles. The Ministry of Defence has no record of any road accidents in Scotland involving transporter vehicles carring unarmed nuclear delivery vehicles.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to monitor the effects of noise from low-flying jets on expectant mothers.

  Mr. Neubert
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) on 23 January 1989 at column 450.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to reduce the number of low-flying jets over north Yorkshire.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Aircraft Noise
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will extend the area around RAF Leeming within which residents are able to claim compensation for aircraft noise.

  Mr. Neubert
  Later this year when two squadrons of Tornado aircraft are operational and the level of flying is representative of the eventual total station activity, a further full noise survey will be undertaken. If the results of this show that the occupants of additional homes in the vicinity of RAF Leeming are subject to the qualifying level of noise, arrangements will be made to extend the area of entitlement to noise insulation grants.

  Lockerbie Air Disaster
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the involvement of service personnel stationed at Catterick garrison in the clear-up operation in the wake of the Lockerbie air disaster.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Assistance from the Catterick garrison was provided by 29 Royal Army Medical Corps personnel from the Duchess of Kent military hospital, who deployed on 21 December 1988 and returned on 22 December, and by 70 personnel from the 1st Battalion, the Prince of Wales' Own Regiment, who deployed on 11 January to help with aircraft salvage and returned on 17 January.

  NHS Endurance
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the collision on 7 February between HMS Endurance and an iceberg, and the subsequent holing of that ship.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  At 16.10 GMT on 6 February 1989 HMS Endurance struck an iceberg while manoeuvring at low speed in very confined waters near Cape Scrymgeour in Antarctica. The ship suffered damage below the waterline which was quickly contained by temporary repairs carried out by the crew. There were no 52
  casualties and no pollution resulted from the accident. Subsequent examination has revealed that the damage may be more serious than initially thought. The ship is currently carrying out limited operations from Hope bay and will shortly be returned to the Falkland Islands for further examination and repair.

  Deployment (Europe)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of(a) British land forces, (b) British main battle tanks, (c) British armoured personnel carriers, (d) British anti-tank guided missile systems and (e) British tracked surface-to-air missile systems stationed on the mainland of Europe in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For numbers of land force personnel stationed on the mainland of Europe, I refer the hon. Member to page 24 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988, Part 2" (Cm. 344-II) which details the totals of European theatre ground forces in BAOR and Berlin since 1982. The balance of strengths to 1980 can be found on page 24 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1986 Part 2" (Cmnd. 9763-I). For numbers of equipments in use on 1 January 1988, I refer the hon. Member to pages 6, 10, 14 and 16 of the NATO publication "Conventional Forces in Europe: The Facts", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This document was first published on 25 November 1988 and comparable figures for earlier years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the effective strength of British land forces on the continent of Europe in 1987.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 17 January 1989 at column 130.

  BAOR (Training)
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of time spent by each British Army of the Rhine infantry battalion on(a) battalion level training and (b) company level training in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 17 January 1989, at columns 131–32. It is not possible to provide the detailed information requested for years prior to 1987 except at disproportionate cost. Such figures are, however, unlikely to differ significantly from those for 1987.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of time spent by each British Army of the Rhine armoured regiment on(a) regimental training and (b) squadron/troop training in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to him on 17 January 1989, at column 132. It is not possible to provide the detailed information requested for years prior to 1987 except at disproportionate cost. Such figures however, are unlikely to differ significantly from those for 1987.
  53
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of miles travelled annually by each British Army of the Rhine vehicle during training in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to derive the information requested from existing records.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of fuel consumed annually by each British Army of the Rhine vehicle during training in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not possible to identify fuel consumed specifically during training. The figures detailing the total British Army of the Rhine fuel consumption for all types of vehicles by financial year are as follows:

  Financial year

  Cubic Meters

  1979–80

  70,213

  1980–81

  64,422

  1981–82

  64,674

  1982–83

  68,839

  1983–84

  69,169

  1984–85

  175,735

  1985–86

  68,400

  1986–87

  66,768

  1987–88

  67,720

  1 The major reinforcement exercise, exercise Lionheart, was held during this financial year.

  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average amount of training ammunition used annually by(a) British Army of the Rhine infantry battalions and (b) British Army of the Rhine armoured regiments in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Armoured Personnel Carriers
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 17 January to the hon. Member for Knowsley, South,Official Report, column 130, what percentage of British armoured personnel carriers stationed on the mainland of Europe in 1987 were non-troop carrying vehicles.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Around one quarter of British armoured personnel carriers stationed on the mainland of Europe in 1987 were defined as non-troop carrying.

  Courts Martial
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British Army personnel were convicted by courts martial for offences of(a) absent without leave, (b) desertion, (c) assaults on superior officers, (d) possession of drugs and (e) disorderly behaviour within the last year for which figures are available.

  Mr Neubert
  During 1988 the following convictions from courts martial were recorded;

  Soldiers

  Officers

  Absent without leave

  137

  1

  Desertion

  31

  0

  Assaults

  13

  0

  54

  Soldiers

  Officers

  Possession of Drugs

  65

  0

  Disorderly

  3

  0

  Notes: A soldier convicted at a court-martial of more than one of the same category of offence would only count as one conviction. In the case of a soldier who faced court martial on more than one occasion for the same offence then each conviction would count. For a soldier convicted at a court-martial of more than one of the offences listed above, each offence would count. "Superior Officers" are taken to be those of superior rank to their assailant.

  Warstocks
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Army meets the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirements for the maintenance of warstocks.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) on 22 December 1988 at column 371.

  Firing Ranges
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the annual expenditure on clearing(a) the Okehampton range and (b) all Army firing ranges of ammunition after firing practice in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Neubert
  The clearance of ammunition from ranges is the responsibility of the units using the facilities together with the range commandant, who has overall responsibility for range safety. When necessary an explosive ordnance disposal unit will be called in to deal with specific items of live ammunition. Costs specific to range clearance are not separately recorded.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) anti-tank helicopters and (b) troop-carrying helicopters are permanently assigned to 24 Infantry brigade.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not our practice to give details of the number of operational aircraft in specific units or formations.

  Married Quarters (Woolwich)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made in the disposal of surplus married quarters in the Woolwich area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  We are currently negotiating the sale of 27 surplus married quarters in the Woolwich area to the London borough of Greenwich, and a further 67 quarters and civilian houses are expected to be offered for sale on the open market over the next 15 months. In addition, two civilian houses will be offered for sale to sitting tenants.

  Wormhoudt Massacre
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement setting out actions taken by his Department since April 1988 in respect of the Wormhoudt massacre, giving details of how many civil servants are working on the matter.
  55
  Mr. Neubert
  I have nothing to add to previous statements on the actions of my Department. A number of officials from different branches are working on this matter and we are giving full co-operation to the German authorities who have jurisdiction in the case.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any officials from the Federal Republic of Germany have visited his Department in respect of the inquiries into the Wormhoudt massacre.

  Mr. Neubert
  A formal invitation has been issued to the public prosecutor in Lubeck to visit this country and his reply is awaited.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number and proportion of one-parent families in receipt of family income supplement in April 1987 headed by (i) a female and (ii) a male head of household; and if he will give the equivalent data for the family credit, at the end of November 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information for one-parent families in receipt of family income supplement is as follows:

  Number

  Percentage

  i. Female head of household

  88,000

  96·0

  ii. Male head of household

  4,000

  4·0

  The equivalent information for family credit is not available.

  Redundancy (Benefit Appeals)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take following the number of successful appeals by ex-shipyard workers who had been denied benefit for 13 weeks after being made

  1985–861

  1986–872

  1988–893

  Department of Social Security local offices

  Number of claimants

  Amount paid£

  Number of £5 payments

  Amount paid£

  Number of claims refused

  Number of claims refused

  Accrington

  429

  8,535·56

  2,406

  12,030

  502

  3

  Ashton under Lyne

  677

  18,037·14

  4,749

  23,745

  467

  —

  Barrow

  262

  5,657·95

  3,340

  16,700

  735

  2

  Birkenhead North

  1,750

  56,685·65

  7,098

  35,490

  1,028

  —

  Birkenhead South

  867

  20,056·83

  4,007

  20,035

  657

  1

  Blackburn

  1,098

  36,890·45

  4,579

  22,895

  703

  —

  Bolton

  1,248

  35,672·03

  5,702

  28,510

  1,645

  —

  Burnley

  1,072

  27,332·81

  6,709

  33,545

  1,093

  —

  Bury

  463

  11,536·25

  7,256

  36,280

  619

  —

  Buxton

  102

  2,089·93

  1,343

  6,715

  267

  —

  Carlisle

  277

  5,651·64

  2,743

  13,715

  679

  —

  Chester

  763

  19,199·82

  3,414

  17,070

  723

  1

  Crewe

  1,012

  25,260·35

  4,603

  23,015

  1,052

  —

  Ellesmere Port

  967

  27,277·75

  2,234

  11,170

  440

  —

  Farnworth

  323

  9,097·51

  5,125

  25,625

  902

  1

  Fylde North

  1,090

  27,106·06

  5,861

  29,305

  492

  3

  Fylde South

  382

  9,715·83

  2,251

  11,255

  289

  —

  Hyde

  765

  19,987·69

  5,281

  26,405

  799

  —

  Kendal

  64

  1,462·82

  968

  4,840

  127

  —

  Lancaster

  598

  15,809·26

  3,583

  17,915

  633

  1

  Leigh

  665

  17,430·85

  4,486

  22,430

  740

  12

  Liverpool:

  56
  redundant, in respect of workers in other trades who have been made redundant in similar circumstances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The decision of the independent adjudication authority in relation to a redundant shipyard worker relates specifically to that particular worker and his terms of redundancy. This decision has implications for other British Shipbuilders workers whose circumstances were identical, and we have taken steps to bring this to their attention.

  The decision has no direct effect on workers made redundant in other industries.

  Industrial Deafness
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each year from 1979, the numbers of appeals from residents in Derbyshire concerning industrial deafness that have been considered by medical appeals tribunals, and the annual success rates of such appeals.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants in the north-west of England and each of the metropolitan boroughs inside the north-west were paid under the cold weather payments scheme for the last five years; how much benefit has been paid in each of the last five years; and how many claims were refused.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not collected separately for metropolitan boroughs. The table shows the information for each local office in the Department's north-west region for the winters of 1985–86 and 1986–87.

  No cold weather payments were made by those offices in the winters of 1984–85 and 1987–88 nor has the trigger temperature (an average of 0 deg. C. over a seven-day period) been reached in the north-west so far this winter.
  57

  1985–861

  1986–872

  1988–893

  Department of Social Security local offices

  Number of claimants

  Amount paid£

  Number of £5 payments made

  Amount paid£

  Number of claims refused

  Number of claims refused

  Belle Vale

  1,359

  31,527·53

  6,135

  30,675

  619

  —

  Bootle

  958

  26,190·26

  6,556

  32,780

  825

  1

  Breckfield

  1,242

  37,904·06

  5,796

  28,980

  1,090

  —

  City

  862

  22,668·39

  4,109

  20,545

  324

  —

  Crosby

  773

  24,339·32

  4,732

  23,660

  661

  —

  Garston

  537

  17,200·37

  3,714

  18,570

  534

  —

  Huyton

  1,129

  36,292·10

  7,560

  37,800

  865

  5

  Kirkby

  2,801

  85,462·72

  8,470

  42,350

  1,336

  —

  Norris Green

  1,043

  35,251·65

  2,784

  13,920

  761

  —

  Toxteth

  1,225

  30,022·44

  9,276

  46,380

  674

  —

  Edgehill

  410

  10,655·45

  2,926

  14,630

  687

  —

  West Derby

  950

  33,159·44

  3,814

  19,070

  580

  —

  Macclesfield

  241

  6,975·00

  1,569

  7,845

  277

  —

  Manchester:

  Central

  241

  8,093·77

  1,700

  8,500

  350

  —

  Cheetham

  695

  24,330·33

  4,749

  23,745

  1,192

  —

  Chorlton

  413

  18,257·00

  2,224

  11,120

  323

  1

  Failsworth

  1,015

  31,247·75

  5,642

  28,210

  1,245

  —

  Longsight

  422

  13,118·85

  3,715

  18,575

  751

  —

  Middleton

  917

  26,263·70

  3,395

  16,975

  1,020

  —

  Openshaw

  377

  9,204·40

  4,671

  23,355

  719

  3

  Rusholme

  355

  3,911·83

  3,362

  16,810

  446

  —

  Sale

  1,188

  36,707·47

  5,072

  25,360

  1,169

  1

  Wythenshawe

  1,471

  63,054·91

  7,154

  35,770

  1,587

  —

  Northwich

  640

  18,655·60

  2,626

  13,130

  618

  —

  Oldham

  618

  21,020·26

  5,569

  27,845

  1,479

  —

  Penrith

  136

  3,646·92

  654

  3,270

  94

  1

  Preston North

  544

  11,958·55

  4,222

  21,110

  487

  —

  Preston South

  364

  10,273·30

  3,533

  17,665

  430

  —

  Rochdale

  1,106

  25,078·26

  4,960

  24,800

  1,074

  —

  Rossendale

  257

  7,300·41

  2,022

  10,110

  401

  —

  Salford North

  727

  24,699·78

  6,358

  31,790

  1,932

  6

  Salford South

  532

  15,253·97

  3,944

  19,720

  759

  —

  Skelmersdale

  355

  9,081·44

  3,110

  15,550

  428

  —

  Southport

  371

  7,841·02

  2,517

  12,585

  420

  —

  St Helens

  2,290

  49,553·00

  7,557

  37,785

  1,600

  —

  Stockport North

  844

  27,663·24

  4,023

  20,115

  841

  —

  Stockport South

  883

  32,426·03

  3,677

  18,385

  536

  —

  Wallasey

  1,341

  46,500·00

  5,423

  27,115

  834

  2

  Warrington

  1,362

  32,315·81

  8,951

  44,755

  1,141

  —

  Whitehaven

  913

  25,080·00

  2,360

  11,800

  536

  —

  Widnes

  1,891

  49,040·36

  6,117

  30,585

  1,210

  8

  Wigan

  1,375

  26,766·00

  8,389

  41,945

  1,489

  2

  Wilmslow

  352

  8,001·13

  1,000

  5,000

  245

  1

  Workington

  240

  6,317·68

  2,817

  14,085

  353

  —

  Total

  52,639

  1,490,805·68

  286,692

  1,433,460

  49,534

  55

  1 The number of claims refused is not known·

  2 It is estimated that 143,000 claimants received payment·

  3 Details of the number of claims refused in 1984–85 and 1987–88 are not available·

  Benefit Payments (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for each benefit office in South Yorkshire the number of people in receipt of unemployment benefit for(a) less than two weeks, (b) between two weeks and six months and (c) for over six months, at the latest available date; and what are the comparable figures for 1979 as a percentage of (a), (b) and (c).

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is not available for individual benefit offices.

  War Pensioners (Housing Benefit)
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many district and borough councils operate a disregard in excess of £5 a week for war pensioners when calculating entitlement to housing benefit; and what rate of weekly disregard is applied by each of those councils.
  58
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Local schemes for disregarding war pensions in excess of the statutory £5 are entirely at the discretion of individual authorities.

  The following authorities operate such schemes, but I regret that information on the extent to which individual
  schemes enhance the statutory disregard is not available.

  Local authorities operating a local scheme

  Aberdeen

  Adur

  Amber Valley

  Angus

  Annandale and Eskdale

  Argyll-Bute

  Ashfield

  Aylesbury Vale

  Badenoch

  Banff and Buchan

  Barking

  Barnet

  Basingstoke

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  Berwickshire

  59

  Bexley

  Birmingham

  Blaby

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Borders

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bracknell

  Bradford

  Braintree

  Breckland

  Brent

  Brentwood

  Brighton

  Bromley

  Broxbourne

  Broxtowe

  Burnley

  Bury

  Caithness

  Calderdale

  Cambridge

  Camden

  Canterbury

  Cardiff

  Carlisle

  Castle Point

  Central

  Ceredigion

  Charnwood

  Chelmsford

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Chiltern

  Chorley

  Christchurch

  Clackmannan

  Clydebank

  Clydesdale

  Congleton

  Corby

  Coventry

  Craven

  Crawley

  Crawley New Town

  Crewe and Nantwich

  Cumbernauld

  Cumbernauld Development Corporation

  Cumnock and Doon

  Cunninghame

  Dacorum

  Darlington

  Dartford

  Daventry

  Delyn

  Derby

  Doncaster

  Dover

  Dudley

  Dumbarton

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Durham

  Dwyfor

  Ealing

  East Cambridgeshire

  East Devon

  East Hampshire

  East Hertfordshire

  East Kilbride

  East Kilbride Development Corporation

  East Lothian

  East Staffordshire

  Eastleigh

  Eastwood

  Edinburgh

  Ellesmere Port

  Elmbridge

  60

  Enfield

  Epsom and Ewell

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Exeter

  Falkirk

  Fareham

  Fenland

  Fife

  Forest of Dean

  Gedling

  Glanford

  Glasgow

  Glenrothes

  Gloucester

  Gordon

  Gosport

  Great Yarmouth

  Guildford

  Hackney

  Hambleton

  Hamilton

  Hammersmith

  Harborough

  Haringey

  Harlow

  Harrow

  Hart

  Hartlepool

  Havant

  Havering

  Hereford

  Hertsmere

  High Peak

  Highlandv

  Hillingdon

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  Horsham

  Hounslow

  Huntingdon

  Inverclyde

  Islington

  Kennet

  Kilmarnock

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Kingswood

  Kirkcaldy

  Kirklees

  Knowsley

  Kyle and Carrick

  Lambeth

  Lancaster

  Langbaurgh

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lewisham

  Lincoln

  Livingston

  Lliw Valley

  Lochaber

  Lothian

  Luton

  Macclesfield

  Maidstone

  Maldon

  Medina

  Meirionnydd

  Mendip

  Merton

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Middlesbrough

  Midlothian

  Milton Keynes

  Mole Valley

  Monklands

  Montgomery

  Moray

  Motherwell

  Nairn

  Neath

  61

  New Forest

  Newark

  Newbury

  Newhamv

  Newport

  Nithsdale

  North Bedfordshire

  North Cornwall

  North Dorset

  North East Fife

  North Hertfordshire

  North Kesteven

  North Shropshire

  North Tyneside

  North West Leicester

  North Wiltshire

  Northampton

  Nottingham

  Oadby and Wigston

  Ogwr

  Oldham

  Orkney

  Penwith

  Perth and Kinross

  Peterborough

  Peterborough Development Corporation

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Port Talbot

  Portsmouth

  Radnor

  Redditch

  Reigate and Banstead

  Renfrew

  Rhondda

  Rhuddlan

  Ribble Valley

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  Richmondshire

  Ross and Cromarty

  Rossendale

  Rother

  Roxburgh

  Rugby

  Runnymede

  Rushcliffe

  Ryedale

  Salford

  Sandwell

  Scarborough

  Scottish Special Housing Association

  Sedgefield

  Sefton

  Selby

  Shepway

  Shetland

  Skye and Lochalsh

  Slough

  Solihull

  South Bedfordshire

  South Buckinghamshire

  South Cambridgeshire

  South Holland

  South Lakeland

  South Norfolk

  South Northampton

  South Ribble

  South Staffordshire

  South Tyneside

  South Wight

  Southampton

  Southend on Sea

  Southwark

  Spelthorne

  St. Helens

  Staffordshire Moorlands

  Stevenage

  Stewartry

  Stirling

  Stockton on Tees

  62

  Stratford-on-Avon

  Strathclyde

  Strathkelvin

  Stroud

  Surrey Heath

  Sutherland

  Sutton

  Swale

  Swansea

  Tameside

  Tandridge

  Tayside

  Tendring

  Test Valley

  Tewkesbury

  Three Rivers

  Thurrock

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Tower Hamlets

  Tunbridge Wells

  Tweeddale

  Vale of Glamorgan

  Vale of White Horse

  Vale Royal

  Wakefield

  Walsall

  Waltham Forest

  Wandsworth

  Watford

  Waverley

  Wealdon

  Welwyn Hatfield

  West Derbyshire

  West Lothian

  West Norfolk

  West Somerset

  West Wiltshire

  Western Isles

  Westminster

  Weymouth and Portland

  Wigan

  Wigtown

  Wimborne

  Winchesterv

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wirral

  Woking

  Wokingham

  Wolverhampton

  Woodspring

  Worthing

  Wycombe

  York

  Total: 308

  Source Based on 1988 returns provided by 474 of the 483 local authorities in Great Britain.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether those in receipt of a war pension which prior to the April 1988 social security changes was disregarded in the calculation of housing benefit(a) were, and (b) are entitled to transitional protection; what rights of appeal are open to those pensioners so affected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The housing benefit transitional payments scheme is intended to provide help to vulnerable groups of claimants who experienced reductions in their housing benefit as a result of changes introduced by the Government in April 1988. Those in receipt of a war pension are eligible to receive help in the same way as all other applicants except that transitional payments do not cover losses of housing benefit incurred as a result of a local authority limiting the scope of its discretionary scheme in April 1988.

  The statutory disregard on war pensions in the housing benefit scheme was increased at the time of the April

  63
  reforms from £4 to £5 a week and also local authorities retained the right to provide additional help for war pension recipients should they wish to do so. War pension recipients are able to request reviews of their awards of transitional protection by a more senior officer in the same way as all other applicants.

  Adjudication Officers
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many adjudication officers were in post at the end of each reporting year since 1983; and what proportion of such officers had over 12 months' experience of such work.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Statistics are not collected on the information requested. It is regretted therefore that the information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to review the procedure for assessing the eligibility of children to mobility allowance; and will he make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be considering the whole structure of the mobility allowance scheme in the context of the findings of the OPCS disability surveys.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he has any plans to increase the age limit of below 66 years for people claiming mobility allowance;

  (2) if he has any plans to increase the mobility allowance age ceiling of 75 years.

  Mr. Scott
  We shall be considering the age limits for mobility allowance in the context of the findings of the OPCS disability surveys, but, as an interim measure, we are proposing the extension of the upper age limit from 75 to 80 in the Social Security Bill currently before the House.

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Greenock and Port Glasgow and (b) Strathclyde have (i) claimed and (ii) received a crisis loan from the social fund.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Such information is available in the Library.

  Pensions
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on the extent to which employers should offer their staff an occupational pension scheme or a suitable alternative.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  It is our policy to encourage employers to set up occupational pension schemes so that their employees will have the widest possible range of options from which to choose the most appropriate means of providing for their retirement. The changes brought about last year as a result of the Social Security Act 1986 made it easier for employers to use their occupational pension schemes for contracting out of the state earnings-related pension scheme (SERPS).

  Young People in Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the situation of young persons leaving care during the period since the April 1988 changes in social security provisions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have received a number of representations on this subject. Most recently my right hon. Friend met with my noble Friend the Baroness Faithfull and representatives of various organisations involved with young people. In addition I have met with representatives of the Church of England Children's Society and officials have met with representatives of the Association of County Councils and the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the new take-up figures for income-related benefits.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) on 8 February at column 713.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of potential recipients of child benefit earn more than the average wage; and if he will provide the statistical details on which his calculation is arrived.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Among those families who stand to gain from an increase in child benefit (because they do not receive any income-related benefit) around 70 per cent. have incomes above average earnings. I am writing to the hon. Member giving details of the calculation.

  War Widows
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the annual cost of making an ex gratia weekly payment of(a) £10, (b) £20, (c) £30, (d) £40 and (e) £50 to pre-1973 war widows; and what that cost would be at current values in each of the next 10 years assuming an annual increase of 10 per cent. in the current annual death rate of such widows.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Based on the latest information available about the number and projected numbers of pre-1973 war widows, which is subject to considerable uncertainty, the estimated gross costs (excluding reductions in entitlement to income-related benefits) rounded to the nearest £1 million are as follows:

  £ million

  Ex-gratia weekly payment of

  £10

  £20

  £30

  £40

  £50

  1989

  28

  57

  85

  113

  141

  1990

  26

  52

  78

  104

  129

  1991

  25

  49

  74

  98

  123

  1992

  24

  47

  71

  94

  118

  1993

  22

  45

  67

  89

  111

  1994

  21

  42

  64

  85

  106

  1995

  20

  40

  60

  80

  100

  1996

  19

  38

  57

  76

  95

  65

  Ex-gratia weekly payment of

  £10

  £20

  £30

  £40

  £50

  1997

  18

  36

  54

  72

  90

  1998

  17

  34

  51

  68

  84

  1999

  16

  32

  48

  63

  79

  The estimated projected number of widows on which the costs are based takes into account the mortality rates of war widows.

HEALTH

  Emergency Provision
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the current projected National Health Service bed requirement for armed forces casualties arising from future war in Europe;

  (2) what recent steps he has taken to assess the adequacy of existing arrangements for the reception by the National Health Service of armed forces casualties arising from any future war in Europe.

  Mr. Freeman
  The projected workload for the National Health Service in the event of war in Europe is the subject of continuing joint civil/military medical planning between officials of the Department, the Minister of Defence and Health Service emergency planning staff. Details of military casualty estimates are classified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of his guidance to the National Health Service on stockpiling medical supplies for emergencies and war in the Library.

  Mr. Freeman
  As indicated at paragraph 3.14 of health circular HC(88)31, "Emergency Planning in the NHS: Health Service Responsibilities in Civil Defence," possible arrangements for stockpiling against emergencies—in addition to existing holdings—taking account of shelf life, location and transport are currently being examined with a view to rationalisation and the issue of further guidance. Officials will report when details have been fully worked out.

  Trent Regional Health Authority (Nurses)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the last five years for each hospital in each area health authority in the Trent regional health authority, the number of nurses engaged in educational medicine and the care of children.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally. I therefore suggest that the hon. Member contact the chairman of Trent regional health authority for an answer to his question.

  Military Exercises
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 20 June 1988,Official Report, column 415, if he will provide details and costs of the National Health Service participation in the military home defence exercises Eastern Shield, Capital Guard, Drake's Drum, Autumn Tiger, Northern Crusade, Western Encounter, Triple Crown and Strong Link.
  66
  Mr. Freeman
  Certain NHS authorities participated to a limited extent and on a voluntary basis in some of these exercises, Participation mainly involved ambulance services, some hospital accident and emergency departments and emergency planning staff. The costs were contained within NHS budgets. The exercises provided health authorities with useful insight into NHS civil defence planning problems as well as valuable major accident practice.

  Legionnaire's Disease
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include Legionnaire's disease as a notifiable infectious disease.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is already an adequate surveillance programme organised by the communicable disease surveillance centre whereby cases of legionnaire's disease are reported to them.

  The list of notifiable diseases is kept actively under review.

  Control of Diseases Act
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many outstanding applications there are by local authorities under section 16 of the Control of Diseases Act awaiting his approval.

  Mr. Freeman
  One, from Lambeth borough council in respect of legionnaire's disease, which is being considered.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effect on babies of water supplies containing levels of aluminium above the level provided for in EEC directives.

  Mr. Freeman
  No disease is known to be caused in babies by aluminium present in the public water supply in the United Kingdom from natural sources or as a result of the normal use of aluminium compounds in water treatment. Gross contamination of water with aluminium sulphate renders the water unpalatable and would cause milk feeds prepared with this water to coagulate. Such water, if drunk, would be expected to cause vomiting and diarrhoea.

  Hampstead and Haringey Health Authorities
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the initial paper on the consultation into the merger of Hampstead and Haringey health authorities produced within the department of community medicine at North East Thames regional health authority and the paper presented to the regional health authority members by the regional health authority management.

  Mr. Freeman
  Copies of the following documents have been placed in the Library:

  1."Proposals for the amalgamation of Hampstead and Haringey Health Authorities"—paper presented to the July 1988 meeting of North East Thames regional health authority;

  2."The proposed amalgamation of Hampstead and Haringey Health Authorities"—North East Thames regional health authority consultation document issued in August 1988;

  67

  3."The proposed amalgamation of Hampstead and Haringey Health Authorities"—North East Thames regional health authority information leaflet issued in August 1988;

  4."Results of consultation on the proposed amalgamation of Hampstead and Haringey Health Authorities"—paper presented to the January 1989 meeting of North East Thames regional health authority;

  5."Proposed amalgamation of Hampstead and Haringey Health Authorities: responses to consultation"—Appendix to (4) above.

  Radiation
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what additional or revised guidance was issued on the use of radiation medicines on patients in the National Health Service between 1972 and 1988; and if he will provide an estimate of the number of radiation medicines in use in each of those years;

  (2) which of the recent recommendations of the International Committee on Radiological Protection on the use of radiation physics medicines he proposes to accept and which he does not.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Medicines (Administration of Radioactive Substances) Regulations 1978 regulate the administration of radioactive substances to patients or volunteers (which I assume to be what is meant by the term radiation physics medicines) used by the hon. Member. The Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee (ARSAC) was established in 1980 to advise Health Ministers on the granting of authorisations for the use of such substances.

  ARSAC produce "Notes for Guidance on the Administration of Radioactive Substances to Persons for Purposes of Diagnosis, Treatment or Research", first published in 1980, and subsequently revised in 1984 and 1988. A copy is issued to each applicant.

  The most recent publications of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) dealing with radioactive medicinal products were ICRP publication 52 "Protection of the Patient in Nuclear Medicine" (1987) and ICRP publication 53 "Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals" (1988). Both these documents were taken into account when the 1988 revision of the "Notes for Guidance" was produced. This publication gives details of effective dose equivalents which are in line with those recommended by the ICRP. Exceptionally on the advice of ARSAC the Secretary of State may authorise procedures resulting in higher effective dose equivalents.

  Additional guidance on the use of radioactive medicinal products was given in the "Code of Practice for the Protection of Persons against Ionizing Radiations arising from Medical and Dental Use" (1972), and is included in the "Guidance Notes for the Protection of Persons Against Ionising Radiation arising from Medical and Dental Use" (1988).

  Some aspects of the administration of radioactive medicinal products are also subject to the Ionising Radiations (Protection of Persons undergoing Medical Examinations or Treatment) Regulations 1988, issued to all health authorities under cover of health circular HC(88)29.
  68
  Information is not held centrally as to the number of radioactive medicinal products in use prior to 1980. While a breakdown cannot be given of the radioactive medicinal products in use in any given year since the establishment of ARSAC in 1980, authority has been given for the use of 876 different radioactive medicinal products at various times in the eight years since its inception.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new courses of treatment using radiation physics medicines within the National Health Service were begun in each year since 1983; and what was the total caseload in each year.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have taken the term "radiaction physics medicines" to mean radioactive medicinal products. I regret that information about the number of treatments using radioactive medicinal products, and the total caseloads for each year, is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical physicists were working in radiotherapy in the National Health Service in each of the last five years; and how many of those were on the basic grade.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret we do not collect this information centrally.

  Placental Tissue
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if health authorities sell placental tissue without the consent of the woman concerned.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not collect information about the arrangements made by individual health authorities although we should expect them to respect any views expressed by patients on this matter.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there are regulations governing the fate of the placental tissue after(a) an abortion and (b) a normal delivery of a child; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no such regulations.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the sale of placental tissue to the Institut Merieux by British health authorities.

  Mr. Freeman
  There is a long-standing arrangement under which health authorities can make available placenta to the Institut Merieux. I understand this is used for therapeutic purpose (for example the manufacture of albumen and gamma globulin) and that a small handling charge is paid to the participating health authorities to cover storage costs. We understand from the Institut Merieux that it does not collect from National Health Service hospitals placenta which becomes available as a result of abortions.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money passed between Liverpool health authority and the Institut Merieux in France in the last financial year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Freeman
  I regret this information is not held centrally. I would advise the hon. Member to write directly to the chairman of Liverpool health authority if he wishes to pursue this matter.

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list the grades of civil servants employed by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys employs civil servants of the following grades:

  Grade 2 (Deputy Secretary)

  Grade 3 (Under Secretary)

  Senior Medical Officer

  Grade 5 (Assistant Secretary, Chief Statistician, Chief Social Survey Officer 'A')

  Grade 6 (Senior Principal, Chief Social Survey Officer 'B')

  Grade 7 (Principal, Statistician, Principal Social Survey Officer, Principal Research Officer, Principal Information Officer)

  Senior Executive Officer

  Senior Social Survey Officer (departmental grade)

  Senior Information Officer

  Higher Executive Officer

  Social Survey Officer (departmental grade)

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  Librarian

  Executive Officer

  Assistant Social Survey Officer (departmental grade)

  Assistant Statistician

  Assistant Librarian

  Administrative Officer

  Administrative Assistant

  Senior Personal Secretary

  Typing Manager

  Personal Secretary

  Typist

  Support Manager 2

  Support Manager 3

  Support Grade Band 1

  Support Grade Band 2

  Museum Technician 3

  Porter/Cleaner

  Counsellor

  Patrolman

  Grading
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the appeals procedure to be completed within the Rotherham area health authority on the current National Health Service regrading structure.

  Mr. Freeman
  We do not hold this information centrally.

  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the closure of all National Health Service hospitals and other National Health Service properties in the Trent regional health authority area since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is important to note that closures are very often balanced by openings or other reprovision elsewhere. The hospitals or units approved for total or partial closure from 1979 to end 1987 in the Trent regional health authority are in the table.

  Hospital and District

  Partial or total closure

  1979

  Nightingale, Derbyshire

  tc

  Wales Court, Sheffield

  tc

  1980

  Newstead, Nottinghamshire

  pc

  70

  Hospital and District

  Partial or total closure

  Middlewood, Sheffield

  pc

  Adbolton Hall, Nottinghamshire

  tc

  1981

  Skegness and District, Lincolnshire

  pc

  Highbury, Nottinghamshire

  pc

  Smedley Memorial, Derbyshire

  tc

  Parwich, Derbyshire

  tc

  Tuxford Hostel, Nottingham, Lincolnshire

  tc

  Firs Maternity, Nottinghamshire

  tc

  Nottingham Womens, Nottinghamshire

  tc

  Thornbury, Sheffield

  tc

  St. Josephs, Sheffield

  tc

  Hallwood Isolation, Sheffield

  tc

  1982

  Markfield, Leicestershire

  tc

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospital, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Alexandra Woodhall Spa, North Lincolnshire

  tc

  Foxby Hill, Gainsborough, North Lincolnshire

  tc

  1983

  Walton, North Derbyshire

  pc

  Ellen Towle, Leicestershire

  pc

  Leicestershire Royal Infirmary, Leicestershire

  pc

  Groby Road, Leicestershire

  pc

  Zachary Merton Recovery Home, Leicester

  pc

  Ashgate Maternity Home, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Ashgate Annexe E, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Blakely, South Derbyshire

  tc

  Morton, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Draycott, South Derbyshire

  tc

  The Retreat Hostel, South Derbyshire

  tc

  Boston General, North Lincolnshire

  tc

  1984

  Forest, Central Nottinghamshire

  pc

  Victoria, Central Nottinghamshire

  pc

  Debdale Hall Recovery Home, Central Nottinghamshire

  tc

  Lawn Hospital, North Lincolnshire

  tc

  Swallownest, Doncaster

  tc

  Darley Hall Maternity, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Corbar Hall Maternity, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Coppice Hospital, Nottingham

  tc

  Aughton Court Hospital, Rotherham

  tc

  Scott Road and Commonside Hostels, Sheffield

  tc

  Derwent Hospital, South Derbyshire

  tc

  1985

  Carey House, South Lincolnshire

  tc

  1986

  Pastures Hospital, The Grange Childrens Unit, Southern Derbyshire

  pc

  Pastures Hospital, Beech House, Southern Derbyshire

  pc

  Pastures Hospital, Masson Ward, Southern Derbyshire

  pc

  Market Harborough and District, Leicestershire

  pc

  Rutland Memorial Leicestershire

  pc

  St. Marys Hospital, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire

  pc

  Ashby de la Zouch and District, Leicestershire

  pc

  Ridgeway, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Moorfield, North Derbyshire

  tc

  Rykneld Hospital, South Derbyshire

  tc

  Queen Mary Maternity House, South Derbyshire

  tc

  Etwall Hospital, South Derbyshire

  tc

  Glengate, Leicestershire

  tc

  Kibworth Hall, Leicestershire

  tc

  1987

  Buxton Cottage, North Derbyshire

  pc

  Manor, Southern Derbyshire

  tc

  Makeney, Southern Derbyshire

  tc

  71

  Hospital and District

  Partial or total closure

  Bosworth Park Infirmary, Leicestershire

  tc

  Chest Clinic, Leicestershire

  tc

  Foetal Tissue
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the report of his Department's inquiry into the use of foetal tissue for transplant operations.

  Mr. Freeman
  We expect to receive the report in the next few months.

  Elderly Persons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking as a result of the recommendations concerning the discharge of elderly persons from hospital contained in the recent joint statement published by the Association of Directors of Social Services and the British Geriatrics Society, a copy of which he has been sent.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department plans to issue, in the next few weeks, a booklet entitled "The Discharge of Patients From Hospital", which covers discharge arrangements for all patients, including elderly persons. This booklet will be circulated to all health authorities under a health notice. The statement the hon. Gentleman refers to will be included in the list of further reading on questions of good practice which is to be given as an appendix to the booklet.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his latest estimate of the annual saving to the Government as a result of informal carers looking after the sick, elderly and handicapped in the community.

  Nursing Staff in Post12 in Mental Illness Area of Work—England by Regional Health Authority—at 30 September 1987

  Wholetime equivalents5

  Qualified Nurses3

  Learners4

  Region

  Registered (First Level)

  Enrolled (Second Level)

  Students

  Pupils

  Northern

  1,470

  920

  460

  100

  Yorkshire

  1,740

  890

  570

  60

  Trent

  2,040

  1,120

  690

  120

  East Anglian

  810

  440

  220

  40

  North West Thames

  1,730

  930

  510

  90

  North East Thames

  1,770

  950

  470

  90

  South East Thames

  1,320

  670

  160

  40

  South West Thames

  1,670

  700

  640

  80

  Wessex

  1,270

  580

  390

  40

  Oxford

  790

  290

  210

  10

  South Western

  1,390

  730

  460

  5O

  West Midlands

  2,080

  1,230

  920

  130

  Mersey

  1,280

  910

  370

  5O

  North Western

  1,830

  1,110

  510

  50

  London Post Graduate Special Health Authorities

  290

  90

  70

  —

  England

  21,480

  11,570

  6,630

  930

  1 Excludes administrative nursing staff, agency staff and unqualified nursing staff. Includes staff working in the hospital and community services.

  2 Due to occupation coding problems the 1987 figures for some regions, and therefore England, are not comparable with those for previous years.

  3 Includes qualified staff who do not hold the RMN or EN(M) qualification.
  72
  Mr. Freeman
  The Government recognise the valuable contribution made by informal carers looking after sick, elderly and handicapped people in the community. There is no reliable basis on which to quantify that contribution.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has regarding the steps being taken by the London ambulance service to implement recommendations 32, 33, and 34 of the Fennell report.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is as follows:

  Recommendation 32: The LAS has brought forward to the current year (1988–89) the purchase of equipment which will improve its ability to monitor the position and timing of front line ambulances.

  Recommendation 33: The LAS has revised its major accident plan which will ensure that the emergency control vehicle will be mobilised immediately whenever four or more ambulances are sent to an incident.

  Recommendation 34: An on-call roster for senior officers will be introduced in place of the present voluntary arrangement.

  The LAS is also discussing with the London emergency services liaison panel what further action is necessary to strengthen the links between all emergency services.

  Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he will list by region the numbers of qualified first and second-level psychiatric nurses, and the number of qualified learners.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 31 January 1989]: Information on the numbers of nurses employed in the mental illness area of work in each region at 30 September 1987 is shown in the table.
  73
  4 Includes qualified staff undertaking a further basic nurse course.

  5 Figures independently rounded to nearest ten (10) wholetime equivalents.

  Source: Department of Health: Annual Census of NHS Non-Medical Manpower.

  Organ Donations
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many organs have been donated for transplantation in the North West regional health authority area during each of the last five years; and how many transplant operations have taken place.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 31 January 19891]: According to information reported to the United Kingdom transplant service, the number of organs retrieved from, and transplants performed in, hospitals in the North Western regional health authority during the last five years is as follows:

  Cadeveric organs retrieved

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Kidney1

  94

  87

  84

  93

  119

  Heart and heart/lung

  —

  7

  9

  20

  28

  Liver

  —

  6

  9

  11

  23

  Transplants performed, NHS entitled recipients only

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Kidney

  77

  81

  107

  81

  130

  Heart and heart/lung

  —

  —

  —

  10

  29

  Liver

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1 A donor has been counted twice if both kidneys were donated. 1988 figures are provisional.

  NHS Trusts
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those hospitals which he considers eligible for National Health Service hospital trust status as set out in the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 19891]: Any hospital which meets the criteria in chapter 3 of the White Paper would be eligible. I do not understand why the hon. Member recently produced a list, readily and publicly available, of the 320 largest acute hospitals in the NHS and claimed that they were the only eligible hospitals.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether National Health Service hospital trusts will be allowed to buy their interest-bearing debt from the Government.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 19891: I propose that National Health Service hospital trusts will be given an interest-bearing debt equal to the value of their initial assets. The terms, including repayment provisions, will be set by the Government at the time.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether hospitals currently under special health authorities will be eligible for status as a National Health Service trust.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: Yes, if they meet the criteria in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Resource Management Initiative
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish his Department's evaluation of the resource management initiative in hospitals.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: I will consider whether to publish the evaluation of the resouce management initiative at the first six sites when I have received it. That evaluation will of course be used to improve the detailed implementation of resource managment systems in other hospitals.

  Out-of-area Health Care
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) where a district health authority, under the White Paper on the National Health Service, has contracted with an out-of-district hospital for a particular service, whether patients will have the choice of getting treatment for that service within the district;

  (2) where, under the White Paper on the National Health Service, a district health authority has contracted with a hosiptal outside its district to provide a particular service, whether patients from that district health authority will have to travel to the out-of-district hospital for that service.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: Hospital patients are not necessarily best or most conveniently treated within the administrative boundaries of their district health authorities. The White Paper's proposals will make it possible for NHS funds to cross those boundaries when patients and GPs choose treatment elsewhere—for example, because waiting times are shorter. When placing contracts each DHA will need to take account of the existing referral patterns of local GPs, and will be free to place contracts with more than one hospital. They will need to discuss with GPs the possibility of changing existing patterns of referral if they believe that better value for money can be obtained by doing so. DHAs will also need to allow for referrals by GPs to hospitals with which no contracts have been placed, keeping some funds in reserve for this purpose.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how health authorities are to be reimbursed for accident and emergency admissions from patients outside their own district of residence under the proposals in the National Health Service White Paper.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: My proposals on meeting the costs of accident and emergency admissions will be spelt out in a working paper on funding and contracts to be issued shortly.

  Waiting Lists
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, under the White Paper, what information he has about the relationship between waiting list time and the unit cost of treatment.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: There is no necessary relationship between the length of time a patient waits for treatment and the unit cost of that treatment.

  Surgery (Costs)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, under the White Paper, whether the cost of treatment will be a factor in determining where health authorities place contracts for surgical operations.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: In all decisions about surgical treatment now, as throughout the history of the NHS, and in every health care system the cost of treatment is a factor, but by no means the only one.

  Health Authorities (Membership)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether non-executive members of the new health authorities proposed by the National Health Service White Paper will be drawn exclusively from people who live in the area covered by the authority.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: I would normally expect them to live, work or have some other connection with the area covered by the health authority.

  White Paper (Costs)
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will break down by available categories on what the money allocated to the National Health Service White Paper launch has been spent.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: The estimated £1,250,000 cost of the launch of the review includes the total cost of the nationwide teleconference and follow-up regional meetings; the communications packs containing videotape programmes, other visual aids and speaking notes; and associated printed material. It is not possible at this stage to put precise costs on each.

  I am sure it has been well worth the cost and effort to explain to 1 million NHS employees, responsible for £18 billion expenditure in England alone, what the White Paper proposals mean for their jobs, careers and their patients.

  Former Ministers (Facilities)
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if any office and other facilities are provided by his Department for former Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is providing(a) office accommodation and (b) privileged access to Government records to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie).

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  By convention, former Ministers are allowed reasonable access to the papers which they handled when they were in office. Departments make suitable arrangements for this on request. The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, made such a request and has been given the temporary use of a room in the Department and the part-time assistance of an administrative officer to manage and safeguard the papers. I understand that several former Ministers of this and former Governments have been given similar facilities in various Departments in recent years.

THE ARTS

  Northern Ballet Theatre
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will meet the chairman of the Arts Council to discuss funding of the Northern Ballet theatre.

  Mr. Luce
  I meet the chairman of the Arts Council on a regular basis. He keeps me appraised of all Arts Council business, although questions of funding for individual arts bodies are matters for the council.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Government Forms
  Mr. Steel
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will consider the possibility of having Government forms printed in black rather than in pale blue, to make them more easily legible.

  Mr. Luce
  The design of Government forms is a matter for individual Departments, many of which have adopted their own distinctive styles and colours. Since the Government's forms initiative began in 1982, Departments have made good progress in producing forms and leaflets which are more attractive, easier to understand and simpler to complete. Government forms now regularly win awards from the plain English campaign. I am committed to continue this work until every form is a good form. If the right hon. Member has a particular form in mind, and will write to me, I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister concerned.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Textile Firms, Leicester
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to make available to hon. Members the report of the revenue special investigation team into tax evasion by textile firms in Leicester.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Details of Inland Revenue investigations are not published.

  Composite Rate Tax
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people pay composite rate tax on investment income(a) in total, (b) who have a tax liability and (c) who do not have a tax liability.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that information is not available in the form requested. There were some 64 million accounts subject to composite rate and which earned over £1 interest in 1986–87, some of which were held by clubs or other non-individuals. Of these accounts, it is provisionally estimated that 49 million were held by investors whose composite rate interest would be wholly liable to tax in the absence of a composite rate system, and 13 million by investors none of whose composite rate interest would be liable. The balance of about 2 million accounts was held by investors, part of whose interest would be liable to tax if there were no composite rate system.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the total value of mortgage tax relief by planning region in each of the past 10 years.

  Cost of mortgage interest relief (£ million)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  Northern

  60

  80

  70

  95

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  110

  155

  150

  160

  North West

  135

  200

  180

  215

  East Midlands

  85

  115

  110

  130

  West Midlands

  145

  160

  190

  170

  East Anglia

  45

  50

  60

  75

  Greater London

  235

  280

  290

  260

  Other South East

  375

  555

  600

  650

  South West

  110

  140

  170

  140

  Wales

  45

  65

  80

  80

  Scotland

  85

  125

  120

  140

  Northern Ireland

  20

  35

  30

  30

  United Kingdom

  1,450

  1,960

  2,050

  2,150

  Following the introduction of MIRAS in April 1983, regional information on the cost of mortgage interest relief cannot be extracted from Inland Revenue records. The regional distribution of mortgage interest can be estimated from the family expenditure survey (FES) but, as the sample size for the FES is relatively small, it is not possible to provide robust estimates of regional trends for the period after 1982–83. Accordingly, the following tables show the cost of mortgage interest relief in the United Kingdom from 1983–84 to 1988–89 with the percentage distribution of the relief by region, based on FES data from 1984 to 1986.

  Cost of mortgage interest relief

  (£ million)

  1984–85

  3,580

  1985–86

  4,750

  1986–87

  4,670

  1987–88

  14,800

  1988–89

  15,500

  1 Provisional.

  Regional share of mortgage interest relief based on FES data for 1984 to 1986

  per cent.

  Northern

  3·8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7·2

  North West

  9·3

  East Midlands

  6·3

  West Midlands

  7·8

  East Anglia

  3·5

  Greater London

  14·1

  Other South East

  26·6

  South West

  8·5

  Wales

  4·2

  Scotland

  7·4

  Northern Ireland

  1·3

  United Kingdom

  100·0

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the additional annual cost to the Exchequer in tax relief on mortgage interest payments of every 1 per cent. rise in mortgage interest rates.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 12 December 1988 at column 426.
  78
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates for the years 1979–80 to 1982–83 have been derived from the results of the survey of personal incomes and are given in the table.

  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the saving to the Exchequer of paying mortgage income tax relief at the standard rate of tax only.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The direct Revenue yield in a full year, at 1988–89 income levels, from restricting mortgage interest relief to the basic rate is estimated to be £330 million. No allowance has been made for the effect of any consequential changes to the distribution of outstanding mortgages.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the names and addresses of those prosecuted and convicted of tax fraud in 1987–88; and if he will make it his policy to categorise future prosecutions by locality or region.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No. Names and addresses of those prosecuted and convicted of tax fraud are already released to the press by the Inland Revenue with details of the offences.

  Tax Avoidance and Evasion
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to carry out investigations to establish how much revenue is lost each year through tax avoidance and evasion.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Inland Revenue is already alert for areas where tax is lost through avoidance and evasion. Precise quantification of the total tax involved each year would be impracticable.

  Spending Plans
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a table giving for 1987–88 the difference between spending plans, as given in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 56 and estimated outturn(a) due to capital receipts, (b) resulting from current spending of Departments and (c) resulting from classification changes;

  (2) if he will provide a table giving for 1988–89 the difference between spending plans, as given in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288. and estimated outturn

  79
  (a) due to capital receipts, (b) resulting from current spending of Departments and (c) resulting from classification changes;

  (3) if he will provide a table giving for 1989–90 the difference between spending plans, as given in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288. and estimated outturn (a) due to capital receipts, (b) resulting from current spending of Departments and (c) resulting from classification changes.

  Mr. Major
  The available information is given in the table. Full information on capital receipts, other than for local authorities, is not available.

  Differences between public expenditure figures in the 1989 public expenditure White Paper and plans in previous White Papers

  £ million

  11987–88

  21988–89

  21989–90

  Differences arising from

  (a) Local authority capital receipts

  -1,286

  -1,733

  -2,105

  (b) Changes in current expenditure

  + 2,677

  + 1,494

  +4,199

  (c) Classification changes

  + 94

  + 64

  -38

  1 Comparison with 1987 public expenditure White Paper.

  2 Comparison with 1988 public expenditure White Paper.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give for 1987–88 and 1988–89 the number of tax units liable for tax on a company car, the amount of tax for which they are liable and the total tax yield.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Provisional estimates based on projections from the 1985–86 survey of expenses and benefits are given in the table.

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Number of directors and higher paid employees with private use of a company car

  1·2 million

  1·3 million

  Tax liability on this benefit

  £280 million

  £530 million

  ACT (Dividends)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the number of zero rate taxpayers reclaiming advance corporation tax on dividends and the amount of tax reclaimed in 1988–89.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that the information is not available centrally.

  Year

  Total (£ million)

  of which ACT (£ million)

  Total index (1984–85 = 100)

  ACT index (1984–85 = 100)

  1978–79

  3,940

  1,380

  47·2

  43·8

  1979–80

  4,646

  1,831

  55·7

  58·1

  1980–81

  4,645

  1,823

  55·7

  57·9

  1981–82

  4,930

  1,993

  59·1

  63·3

  1982–83

  5,677

  2,222

  68·1

  70·6

  1983–84

  6,184

  2,118

  74·1

  67·3

  1984–85

  8,341

  3,149

  100·0

  100·0

  1985–86

  10,708

  3,808

  128·4

  120·9

  1986–87

  13,495

  4,456

  161·8

  141·5

  1987–88

  15,734

  4,939

  188·6

  156·8

  Taxation
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will give for 1988–89(a) the composite rate tax paid by zero rate taxpayers on interest from bank and building society accounts, (b) the number of zero rate taxpayers who are paying composite rate tax, (c) the total amount of composite rate tax paid by basic rate taxpayers and (d) the number of basic rate taxpayers paying composite rate tax on bank and building society accounts.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  In 1987–88, the latest year for which information is available, about £450 million of the composite rate tax accounted for by building societies, banks and other deposit takers was due in respect of interest that would not have been liable to tax in the hands of its recipients in the absence of a composite rate scheme, and about £3,050 million was due in respect of interest that would have been liable to tax.

  I regret that the remainder of the information is not available in the form requested. But of accounts earning more than £1 interest in 1986–87, some of which were held by clubs or other non-individuals, 49 million are provisionally estimated to have been held by investors whose composite rate interest would be wholly liable to tax in the absence of a composite rate scheme, and 15 million to have been held by investors at least part of whose composite rate interest would be non-liable.

  Public Appeals
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will specify each donation made by his Department in response to public appeals for financial aid during each financial year since 1979–80.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since 1979–80 no donations in response to public appeals for financial aid have been made directly by Her Majesty's Treasury.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the revenue from corporation tax from 1978 onwards, distinguishing wherever possible between corporation tax and advance corporation tax; and if he will express such revenues in index form taking 1984–85 tax year's revenues as the base.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The information requested is as follows:

  One-parent Families
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many one-parent families benefit from the additional personal allowance.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  About half a million one-parent families benefit from the additional personal allowance. This estimate is based on a projection of the 1986–87 survey of personal incomes and is provisional.

  Pension Schemes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide his best estimate of expenditure in 1988 on devolved public service pension schemes.

  Mr. Brooke
  Of the main public service superannuation schemes, only those covering local government employees and the police and fire services are not centrally administered. For the financial year 1987–88, the most recent period for which information is available, the estimated net expenditure by employing authorities in Great Britain on those schemes is:

  £ million

  Local government

  895

  Police

  259

  Fire service

  70

  Information on expenditure on the smaller schemes operated by non-departmental public bodies for their staff is not held centrally. It could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if any guidance is given to Departments on the procedures for answering parliamentary questions for written answer.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  No. The procedure adopted is essentially a matter for the departmental Minister concerned. Guidance, reflecting the recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions of Session 1971–72, can be found in "Erskine May" (20th edition, pages 331–47).

  Departments have been given an advisory level at which the cost of answering a parliamentary question should be referred to Ministers; that level is currently £250 and was announced in a written answer on 14 March 1988 by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General at column 429. This does not, however, alter the discretion of individual Ministers to decide that a particular question should be answered partially or in full, regardless of cost.

  Credit Cards
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the present charges to credit card holders by each one of the credit card companies operating in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  This is a matter for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each of the credit card companies operating in the 82
  United Kingdom; and, as far as the information is available to him, the names of those operating in (a) Austria, (b) each one of the European Community countries, (c) Sweden, (d) Canada and (e) the United States of America.

  Mr. Lilley
  This information is not held.

  Civil Service Pension Scheme
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will list the grades of civil servants who are currently not members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme.

  Mr. Brooke
  Membership of the principal Civil Service pension scheme does not depend upon the grade of the civil servant. Most civil servants are eligible for membership. The exceptions are:

  staff covered by another occupational scheme

  those who work less than fifteen hours a week

  staff employed on a casual, fee-paid, or sessional basis

  some staff engaged locally overseas

  staff specifically engaged on terms that exclude PCSPS membership

  staff who exercise their right to opt out of the scheme

  Seal Products (Illegal Trading)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the prosecutions for the illegal importation of harp and hooded seal skins since the implementation of the ban on imports; and if he will list the numbers of cases in which charges were preferred. and convictions obtained.

  Mr. Lilley
  None.

  Charities (Payroll Giving)
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures for(a) the total number of employees currently making donations to charity under the payroll deduction scheme introduced in the 1987 Budget, (b) the total number of companies from which employees are currently making donations to charity under the payroll deduction scheme, (c) the amount of money raised in the financial year 1987–88, under the scheme, (d) the total amount of money that has been raised to date for charities under the payroll deduction scheme and (e) the estimated amount of money that will have been raised for charities under the payroll deduction scheme by 1 April 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 8 February 1989]: In 1987–88 it is estimated that about 60,000 employees participated in the scheme and £1 million was donated. The number of participants and the amount of donations are expected to be considerably higher in 1988–89. Current indications are that about 100,000 employees are participating, but it is not possible to provide a reliable forecast at this stage for the year as a whole. About 3,400 schemes have been set up to date, but a figure for the number of separate companies participating in the scheme is not available. Public authorities and other employers may also operate schemes and one company may register separate schemes for different payrolls; conversely a single scheme may cover a group of companies.

  EC (Contributions)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what part of the receipts recorded in the White Paper on European Economic Community contributions, Cm. 603, relates to sums paid to British traders to subsidise the export of food to third countries under the common agricultural policy arrangements.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 7 February 1989]: The proportion of the receipts from the EC budget recorded in the White Paper, Cm. 603, which relate to export refunds paid to United Kingdom traders are as follows:

  Per cent.

  1983–84

  18·6

  1984–85

  20·5

  1985–86

  19·0

  1986–87

  14·5

  1987–88

  27·7

  1988–89

  20·0

  1989–90

  21·5

  1990–91

  23·0

  1991–92

  22·0

  Industrial Trust
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Inland Revenue will investigate companies making donations to the Industrial Trust and claiming tax relief; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 6 February 1989]: The Inland Revenue is responsible for determining taxpayers' tax liabilities, and any reliefs they may be entitled to, in accordance with the law, and subject to the taxpayers' rights of appeal to independent appeal commissioners and the courts.

  I regret that I cannot comment on the affairs of any taxpayer.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Horticulture R and D
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to modify the proposed reduction in research and development funding in near market research in horticulture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The planned reduction in Government expenditure on near-market research and development announced last autumn related to agriculture, fisheries and food as a whole. Consultations with industry organisations on the funding of near market work in individual sectors are continuing. Final decisions on the reductions in funding for horticulture and other sectors have not yet been taken.

  Fraud
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to detect and prosecute cases of agricultural fraud.

  Mr. MacGregor
  All agricultural subsidies paid in the United Kingdom are subject to pre or post-payment verification, by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, IBAP or Agriculture Departments as appropriate.
  84
  Any suspicious or irregular payments are investigated, and recovery action is taken. When justified by the evidence available, prosecutions are brought (19 in the period 1984–88).

  Set-aside Scheme
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the take up of the set-aside proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Over 1,800 farmers in the United Kingdom are setting aside nearly 58,000 hectares (143,000 acres) of arable land in the current crop year. I shall shortly be publishing full details of the analysis of this years response.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have taken the option of the set-aside scheme for agricultural land; and what effect this has had on the number of employees working on those farms.

  Mr. Ryder
  Over 1,800 farmers in the United Kingdom are setting aside arable land in the current crop year. It is too early to assess the impact on agricultural employment.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farms have taken the option of the set-aside scheme for agricultural land in(a) Suffolk and (b) Norfolk; and what is the total acreage involved.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The information is as follows:

  Number of farms

  Acreage of set-aside land

  Suffolk

  83

  4,723

  Norfolk

  65

  4,355

  NFU (Meeting)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the National Farmers Union; and what they discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I meet the president of the National Farmers Union on various occasions to discuss agricultural matters.

  Chickens and Eggs
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he received a report following the meeting at the central veterinary laboratory on 4 February 1988 called to discuss infections in chickens and eggs.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  No meeting took place at the central veterinary laboratory on 4 February 1988 about infections in chickens and eggs.

  Covent Garden
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Covent Garden market authority last met; and what was discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Covent Garden market authority is an independent statutory body. My responsibilities in relation to this body are laid down by statute, and I have no role at the authority's meetings, which are matters for the authority itself.

  Surplus Food
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the current arrangements for the distribution of surplus European Economic Community food to pensioners and others; and how they differ from previous years.

  Mr. Ryder
  In the United Kingdom, 127 charitable and non-profit making organisations were designated in 1988 to distribute surplus beef and butter during 1988 and 1989. The definition of those eligible to receive produce is restricted to those receiving income support or family credit and those of no fixed abode or living in welfare hostels. Detailed distribution arrangements are a matter for designated organisations to determine according to local needs and the resources available, but the organisations have to follow the conditions attached to their participation in the scheme. They are entitled to reimbursement of transport and administration costs

  Butter

  Concentrated butter

  Cheese

  Whole milk

  Semi-skimmed milk

  Beef

  19821

  Quantity (tonnes)

  23,197

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Value (£)

  16,895,739

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19832

  Quantity (tonnes)

  39,144

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Value (£)

  39,930,292

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1986–873

  Quantity

  13,624 tonnes

  113 tonnes

  8,558 tonnes

  8,637,975 pints

  2,559,924 pints

  974 tonnes

  Value (£)

  26,602,197

  99,622

  19,660,197

  1,963,767

  537,404

  2,140,865

  19884

  Quantity (tonnes)

  2,463

  —

  —

  —

  1,775

  Value (£)

  5,049,583

  —

  —

  —

  4,385,385

  1 "Christmas Butter Scheme"—subsidised butter was sold to the general public through retail outlets at a maximum cost of 44p per 250 grams.

  2 "Christmas Butter Scheme"—subsidised butter was sold to the general public through retail outlets at a maximum cost of 42p per 250 grams.

  3 "Cold Weather Aid"—free produce distributed by charitable organisations was made available to the most needy. Butter and beef were made available from intervention stores. Whole milk, semi-skimmed milk, cheese and concentrated butter were purchased on the open market.

  4 "EC Surplus Food Scheme"—butter and beef from intervention stores were made available for distribution by designated organisations only to those on Income Support or Family Credit and to those of no fixed abode or living in welfare hostels. Produce made available free or at a nominal charge (not exceeding 20p per kilogramme).

  Source: IBAP.

  Bee Products
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if bee products have ever been distributed under the EEC surplus food distribution; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  If the hon. Member is referring to the current EC surplus food scheme, which is aimed at reducing stocks held in intervention, bee products are not subject to intervention arrangements and are not covered by this scheme.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what EEC policies currently pertain towards bee products; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The only EC controls in this area are those contained in Council directive 74/409/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the member states relating to honey.
  86
  within the limits laid down in the European Community legislation. The scheme first operated in 1988 and the rules are not expected to be changed for 1989.

  There have been no directly comparable schemes in previous years. During the winter of 1986–87, arising from severe weather throughout Europe, a number of products were distributed to the most needy by charitable organisations; and at Christmas time in both 1982 and 1984, subsidised butter was sold to the general public through retail outlets.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the(a) quantity and (b) cost of each foodstuff distributed under arrangements for surplus EEC food distribution for each year since accession to the EEC.

  Mr. Ryder
  Since accession to the European Community, the quantity and value of each foodstuff distributed in the United Kingdom under various arrangements for surplus EC food distributions is as follows:

  Meat Products
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what regulations there are requiring cooked food retailers and caterers to specify the meat content of meat-style products;

  (2) what requirements there are for indicating to consumers the levels of mechanically recovered meat within overall meat contents.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Meat Products and Spreadable Fish Products Regulations 1984 require most meat products to be marked or labelled with a declaration of their minimum meat content. These regulations do not require the presence of mechanically recovered meat to be indicated separately.

  However, the Food Labelling Regulations 1984 require food treatments and/or the names of ingredients to be appropriately indicated where an omission to do so could mislead purchasers. Both sets of regulations apply to retail sales and sales to caterers.
  87
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what regulations there are to control the production of mechanically recovered meat in terms of hygiene and safety.

  Mr. Ryder
  All mechanically recovered meat is produced from carcases which have been inspected and passed as fit for human consumption.

  In England and Wales, the Slaughterhouse (Hygiene) Regulations 1977, as amended, apply to the production of mechanically recovered red meat in cutting plants attached to slaughterhouses. The Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1977, as amended, apply to mechanically recovered poultry meat produced in licensed cutting premises. Mechanically recovered meat produced in other premises is subject to the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970.

  Similar legislation applies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a table in the Official

  £ million

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Gross regional output

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,026

  1,056

  1,189

  1,110

  1,132

  United Kingdom

  11,334

  11,763

  12,818

  12,211

  12,504

  Gross Product

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  470

  441

  574

  500

  543

  United Kingdom

  5,299

  5,105

  6,024

  5,389

  5,836

  Farming Income

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  183

  137

  258

  140

  175

  United Kingdom

  1,730

  1,339

  2,061

  1,053

  1,470

  No regional figures for agriculture are available for years before 1982. The purchasing power of farming income (which is pre-tax) may be derived by deflating the series by the retail price index. The values of this (1985 = 100) for each year are 1982—85·8; 1983—89·7; 1984—94·3; 1985—100 and 1986—103·4. Separate price indices do not exist for each region.

  Milk
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to bring goat milk production under legislative control.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 8 February.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(a) whether he has any proposals to extend regulations governing milk production to goats' milk and ewes' milk and (b) whether he proposes to support the goat producers association's clean milk production scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As regards goats' milk I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 8 February. This referred to the Ministry's code of practice which has objectives similar to the clean milk producton scheme. The legal position of ewes' milk is the same as that of goats' milk, and a code of practice is being prepared.
  88
  Report giving details of (a) pre-tax net farm income and (b) gross output in current prices and in real terms for each year since 1979 (i) for each of the three counties of Yorkshire and (ii) nationally; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Information on farm output and incomes is not available by county. However estimates of gross output, gross product and farming income by standard statistical region have been published for 1984 and 1985 in the annual reports on farm incomes in the United Kingdom. Corresponding figures for 1986 will be provided in the next report due to be published in the spring. These reports also include estimates of net farm income by farm type but by the (different) farm business survey regions.

  The figures provided in these reports are however subject to revision and the best estimates which are currently available (consistent with the United Kingdom figures recently published in "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988") are as follows:

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will bring forward proposals to reduce the incidence of contamination of goat and cows' milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) on 10 February.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will seek to extend legislative control over production of cows' milk to cover goats and sheep.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  As regards goats' milk, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 8 February. The legal position of sheep's milk is the same as that of goats' milk, and a code of practice is being prepared.

  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether there are any plans to bring all milk production under legislative control.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Cows' milk is already comprehensively regulated. The position on goats' milk was described in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 8 February. The legal position of sheep milk is similar to that of goats' milk, and a code of practice is being prepared.

  Consumers Association
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Consumers Association; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  The most recent ministerial meeting was held on 12 October, at our request. A wide range of matters of mutual concern were discussed.

  River Esk (Pollution)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made any assessment of the study undertaken by Friends of the Earth of the potential radioactive pollution of the River Esk by Americium 241, caesium 137 and other radioisotopes released from Sellafield.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials have only just received a copy of the report in question from Friends of the Earth and are studying this. I have, however, seen various press reports referring to statements by Friends of the Earth about radioactivity in the area of the river Esk. These reports refer to comparisons between measured levels of radioactivity and the generalised derived limits (GDLs) recommended by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). Such comparisons are not valid. The GDLs provide a simple but crude way of demonstrating the environmental acceptability of given levels of radioactivity, but they do not provide means of calculating dose. The GDLs are intended for situations where no information is available on land usage, local habits and other factors relevant to the radiation exposure of people in the area. This is patently not the case around the river Esk. On the basis of extensive monitoring conducted by my scientists, British Nuclear Fuels plc and others, it has been clearly established that there is no risk of unacceptable exposure of man from these contamination levels.

  Sheepmeat Premium
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department plans to support the introduction of draft EEC regulations to phase out the variable sheepmeat premium.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the negotiations on the review of the EC sheepmeat regime, which have made little progress so far, I will be seeking to ensure that the United Kingdom sheep industry can, at reasonable cost, continue to capitalise on its natural advantages and superior efficiency. It is too early to judge which means of support will be most effective in achieving this.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area of land covered by agreements in the Suffolk environmentally sensitive areas; how many farms are covered; and how he intends the scheme to progress in the future.

  Mr. Ryder
  The table shows the total number of agreements and the area of land covered so far in the Broads, Breckland and Suffolk River Valleys ESA.
  90

  ESA

  Number of agreements

  Area of land covered in hectares

  Broads

  624

  11,990

  Breckland

  82

  3,100

  Suffolk River Valley

  273

  6,130

  Information on the number of farms covered is not readily available. I intend to carry out a policy review of ESAs in 1991–92 to determine how the scheme will progress.

  High Grade Land (Warrington)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of agricultural land within Warrington, South is high-grade agricultural land.

  Mr. Ryder
  The area has not been surveyed in detail and the published 1:63,360 scale agricultural land classification map gives only a generalised indication of land quality. It shows approximately one third of the agricultural land as grade 2, and almost all of the remaining land as grade 3.

  Salmonella (Working Group)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the report of the joint Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Health and British Egg Industry Council working group on salmonella and eggs; and at what exact time he placed a copy in the Library.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I received the report of the joint Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Health and British Egg Industry Council working group on salmonella and eggs on 10 January 1989 and placed a copy in the Library at about 10.45 on Tuesday 7 February 1989.

  Aluminium
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levels of aluminium are contained in the following soya milks(a) Wysoy by Wyeth Nutrition in powder form, (b) Granose produced in West Germany in liquid form and (c) White Wave produced by Unisoy Milk in the United Kingdom; what evidence he has on the effect of such levels of aluminium on infants and young children; and if he will publish the results of research showing the levels of aluminium in the most popular brands of soya milk sold in this country.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not our policy to publish details o f individual brands sampled under the food surveillance programme.

  The Department of Health's independent committee on. toxicity chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment has considered the results of analyses carried out by my Department and has advised that no action is needed to reduce the aluminium intakes from infant formulae. That Department's expert advisory committees will keep under review the results of research in this area.

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about British Rail's proposed routes for the Channel tunnel link.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about British Rail's proposed routes for the Channel tunnel link.

  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about British Rail's proposed routes for the Channel tunnel link.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a large number of representations about British Rail's proposals for rail links to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the proposed Channel tunnel fixed lines to Waterloo and Charing Cross; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a large number of representations about British Rail's proposals for rail links to the Channel tunnel. It is not envisaged that Channel tunnel trains will use Charing Cross.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further plans he has to encourage improvements to the road and rail network to enable the north of England to benefit from the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given to the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) today.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he has given to British Rail's proposals for a new high-speed line between London and the Channel tunnel; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am in regular contact with British Rail about the progress that it is making with the development of its proposals. I set out the Government's position in my response to the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) on 2 December 1988 at columns 1025–32.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss links from Scotland, Wales, the north, midlands and south-east of England to the Channel tunnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Not at present. British Rail is still consulting widely in preparation for the plan which it will be publishing later this year in accordance with section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.

  London Underground (Exit Barriers)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will undertake an inquiry into safety implications of automatic exit barriers in London Underground stations.
  92
  Mr. Portillo
  In response to my request London Regional Transport has already commissioned independent consulting engineers to review the working of automatic ticketing systems. It expects to receive the consultants' report by the end of April 1989.

  M40
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what date he expects the M40 to link the motorway boxes surrounding London and Birmingham.

  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the latest completion date for the M40.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The M40 between the M42 and Warwick and between Warwick and Wendlebury should be completed by autumn 1989 and the end of 1990, respectively. Completion of the section between Wendlebury and Waterstock will depend on the statutory procedures. We hope to make an announcement shortly.

  London Regional Transport
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of London Regional Transport; and what matters they will discuss.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of London Regional Transport; and what matters they will discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  I meet London Regional Transport's chairman regularly to discuss a range of matters and will next do so on 6 March.

  Central London Rail Study
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the new tube lines recently mentioned in the central London rail study.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding the central London rail study.

  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received on the central London rail study.

  Mr. Portillo
  In the short time since the report was published we have received a small number of responses from the public.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he plans to have with user groups and local transport about the options contained in the central London rail study.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next proposes to meet the expert advisory groups to discuss the proposals for underground rail tunnels in Greater London.

  Mr. Portillo
  I intend to consider the written representations received before arranging discussions with interested parties.

  Glasgow Airport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to give gateway status to Glasgow airport.
  93
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend is considering a request from BAA plc, as owners of Prestwick and Glasgow airports, for a review of the 1986 traffic distribution rules for Scotland, which restrict intercontinental traffic to Prestwick. He will make an announcement in due course.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what further measures he is taking to reach his target of reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Our short-term target is to reduce the annual number of road fatalities below 5,000, as well as to bring about a sharp decline in injuries. Since 1986 there has been a 5 per cent. reduction in fatalities and a 6 per cent. reduction in serious injuries.

  Over the year ahead, we will be concentrating our efforts on vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists, as well as on dangerous groups such as drinking drivers and selfish and aggressive road users.

  Overall we have the best record in the EC for road deaths. We must now aim for the same position on each of the vulnerable road user groups.

  Engineering, education, enforcement, exhortation and example will all play their part.

  Civil Aviation Authority
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, met the chairman of the authority on 19 January 1989 to discuss a number of issues of mutual interest.

  Heathrow Airport (Security)
  Mr. Prescott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of BAA further to discuss security at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on 16 January, on security at Heathrow airport, he will now make a further statement on any developments since then.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) on 31 January at column 146.

  Al
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the reports of the studies conducted by his Department and the Scottish Office on the future of the Al; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Discussions have taken place and further meetings are planned between officials of the Department's northern regional office and the Scottish Development Department about a proposed improvement scheme on the A 1 near the English/Scottish border at Marshall meadows. An announcement on a preferred route is expected by early summer 1989.
  94
  The report of an independent study being carried out by the Scottish Development Department is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what date he expects work to start on upgrading to three lanes the section of the M1 between Dishforth and Scotch Corner.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to the satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures, we hope to start construction in the mid-1990s.

  Motorway Lighting
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of motorway is at present unlit.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of 74 per cent.

  London Underground Ltd (Crime)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussion he is having with officials of London Underground Ltd. on the level of crime taking place on the Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  I and my Department maintain close contact with London Underground Ltd. on the action that it and the police forces concerned are taking against crime on the Underground.

  West Sussex (Infrastructure)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on transport infrastructure investment in West Sussex.

  Mr. Portillo
  Actual and planned expenditure on the A23 and A27 trunk roads since 1979 amounts to about £95 million at November 1985 prices.

  Over the past five years £14 million has been macle available to the county council through transport supplementary grants for the local road network.

  Road Haulage Industry (Safety)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to uphold safety standards in the road haulage industry after 1992 and the introduction of the single European market.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The Government are determined to ensure that regulations, which are necessary for safety, but which do not restrict trade, are applied throughout the Community.

  Scottish Airports (Review)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when his review of Scottish airports will be complete; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend is considering a British Airports Authority plc request to review the 1986 traffic distribution rules for Scotland. He will make an announcement in due course.

  MI. (Relief Plans)
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has apart from the extension of the M40, for the relief of the MI between junction 1 and its junction with the M6.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are planning improvements at junction 1 and a climbing lane at junction 9. Schemes planned for the A5 will also help to relieve the M1. The trunk road programme is currently under review. We expect to make an announcement in the spring.

  British Rail
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail; and what matters they will discuss.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail; and what matters they will discuss.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail; and what matters they will discuss.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chair of British Rail; and what matters they will discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend plans to meet the chairman of British Rail on 16 March to discuss a variety of railway matters.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies have been undertaken by his Department as to the current extent of traffic congestion in urban areas in Britain; and whether he has any information as to the comparable situation 10 and 20 years ago.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Average vehicle speeds are taken as an indicator of urban traffic congestion. In London surveys have been maintained since 1968. The results were published recently by my right hon. Friend in his "Statement on Transport in London." Copies have been placed in the Library. Comparable information is not available for other urban areas in Britain, though the Department carried out a series of studies of traffic speeds in 13 urban areas outside London in the 1960's and 1970's. The results showed the importance of limiting on-street parking density in the interest of securing good average traffic speeds during peak and non-peak hours.

  Docklands
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much central Government are spending on transport in the docklands in the financial years 1987–88 and 1988–89.

  Mr. Portillo
  Central Government expenditure on transport which serves docklands was £143 million in 1987–88 and is estimated at £127 million in 1988–89.

  Transport in London (Document)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport from what bodies he has requested formal 96
  responses to the document entitled "Statement on Transport in London" which he published on Thursday 26 January.

  Mr Portillo
  The statement on transport in London is not a consultation document. It is a technical publication prepared for the London local authorities and other interested bodies to provide them with a framework within which they can plan their own transport related decisions.

  Crises (Shipping)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the NATO study on supply and demand for shipping in crisis and war commissioned by the senior civil emergencies planning committee at the request of the planning board for ocean shipping, is expected to be completed; if there will be any intermediate report; and when and in what form the results will be published.

  Mr. Portillo
  The study is expected to be completed in early 1990. No intermediate report is planned, and no decision has yet been reached about the form of the final report.

  Rochford
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for visiting the Rochford constituency in order to review road traffic problems.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has no official plans to visit Rochford.

  TALLS
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now completed his consideration of the proposed British Rail line known as TALIS; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  This is not a matter for me, but I understand that British Rail will be considering this alternative before reaching a decision on its preferred route between London and the Channel tunnel.

  Bypasses
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many bypasses have been completed since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A total of 96 bypasses and relief roads have been completed since 1979, representing 40 per cent. of new national road mileage.

  Other trunk road schemes, although not denoted bypasses, have a bypassing effect.

  Railway Works (Environmental Protection)
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to seek powers to provide funds for environmental protection on any railway works which he has approved.

  Mr. Portillo
  It is normal practice for British Rail to take appropriate environmental protection measures when they undertake new railway works. The costs involved form part of the total cost of the project for the purposes of establishing the case for the investment, and are financed in the same way as the rest of the project.

  M1 Air Crash
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to receive the report from the accident investigator on the M I air crash; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Reports by the air accidents investigation branch concerning major accidents generally take some 15 to 18 months to produce.

  The AAIB's practice is to communicate important findings, as it reaches them, to the Civil Aviation Authority or other relevant quarters, without waiting for completion of the full report.

  A590 Dalton-in-Furness Bypass
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many objections have been received

  Scheme

  Works cost £ million

  A361 North Devon link road stage 1 (M5 Sampford Peverell to Tiverton)

  17·3

  Completed March 1984

  A361 North Devon link road stage 2A (Tiverton to Newtown)

  27·6

  Completed November 1988

  A361 North Devon link road stage 2B (Newtown to Barnstaple)

  25·3

  Started October 1987

  A39 Barnstaple bypass

  20·5

  Started August 1987

  A39 Bideford bypass

  18·3

  Completed May 1987

  The cost of connecting roads are included.

  Al-M1 (Lighting)
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve and extend lighting on the A 1 -Ml.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  On the Al it is proposed to replace the existing lighting between Astwick and the Edworth turn in Bedfordshire (2·4 km), and to extend lighting between Biggleswade and Beeston also in Bedfordshire (3·2 km). It is also planned that 8·8 km of the Newcastle western bypass, which will be designated part of the Al when complete, will be lit.

  On the MI it is planned to replace the existing lighting between the Scratchwood service area and junction 5 (9·5 km) and to extend lighting from junction 17 to junction 20 (14·5 km).

  Subject to the availability of funds, it is hoped that these proposals will have all been implemented by 1990–91.

  Estuarial Crossings (Tolls)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all organisations that have made representations in favour of increasing tolls across estuarial crossings to his Department since 1979.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Uniform Driver licensing System
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the proposals of the European Community 98
  regarding the preferred route for the A590 Dalton-in-Furness bypass in Cumbria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The objection period for the published orders end on the 28 February. So far four objections have been received. A public inquiry may be necessary if these and any further objections are not withdrawn.

  Road Construction (North Devon)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the road construction projects, together with their cost, which have been approved, started or completed since 1979 in north Devon from M5-Tiverton to South Molton, Barnstaple area and the River Torridge, together with connecting roads.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Some £109 million worth of new trunk road construction schemes have been approved, started or completed as follows:

  Commission to introduce a uniform driver licensing system, with specific reference to the position of drivers who operate voluntary community transport schemes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The consultation document on proposals for a new unified driver licensing system published by the Department in January 1988 outlined the likely impact of the EC initiatives. Some 480 responses were received. A total of 84 per cent. of these expressed concern at the adverse effects that tighter controls on minibus drivers would have on Community and charitable organisations. Some 148 letters have also been received from hon. Members on this issue.

  The Government have expressed their strong concern about these proposals not only to the Commission but to other member states and the European Parliament. We shall continue to stress the importance of not damaging the mobility of individuals and groups, including disabled and elderly people, children, and community groups. The latest statistical evidence about the good safety record of minibuses in Britain is being made available to the Commission, other member states, and the European Parliament. Our aim in the negotiations is to secure the flexibility that is needed.

  Airlines (Licence Applications)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information was given to him by the airlines concerned at the time of application for licence as to the anticipated passenger loads of(a) American

  99
  Airlines on its Manchester/Chicago route and (b) British Airways on its Manchester/New York route; and what steps he takes to monitor the accuracy of those estimates.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  There is no requirement for United States airlines to provide information on anticipated passenger loads in respect of their services to the United Kingdom. The licence for British Airways to serve the Manchester/New York route was granted prior to the establishment of the Civil Aviation Authority in 1972; any information provided at the time on anticipated passenger loads is not readily available. The Civil Aviation Authority collects and publishes operating and traffic statistics in respect of all carriers serving United Kingdom airports, and provides reports to the Department in appropriate circumstances.

  Passenger Ferries (Fires)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fires were reported on board passenger ferries in 1988; what was the comparable figure for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Thirteen fires on board passenger ferries were reported to the Department in 1988. For the previous five years the figures are:

  Year

  Number

  1983

  5

  1984

  3

  1985

  6

  1986

  4

  1987

  2

  Moray Maritime Rescue Subcentre, Peterhead
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the proposed closure of the Moray maritime rescue subcentre at Peterhead.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend announced the closure on 31 January. Both he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy are confident that the closure will not affect the coastguards' ability to handle any future incidents in the offshore oil fields, and moreover that the associated reinforcing of the Aberdeen maritime rescue co-ordination centre will in fact enhance the coastguards' capability to deal with such incidents. The closure of the Moray MRSC will take place on 30 March.

  Bedfordshire (Road Grant)
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to announce the 1989–90 100 per cent. grants to Bedfordshire county council for roads; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to announce a decision soon.

  Local Rail Networks
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to give encouragement and support to the increasing use of local rail networks in city areas and between major cities and their hinterlands.
  100
  Mr. Portillo
  We are prepared to support investment in urban rail services wherever it offers value for money. The Government's policies on the funding of such investment are set out in their observations on the third report of the Transport Committee (1986–87 Session)—HC 420, annex C.

  Random Breath Testing
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received from the north-east region in favour of random breath testing.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Current pressures for the introduction of random breath testing reflect society's hardening attitude towards the drinking driver.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers has said that it would like to be given wider powers to stop and test drivers. On 1 February, at column 251, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in answering a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight), set out the three options under consideration in response to the police request and invited views by 30 April.

  We are now bringing the amount of drinking and driving down more effectively in this country than is the case elsewhere. What matters is that we should continue to change public attitudes and behaviour.

  M25
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will install on the central reservation of the M25 motorway appropriate traffic lights and gates at suitable intervals which can be opened by the police to allow vehicles in major traffic jams on one carriageway to enter the carriageway going in the opposite direction in order to leave the motorway.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Any benefit from such an arrangement would be outweighed by the practical difficulties of establishing and operating it, and by the adverse safety implications to which it would give rise.

  East London River Crossing
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make an announcement concerning his conclusions following receipt of the study of alternative designs for the proposed east London river crossing bridge; and if he will place a copy of the study in the Library.

  Mr. Channon
  I expect to receive the consultant's report later this month. I shall make an announcement as soon as possible. I shall then place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  London Underground (Security)
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many transport police are assigned to the(a) District, (b) Central, (c) Northern, (d) Bakerloo, (e) Metropolitan, (f) Piccadilly, (g) Victoria, and (h) Jubilee lines of the London Underground at the latest available date; and what were the figures for (i) 1985, (ii) 1986 and (iii) 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  Officers of the British Transport police are not assigned to specific lines of the London Underground.
  101
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many railway staff with security responsibilities are assigned to the(a) District, (b) Central, (c) Northern, (d) Bakerloo, (e) Metropolitan, (f) Piccadilly, (g) Victoria, and (h) Jubilee lines of the London Underground at the latest available date; and what were the figures for (i) 1985, (ii) 1986 and (iii) 1987.

  Mr. Portillo
  All railway staff of London Underground Ltd. have security responsibilities as part of their general duties.

  Transport and Road Research Laboratory
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding his decision to shut down the Transport and Road Research Laboratory database on bus services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. The database has served a useful purpose in providing speedy information during the first 18 months of deregulation but it would be unduly costly to continue. The Department receives regular statistical returns from bus operators which enable it to monitor longer term changes in the bus industry. TRRL continues to conduct studies into specific aspects of deregulation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost of the Transport and Road Research Laboratory database on bus services in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Work on the database began towards the end of the financial year 1985–86. The costs are as follows:

  £

  1985–86

  50,000

  1986–87

  250,000

  1987–88

  250,000

  1988–89

  150,000

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had regarding the possibility of saving the Transport and Road Research Laboratory database on bus services.

  Mr. Portillo
  None. The database is not to be extended but it will be retained as a source of information for TRRL's studies on deregulation and to deal with requests for information. In addition, the database is to be published in April and will be available, on tapes, for research purposes.

  Roads (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to develop a primary road network in Nottinghamshire suitable for the advent of the Channel tunnel and the European single market.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The primary road network in the county has been agreed between the Department and the county council. Nottinghamshire is well served by trunk roads such as MI and Al. There is already a full programme of national and regional trunk road schemes in the county.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the stretch of the M I which runs through Nottingham, North constituency was last repaired; and when it is next due for repair.
  102
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Major repairs to the MI motorway between the Trowell service area and junction 26 at Nuthall were carried out in 1985. Further major repairs are unlikely to be required before the year 2000. If the hon. Member believes that we have missed a stretch, perhaps he would let me know.

  Airports (Facilities)
  Mr. Allen Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will conduct an inquiry into the back-up facilities at Glasgow, Belfast, Prestwick and Campbeltown airports;

  (2) who directs to what airport an aircraft in distress should be directed;

  (3) if he will list the relative lengths of the airstrips at Glasgow, Campbeltown and Belfast; and what hack-up facilities exist at each airport;

  (4) what criteria are used in an on-board emergency as far as the direction of the aircraft to a suitable airport is concerned;

  (5) what emergency facilities exist at Glasgow airport;

  (6) what emergency facilities exist at Aldergrove airport;

  (7) what emergency facilities exist at Prestwick and Campbeltown airports;

  (8) what role the Civil Aviation Authority plays in the laying of ground rules for the direction of air traffic;

  (9) what criteria exist to enable air traffic controllers to direct any aircraft in distress away from populated areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  These matters concerning aviation safety are the statutory responsibility of the Civil Aviation Authority and have been drawn to the attention of the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority.

  European Transport Systems
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he intends to take in respect of the proposal of the European Economic Community transport commissioners for high-speed rail links from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Cardiff via London through the Channel tunnel to western Europe; what discussions he has with the Community of European Railways in respect of all these proposals; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the proposals recently published by the Community of European Railways. We are not aware of any proposals by the European Commission. It is for British Rail to bring forward any proposals for further investment which it considers appropriate in the light of the CER report. The Government are always happy to approve proposals by British Rail for rail investment which is commercially justified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected cost to public funds of the northern Europe sub-committee of the Planning Board for European Inland Surface Transport at the civil defence college this spring; and what subjects will be discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  No additional staff costs will be incurred. Expenses to be incurred against public funds are expected to be about £900. Details of the proceedings are classified.

  NATO (ACTICE Study)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the cost to public funds of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's ACTICE study held at the civil defence college in April 1988.

  Mr. Portillo
  No additional staff costs were incurred. Expenses associated with hosting the study came to £6,495.

  Air Navigation Orders
  Mr. Warren
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation to provide that all air navigation orders affecting changes in the use of United Kingdom airspace be approved by Parliament before they come into force.

  Mr. Bottomley
  This would not be practicable. Many of the changes have to be made at short notice and are of temporary duration.

  Light Dues
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to publish the feasibility study into extending light dues to yachts and pleasure craft being undertaken by the British Ports Authority at his request on its completion.

  Mr. Portillo
  Yes.

  Port State Control
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures are being taken to ensure port state control is vigorously enforced to eliminate sub-standard ships and crews from United Kingdom and European Economic Community ports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  All European Community coastal states have signed the Paris memorandum of understanding on port state control, agreeing to inspect 25 per cent. of foreign merchant ships visiting their ports. The United Kingdom has inspected more than 25 per cent. in each of the past five years.

  High Speed Rail Link (London-Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the progress of plans to build a high-speed rail link between London and Liverpool.

  Mr. Portillo
  The west coast main line already offers a high-speed service, and further improvements over the next few years will raise the maximum line speed further on much of the route. Journey time will also be reduced as a result of revised maintenance procedures. I am not aware of any plans to build a new line.

  Motorway Verges
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to clean up motorway verges.
  104
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Cleaning of verges is one of the tasks carried out by the local authorities and consultants who act as the Department's agents for motorway maintenance. Standards for this are laid down in a code of practice for routine maintenance.

  We are currently considering what further action may be needed to deal with litter on motorways.

  Fennell Report
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps are being taken to strengthen the links between the British Transport police and other emergency services in London in accordance with recommendation 28 of the Fennell report;

  (2) what steps are being taken to review the performance and training of British Transport police officers in accordance with recommendations 99 and 108 of the Fennell report.

  Mr. Portillo
  I understand that the chief constable of the British Transport police has submitted to the police committee a report of the action he has taken in the light of the Fennell report. I expect to have the committee's views shortly.

  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to the board of London Regional Transport or London Underground Limited to improve enforcement of the smoking prohibition on the London Underground in accordance with recommendation 101 of the Fennell report.

  Mr. Portillo
  The enforcement of the smoking prohibition on the Underground is the responsibility of London Underground Ltd. and the British Transport police. London Regional Transport in its response to the Fennell report, a copy of which is available in the Library, has accepted recommendation 101. British Transport police officers have been instructed to enforce the smoking prohibition and are instituting a campaign to secure prosecution of smoking offences using video recording equipment to identity offenders. I understand that the British Transport police are discussing the criteria for prosecutions with the Crown prosecution service.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will give statistics for the accident and safety record of(a) motorways and (b) other roads, over the last five years;

  (2) what proposals he has to improve the safety of motorways in the future.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following table shows the number of accidents occuring on motorways, and on all roads, for each of the years 1983 to 1987.
  105

  Accidents and accident rates per 100 million vehicle kilometers: Motorways and other roads: 1983–1987

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Motorways

  Fatal

  152

  172

  192

  202

  212

  Fatal and serious

  1,152

  1,151

  1,171

  1,295

  1,349

  All severities

  3,857

  4,412

  4,651

  5,162

  5,526

  Rate

  12

  13

  12

  12

  11

  Other roads

  Fatal

  4,875

  4,966

  4,576

  4,693

  4,482

  Fatal and serious

  63,896

  66,035

  63,883

  61,787

  57,697

  All severities

  239,019

  248,771

  240,994

  242,692

  233,537

  Rate

  100

  102

  98

  94

  86

  The Casuality and Casuality rates per 100 million vehicle kilometers

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  Motorways

  Fatal

  187

  211

  241

  248

  283

  Fatal and serious

  1,604

  1,585

  1,695

  1,829

  1,866

  All severities

  6,360

  7,217

  7,658

  8,516

  9,080

  Rate

  21

  21

  20

  20

  19

  Other roads

  Fatal

  5,258

  5,388

  4,924

  5,134

  4,842

  Fatal and serious

  74,464

  77,073

  74,450

  72,305

  67,552

  All severities

  302,224

  317,097

  309,866

  312,935

  302,393

  Rate

  127

  130

  126

  121

  111

  Further information about motorways safety can be found in "Road Accidents Great Britain 1987", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  A comprehensive package of measures to improve motorway safety was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last April. Pamphlets giving fuller details were placed in the Library of the House. Most of
  106
  the proposed measures have been implemented; others involving technological and regulatory changes will be phased in over several years.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

US-UK Immigration Pre-clearance
Lord Bethell Lord Bethell asked Her Majesty's Government:
How far their programme for immigration pre-inspection on flights between this country and the United States has proceeded, and whether they believe that a more ambitious programme of full immigration and customs pre-clearance on such flights would lessen the danger of terrorist attacks.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, pre-clearance abroad by the immigration service is the subject of continuing discussion with carriers and government agencies at home and abroad. There are no plans for similar arrangements by Customs and Excise. Future immigration preclearance will continue to be on a voluntary basis. It is intended to ease congestion on arrival at United Kingdom airports rather than to act as a counter to terrorism, and any such benefit is incidental.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. However, is my noble friend aware that passengers crossing the Atlantic can sometimes be kept waiting either at Kennedy Airport or Heathrow Airport for one or two hours at the height of the season, and that it makes greater sense therefore to clear such people before a long flight rather than after it? Further, would he not agree that if there can be any benefit in terms of saving lives, or lessening the terrorist menace, then that would be a very great step forward and not just an incidental benefit?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I quite see the point made by my noble friend. Obviously, it is most cost-effective to introduce pre-clearance on the high density routes. One of the highest density routes is the
2
one from New York to London. We carried out an experiment, and it was intended to operate a similar experiment in the late summer of 1988. However, that did not prove possible. We are now trying to arrange an experiment during the Easter traffic at the end of March this year. I agree with my noble friend that if it were possible to detect any form of terrorism by that method, then that would obviously be an advantage. However, I do not think that one can introduce the system solely for those advantages, because that would not be justified.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, thinking in terms of security against terrorism, perhaps I may ask this question. Does the Minister agree that it would be far more effective if we were to ensure that there is not the slightest danger of people being able to be in contact with freight, whether luggage or otherwise, unless there was very careful inspection and the personnel concerned were also vetted and had proper cards? Is not that factor a great worry?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the conditions at airports (where one of course strives to prevent any form of terrorist equipment getting on to aeroplanes) are of essential importance. However, the point raised by my noble friend is whether, in order to Facilitate their entry, it is possible to pre-screen people who are coming into this country. I am bound to tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the two aspects are different. Where, and if, there is a demand for such pre-screening, we are concerned to try to ascertain whether it can be done.

Safe-Deposit Centres
2.40 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following the case of Regina v. Viccei and others at the Old Bailey, they propose to conduct a review of policy in relation to safe-deposit centres.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we will consult the British Security Industry Association about the possibility of

3
bringing safe-deposit centres within the existing framework of self-regulation of the private security industry. It would not be appropriate to speculate on any policy review which might follow that consultation.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. However, is he aware that there is clear evidence in the stated case that the safe-deposit centre was used to store cocaine and that it was also used by money launderers to store large sums of cash which were being laundered by the American drugs industry? In the light of that fact, is self-regulation really an answer to the Question?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, there is a great deal to be said for the self-regulation of the industry. However, that does not mean to say that the criminal law will not take effect when that happens. Indeed, Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 will give the courts powers to confiscate the proceeds of serious crimes, provided those proceeds exceed £20,000 and that sum is realisable. I should add that this part of the Act comes into operation on 3rd April of this year and should help towards resolving the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that although we welcome any talks he may have with the British Security Industry Association, we should be a little more gratified if he would indicate that he would discuss the matter with the Metropolitan Police and other bodies such as the Association of Chief Police Officers? Serious questions are raised when safe-deposit centres are clearly being used by high calibre criminals to store the proceeds of their activities. Will the noble Earl indicate that talks will take place with the police?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, yes, certainly. ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers, made a report which it gave to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has set up a working group to consider it with officials of the Home Office, the police and the industry itself.

Council House Sales
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood Baroness Elliot of Harwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the forecast for the number of council house sales in 1988–89.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, nearly 200,000 local authority and new town dwellings in Great Britain are expected to be sold during 1988–89.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government on this very successful policy? Will the policy continue and are there sufficient houses to meet the demand which might arise?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I agree with her that this is an excellent policy. The local authorities have about 4.5 million houses still to be sold.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if the noble Earl can be so precise as to the number of council houses that can be sold, can he tell the House the number of houses he expects to be built?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord is hooked on local authority building. He will be aware of the very substantial increase in funds which we have given to the Housing Corporation so that housing associations can build houses as well as the private sector.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, can the Minister tell us at what discount under market prices the houses will be sold?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that depends on a number of permutations, including the time during which the person has lived in the property and whether it is a house or a flat. The maximum discount for a house is 60 per cent. and for a flat 70 per cent.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether any local authorities are still obstructing or delaying the sale of council houses?
The Earl of Caithness: Yes, my Lords. Unfortunately there are a number of local authorities which are not proceeding to deal with the right-to-buy applications as speedily as we should have liked. I remind my noble friend that, as a result of the Housing Act which we discussed during the last Session, there will now be penalties on local authorities.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Earl able to give an answer as to the approximate number of houses that will be sold? He could not give the answer to the vital question regarding the increase of homelessness as to the number of houses that will be built by local authorities. Does he not accept that it would be wrong for houses to be sold to those who can afford to buy them when those who can hardly pay the rent of the house have to go homeless? Is that not a pretty hopeless situation for quite a number of people in our nation?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is mixing up three or four very important areas. The Question on the Order Paper relates to sales of council houses.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the noble Earl name the authorities that are obstructing the sale of council houses? Further, will he reply to the question asked some time ago as to how many houses are being built this year?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, council houses.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I replied to that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy. I said that it was another question not related to the sale of council houses, which is the Question on the Order Paper. As regards those local authorities which are not proceeding with right-to-buy applications. I can tell the noble Lord that Camden and Brent are two of the councils.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, further to the reply given to my noble friend Lord Molloy, does the Minister not agree that, in view of the ever increasing numbers of homeless people and those in bed and breakfast accommodation, and the demand for more rented accommodation, it is time to review the policy of wholesale selling without there being some kind of replacement housing for rent?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again the question asked by the noble Lord goes wider than the Question on the Order Paper. However, the supposition behind it that there is less property to rent as a result of the right to buy is quite wrongly founded. If we look at the statistics we see that local authority lettings to new tenants in 1986-87 were comparable with those of 1981-82, although about 1 million right-to-buy applications were successful.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the numerous reports from non-political organisations expressing a strong view, and supported by Members of Parliament for constituencies in the South? Those reports suggest that local authority houses which are sold should be replaced. Can the Minister tell me why, after a series of questions over a long period from Members of your Lordships' House asking for the old capital receipts of local authorities to be made available for building new council houses, under the new Local Government and Housing Bill the Government have reneged on all their previous commitments given in another place by previous Secretaries of State? The Government have decided to deduct £6 billion from the £8 billion assets of local authorities. Why have they behaved in such a disgraceful manner?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, again, I am afraid that I have to tell the noble Lord that that goes considerably wider than the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister will not answer. I have to submit to the House that these questions are strongly related. We are talking about the sale of council houses and one is entitled to draw the comparison with replacements. I am making the point that the Government have reneged on promises by successive Secretaries of State, some of whom are now Members of your Lordships' House. They have done the very opposite under the lastest local government Bill in denying the local authorities £6 billion of their own assets for building council houses. Will the Minister answer? Does not he consider that relevant?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on that specific matter, he may do so. The Question on the Order Paper concerns the sale of council houses. When he spoke—as did the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—on replacements, I drew the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that other people build houses as well as local authorities.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the Minister please reconsider the use of the phrase "hooked on" in relation to my noble friend who asked a perfectly sensible and good question?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the phrase "hooked on" seemed appropriate in the connection to which the noble Lord referred. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is very keen on local authority building. However, on occasions he seems to omit to remember that housing associations and the private sector also provide dwellings.

British Theatre Association Library
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Birk asked Baroness Birk asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure the future of the British Theatre Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I can confirm that we attach great importance to ways being found of preserving public access to the British Theatre Association collection. We have encouraged the association to enter into discussions with the British Library and the Victoria and Albert Museum about ways of ensuring the survival of the BTA library. These discussions are not yet concluded, but I can assure the House that all parties are striving to find a viable solution.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that to encourage discussions with the British Library and the Victoria and Albert Museum will not achieve any results? Moreover, is the Minister also aware that the British Library has made it quite clear that it cannot back up with money anything that is suggested? The V&A has enough of a serious crisis on its own hands at the moment without this problem. Is the Minister further aware of the unique nature of the British Theatre Association library and information services, and their usage by professional and amateur theatre—and increasingly by school groups and people from abroad? Therefore, is it not essential that the small sum which is needed in order to ensure that the library services and the information services are continued should be a high priority in the mind of the right honourable friend of the Minister at the moment?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I must reiterate that we are doing everything that we can to try to find a satisfactory solution. However, 1 should draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that it

7
is not the Government's policy to fund directly independent specialist libraries. There are some 2,100 independent specialist libraries in this country.
Lord St. John of Fawsley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British theatre is not only the brightest jewel in our cultural crown, but it is also a major earner of foreign currency? So what justification can there be for a candle-end economy in stopping a grant of £14,000 to an essential theatrical resource? Will my noble friend get the Government to change course on this matter, and get them to provide a permanent home for this unique collection? If that is not done, the collection will next month find itself on the streets.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister. I draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the fact that my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts is today meeting my noble friend Lord Bessborough, president of the BTA, to discuss developments.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that my noble friends on these Benches agree wholeheartedly with the point of view expressed by the noble Baroness which was supported by my noble successor as Minister for the Arts on the other side of the House? Is the noble Lord further aware that we feel that nowadays it is so often the case that something which is going really well is being allowed to slip away for trifling money?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his remarks. I can go no further than to say that it is the earnest intention of this Government to find a satisfactory solution for the further continuance of the BTA.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I wish to press the noble Lord a little further. May we assume from the noble Lord's first Answer that it is no longer a question of whether the British Theatre Association and its library are to be saved, but rather it is a question of how that is to be achieved? Are we at that point?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we hope that we shall be arriving at that point.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the British commercial theatre at the moment is enjoying great prosperity and bringing in a great deal of money, some of it, as we have been told, in foreign currency? Can it not afford to keep a library which is primarily of use to the theatre itself?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I am neither a thespian nor an angel, I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer for the financial state of the private sector in the British theatre today.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, would the Government consider merging the British Theatre Association library with the Theatre Museum in Covent Garden,
8
and providing sufficient funds for this as the sum that has been mentioned today is not very large?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the suggestion of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, is the Minister aware that the British Theatre Association provides and gathers in the greater part of its funds by its own efforts and spends a great deal of time on that? Is the Minister further aware that a solution to this problem must be found before the end of this month? The association will start to pack up in March unless something emerges. Will the Minister bear in mind and remind his right honourable friend of the need for urgency as well as a good solution?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am certainly aware that urgency is part of the problem. I can assure the noble Baroness that this matter has the fullest attention of my right honourable friend at this moment.

Police Officers (Central Service) Bill [H.L.]
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the enactments relating to central service on police duties. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Atomic Energy Bill [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, in commending the Atomic Energy Bill to your Lordships' House, I wish to add a few words in appreciation of the careful consideration given to this Bill and of the help provided during its passage from all sides of the House. When I moved the Bill on Second Reading, I remarked on its nature, it being a technical and somewhat disparate measure. It is a tribute to your Lordships that this description did not deter a detailed consideration.
In particular, the Government were pleased to propose an addition to the clause relating to the Mutual Assistance Convention which clarified the position and responded to concerns expressed by your Lordships in Committee. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Baroness Hooper.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, both for introducing the Bill and indeed for the way in which she has conducted the Bill from the Government Front Bench. We are most grateful to

9
the noble Baroness for her kindness and her openness in discussing the issues involved.
Your Lordships have had an opportunity during this Bill to discuss a number of points that are perhaps not related, but we have discussed interrelated matters. We have been able to probe the problems associated with British Nuclear Fuels Plc—the shutdown problems and the nuclear waste problems. I am sure that we shall come back to those on later occasions.
We, on this side, have been able to welcome the enhanced role of the Health and Safety Executive. We are very pleased that the Government have taken this very important measure of allowing the Health and Safety Executive its own direction in making sure that we are as safe as we possibly can be as regards nuclear matters. But it is anybody's judgment as regards how safe that really is.
Finally, we welcome the Government's signature and the putting into statute of the effect of the Mutual Assistance Convention. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl are still fresh in our minds and we want to make absolutely certain that everything possible is done internationally to ensure that the damage inflicted by such incidents is mitigated to the greatest possible extent. The Government, the Opposition and all your Lordships are, I think, at one on that.
We are grateful to the noble Baroness for having conceded our thoughts on publicity. Perhaps she did not go quite as far as we should have liked. No doubt that matter will be taken up in another place. Nevertheless, I must record my gratitude and the gratitude felt on these Benches for her openmindedness on this issue. We are glad that something has been written into the Bill. In short, we wish the Bill well. On the whole it is a good Bill. But no doubt there are some matters to which we shall return on other occasions.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
An amendment (privilege) made.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hooper.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill
3 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This is the fourth occasion in little more than 14 years on which a Bill with this title has been brought before your Lordships. That fact alone shows the importance of the issues which we shall be discussing today. We are not the only democratic society to know something of the evils of terrorism. It has now become a world-wide menace. We have now been facing the threat continuously for some two decades, and regrettably there is no sign as yet of it receding.
10
This year is a sombre anniversary. It is 20 years since the Provisional IRA launched its present campaign of murder. That has not of course advanced its cause one bit. It has achieved nothing—except the sacrifice of almost 3,000 lives.
We also have to recognise the extent to which the whole community in Northern Ireland has been touched by the continuing terrorist campaign, and how normal life for the vast majority in Northern Ireland has been spoilt by the men of violence who purport to represent their interests. The sheer determination of the people of Northern Ireland to go about their business as normally as they can is evident for all to see and to admire. Bilr there can be no normality until the scourge of terrorism is eradicated. Fear is its stock in trade, and fear strikes at the very heart of society; people fear fear.
Here on the mainland, we have to summon our powers of imagination to their limits if we are to understand fully what others have to contend with. However, we too have had constant reminders of the capacity of terrorism for wicked destruction. The recent events at Lockerbie, for example, have stunned the nation. Perhaps we should not have been surprised. We know, from previous atrocities, that the ruthlessness and the determination of the professional terrorist knows no bounds. For that reason we must be constantly on our guard against Northern Irish and international terrorism.
It was said when this Bill was discussed in another place that circumstances have changed since the dark days of 1974 when the terrible bombings in Birmingham and London led the then Labour Government to introduce the first Bill of this nature in two days. Mercifully, bombings and deaths on the mainland have not continued on anything like the scale of the early 1970s. But 89 people have been killed in Northern Ireland, and about 900 have been injured since the last time that these measures were debated in the House this time last year.
On the mainland, besides the Lockerbie bomb, which claimed nearly 270 lives, a soldier has died and a number of men were injured in the bombing of a barracks in north London. The discovery of a large arsenal of explosives and firearms at Battersea just before Christmas has doubtless stopped more lives being lost. But the threat remains high. The need for special measures is as great as it has ever been. We cannot for one moment lessen our efforts to defeat terrorism. No one could take any pleasure from that conclusion. It is dispiriting to have to make the case once again for re-enacting what are exceptional powers.
I realise that some noble Lords may argue later that some of the provisions in the Bill are inimical to civil liberties. I have no hesitation in saying now that I would not wish to pretend otherwise, But victims and potential victims also have rights. It is one of the difficult tasks facing any government who are confronted by a major threat to their institutional and communal life to find the proper and the most responsible balance between the duties they owe to their citizens and the rights of those who are suspected of involvement in terrorism, and who are dealt with under exceptional measures.

11
It is only right that the Government's judgment of where this balance lies should be carefully and regularly scrutinised. That is what we do today. Probably no body of legislation in recent years has been subject to the same degree of parliamentary scrutiny. As well as the debates on this Bill and its predecessors in 1974, 1976 and 1984, we have had the annual renewal debate in this House and another place.
Parliament has had the benefit of three major reviews of the legislation by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and, most recently, by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. There have also been annual scrutinies of the Act's operation since 1984. So it has been constantly under the microscope. The most recent report, for 1988, has just been completed by my noble friend Lord Colville and was published on 6th February. I should like to endorse the tribute which was paid by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place to the authoritative and informed contributions which my noble friend has made to the public debate on the prevention of terrorism. My right honourable friend has invited him to continue his series of annual reports scrutinising the operation of the Act, and I am sure that the House will welcome, as I do, my noble friend Lord Colville's agreement to continue to do so.
There are no powers in this Bill more important than the powers of arrest and detention and the power of exclusion. They are central to our belief that this legislation has, without any doubt, prevented acts of terrorism. It has helped to bring terrorists to justice and it will continue to do so.
Clause 14 enables the police to arrest a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It enables a person to be detained for 48 hours, and for up to a further five days on the authority of the Secretary of State. The powers apply to both Northern Irish and international terrorism. in the same way as in the 1984 Act.
As your Lordships know, it is the arrest and detention powers which have recently been the subject of a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. It is important, first, to recognise those resepects in which the judgment in the Brogan case as it is called did not challenge those powers. The judgment did not rule invalid the power of arrest. The court held that the arrests of the four applicants were based on reasonable suspicion of the commission of an offence. They therefore satisfied the criteria in paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Nor was the problem simply about the length of detention before charge. The maximum of seven days in Clause 14 is greatly exceeded in the law of some of our Continental neighbours. The breach related simply to the requirement in the convention that the person who is detained must be brought promptly before a judicial officer.
I do not disguise the fact that the judgment has set the Government a difficult problem, to which we are working hard to find a solution. It is a complex
12
matter because it concerns the involvement of the judiciary in matters which have previously in this country been handled by the Executive. I think your Lordships would agree that we cannot simply import, wholesale, Continental institutions such as the examining magistracy into our own legal system. We need to work within our own legal traditions and to take account of the differences between the three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. We need also to take account of the quite abnormal pressures under which the judiciary must operate in Northern Ireland. And it is in Northern Ireland where most applications for extended detention are made.
For those reasons, my right honourable friend has said in another place that a good deal more thought and consultation is needed. He made it clear that this process could not be completed in time for amendments to be introduced to the relevant parts of the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will understand why we believe that this is a reasonable course to take. It would be quite wrong to proceed with undue haste in an area which is so important to the nation's security and in a matter in which our legal traditions are different from those of other European countries.
However, I can say that we have considered and rejected one option—the possible reduction of the maximum period of detention from seven days to four. My noble friend Lord Colville sets out in great detail in his report the various reasons why seven days may he needed in a small number of cases. I shall not recite the list at length, but I shall merely emphasise one point that has been put to me by the police with some force.
The opportunity to continue interrogations is not by itself the crucial factor. The terrorist who remains silent for four days normally holds out for seven. The main value of the extra time is rather that it allows for the following-up of other leads and, in particular, for the completion of forensic tests. These can be very extensive in terrorist cases and the test itself frequently takes at least three days to do. More and more prosecutions nowadays hinge on forensic evidence. To reduce the length of stay to four days will effectively rule out obtaining much of the most incriminating evidence before the suspect has to be released—and then you do not see him for dust.
One example of this occurred in 1986 when the Royal Ulster Constabulary searched a house in Strabane and found three rifles, two grenades, three grenade launchers and a quantity of ammunition. It was not in fact a very large find as arms finds go, but five people were arrested at the flat. Their detention was extended so that forensic and ballistic tests on the materials could be completed. The questioning of the five about their involvement naturally continued as more scientific evidence became available. The outcome was that, on the fifth day of detention, all five were charged with terrorist offences. They were later convicted and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. That is an example of a case where the police would not have been in possession of all the crucial evidence if they had been restricted to four days.
My noble friend recommended that the system of reviews and the authorisation of continued

13
detention, which is contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, should be applied, with necessary modifications, to the first 48 hours of detention under the terrorism legislation. Your Lordships will see that we have given effect to this recommendation in Schedule 3.
The power of exclusion is re-enacted in Part II of the Bill. The Government fully recognise that exclusion is an unpalatable measure. It limits the freedom of movement, which most people would agree is an important civil right. My noble friend Lord Colville concluded that it should be discontinued, but your Lordships will recall that, in the last major review of the legislation, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe recommended that the power should be kept.
It is not for me to quote one noble Lord against another and I would not seek to do so. I refer to this only because both views are tenable and the arguments are finely balanced, but, as my noble friend Lord Colville acknowledges, the power is used sparingly and with scrupulous care.
There are now 145 people excluded from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom. My right honourable friends look at applications critically, and they make a decision to exclude only when they are satisfied of a person's involvement in terrorism. Furthermore, the system, which appears in Schedule 2 of the Bill, for making representations against an exclusion order to an independent adviser constitutes, in my noble friend's words, "a genuine method of appeal".
The difficulties of principle are, therefore, I think. mitigated by the careful procedure for exclusion, but the decisive consideration is, in my view, simply this: exclusion has prevented, and will continue to prevent, the occurrence of acts of terrorism.
I can give one example of this. Shortly before Christmas, the police detained, on arrival at Heathrow airport, a person who was strongly suspected of involvement in a recent and very serious terrorist incident in Northern Ireland. There was insufficient evidence on which to lay charges, but there was good reason to believe that the visit to London was likely to have terrorist connections. My right honourable friend was satisfied that there was a real threat to our security should the person have been allowed to move freely on the mainland and he therefore made an exclusion order.
My noble friend Lord Colville acknowledges the operational value of exclusion orders, but concludes that the ends do not justify the means. We believe that, in the exceptional circumstances of Northern Irish terrorism, they do.
The Bill also seeks to re-enact the power to proscribe organisations which are involved in terrorism and to re-enact the provisions for control of entry into Great Britain or Northern Ireland. These have been features of the legislation since the first Act was introduced in 1974. The port powers, which were previously enacted by subordinate legislation, have now been incorporated in the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Colville recommended, but there are no major changes of substance.
14
I should like to refer to the important new provisions in the Bill which are concerned with the financing of terrorism. I am glad to say that there has been general agreement about the importance of these provisions. Money is the lifeline of the terrorists and there has been widespread concern that the existing powers were inadequate to cut off their supply of funds.
Previous prevention of terrorism Acts have prohibited contributions to acts of Northern Irish terrorism and the resources of proscribed organisations. They also provided for their forfeiture. However, the powers have been cast in simple terms, and have been aimed primarily at the more overt types of fundraising, such as collections in pubs and at demonstrations.
The modern terrorist is a professional. Our police forces, who have to catch them, have to show even greater professionalism. We must give the police the necessary powers to track down the terrorists and, in the case of money, to cut off the source of funds. Without funds, no terrorist organisation can operate effectively.
We cannot give an accurate figure of the annual income of the Provisional IRA, but the Royal Ulster Constabulary estimates that it is in the region of £3 million to £4 million a year. It was emphasised to me, when I talked to senior members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland recently, that these are conservative estimates. The vast majority of this income is thought to be raised from within the Province.
Racketeering has now become established in Northern Ireland and it takes many forms. At one end of the scale there are activities which are plainly criminal, such as protection which is extorted from shopkeepers and at building sites, VAT evasion and social security frauds and the occasional armed robbery. However, what is particularly disturbing is the extent to which the Provisionals have moved into the commercial world —for example, pubs, clubs, shops and estate agents.
They have also invested very profitably in the production of pirate videos. These are sold through a wide variety of outlets across the Province, both bona fide shops and those which are directly controlled by the IRA. The profits from these activities are channelled back to the quartermasters who organise the purchase of arms and equipment, the payment of active service volunteers and their dependents and contributions to Sinn Fein's election funds.
Terrorist fundraising is not the exclusive preserve of the IRA. The Loyalist organisations are also heavily dependent on the money that they in their turn extort from their own community in order to sustain their activities—and, let us remember, to keep the leading members in the style to which they have become accustomed.
Away from Northern Ireland, it is not surprising that Middle Eastern terrorist groups should wish to take advantage of the London money market. We have good evidence that the Abu Nidhal organisation was running a cell in London in 1986 at a cost of about £50,000 a year. The measures that we propose

15
in the Bill are also therefore aimed at the funds of international terrorism.
The arrangement is a complex one and I do not pretend to describe each of the new provisions in detail although I shall, of course, be happy to reply to any particular points that your Lordships may care to raise.
In Part III of the Bill we have therefore strengthened and broadened the range of offences which are in the 1984 Act. We have introduced new powers of investigation into terrorism in general; but we have aimed particularly at the financial side. And we have provided powers of restraint and forfeiture.
There are two important new features of the scheme of offences. The first is a widening of the existing offences of making contributions. It will now also be an offence to enter into, or otherwise be concerned in, an arrangement whereby money or other property is to be made available for terrorist use. The second is that there is a new offence of entering into, or being concerned in, an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control of terrorist funds. Taken together, these changes will have the effect of outlawing the activities of the financial middlemen who handle the flow of terrorist funds.
As under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, the Bill relaxes the contractual duty of confidentiality which is owed by banks and other financial institutions to their clients. This is done in order to enable them to report to the police any suspicions which are aroused by particular transactions. We have discussed our proposals with the representatives of the financial sector in London and Belfast, and I am glad to say that we have been assured of their general support for our proposals.
The powers of investigation in Schedule 7 will be particularly valuable in establishing the channels along which money is passed to terrorist organisations. The police may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, or to a circuit judge for an order requiring certain specified material, such as bank records, to be produced. Items which are subject to legal privilege are exempt.
In Northern Ireland only, there is an alternative procedure for investigations concerning an offence under Part III of the Bill.
The Secretary of State may himself issue a written order for search or production. He can do this, though, only if he is satisfied as to certain matters, and if it appears to him that police investigations would be prejudiced, or that the safety of a particular person or of Northern Ireland itself would he endangered by a court warrant or a court order being sought. My right honourable friend has said that he will consider applications personally and with the most scrupulous care.
The remaining elements of the proposals come into play once suspected terrorist funds have been identified. The police may apply for a restraint order before a person is charged. The money will be frozen so that if it is later established in court to be terrorist funds it can be forfeited.
16
The Bill provides for restraint and forfeiture orders, which may be made in one part of the United Kingdom, to be recognised in other parts, and for Orders in Council to designate other countries whose restraint and forfeiture procedures will be enforceable in the United Kingdom.
It is obviously important to develop enforcement arrangements across national borders because terrorism, like drug trafficking, is increasingly an international phenomenon. We hope to embark on negotiations with other countries soon after the Bill becomes law.
There is a group of new provisions in the Bill relating only to Northern Ireland which I should like to mention briefly. The first relates to the powers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces when carrying out searches under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. This is essentially for clarification.
The second is that there is provision for the Secretary of State to refuse or, in some cases, to withdraw licences under the Explosives Act 1875 in the interests of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety. It is important to be able to prevent the establishment of explosives factories or stores in the Province where such considerations apply. The third is that there are two changes to remission arrangements in Northern Ireland. One will reduce remission for people who are convicted of serious terrorist offences from one-half to one-third, in line with the remission which the person would have obtained if he was serving his sentence in Great Britain. The other is that we are also providing for the reactivation of an unexpired portion of a previous custodial sentence where a person is subsequently convicted of a scheduled offence while on conditional release.
There is considerable concern within the Province that the present arrangements do not provide sufficient deterrent. These new measures are designed to make people think rather harder about becoming involved, or re-involved, in terrorism than they appear to do at present.
I should like to return to one of my noble friend Lord Colville's most significant recommendations; that the new Act should be made fully permanent. My noble friend argued that, as there was no prospect of the terrorist threat receding, there was not much point in regarding these provisions as in any sense "temporary".
We acknowledge the force of this point, and we have thought carefully about it. But we have concluded that it would be wrong, in principle, to allow such exceptional powers to remain indefinitely on the statute book. The Bill therefore provides, as have the previous Acts, for regular annual renewal by Parliament, either wholly or in part. At the same time, we do not think that it is necessary to provide for the Bill to expire after five years.
In giving the Bill an unlimited life, while requiring Parliament to decide each year whether the powers should continue, we have returned to the position which existed under the 1976 Act.
Over the past two decades or so, terrorism has endangered the very life of our nation. It has

17
challenged our security, our institutions, and indeed the rule of law itself. The dangers have become continual because terrorism has become a grotesque profession for those who opt out of the normal democratic society. They put people at risk. They put society at risk. Fear, grief and destruction are the only products of the power of violence.
If we are to prevent terrorism, we too must be systematic and professional in our approach. We must continually examine and re-examine the means by which we choose to protect our fellow citizens. That is what we have done in the preparation of this Bill.
It renews powers which have been exercised effectively over the past 14 years. It also builds on that experience and goes further than before in striking at the very financial roots of terrorism. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House is indebted to the Minister for the lucid and characteristically open way in which he has moved the Second Reading of the Bill. The House will also be looking forward with considerable pleasure to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar. He is a distinguished colleague from North of the Border.
One of the great traditions of our Parliament is that when the nation is faced with an enemy, the official Opposition and the Government join hands. Terrorism is the enemy of our country and of every civilised nation. The Opposition join hands with the Government without doubt in the wish to wage a successful war against terrorism.
However, in accordance with that tradition it is correct to voice in your Lordships' House the only points of difference. We ask whether the measures put forward by the Government in the Bill amount to a successful war against terrorism, without going too far over the boundaries of invading civil liberties. Do they not have the effect—which we know the Government do not desire—of acquiring people's sympathy towards those wretched organisations, when that sympathy should not be gained? Finally, are the measures counter-productive?
So that your Lordships realise the importance of this approach, perhaps I may quote at once from an organisation which is not in this country but in Northern Ireland, where the population, at first hand, has to deal every day with the problem of terrorism. There is an organisation in Belfast which is called the Committee on the Administration of Justice which consists of Protestants and Catholics, of lawyers, community workers, people who are prominent in their professions, academics, people of different political parties and people of no political party at all. This is the message sent by such an organisation to your Lordships' House:
"We do feel that the operation of this legislation, notably the seven day detention power, exclusion orders and port controls, has led to alienation in Northern Ireland from the forces of law and order, harassment of the Irish community in Britain, and a reduction in the civil liberties of all citizens in the United Kingdom. It is clearly counter-productive".
18
I repeat that it is an organisation of repute situated in Northern Ireland, whose population we are thinking of at this time. Its considered opinion is that many measures in the Bill are counter-productive.
Perhaps I may begin with one example which was dealt with frankly by the noble Earl, as one would expect; that is, the question of an exclusion order. I should like to deal with that first. He said perfectly fairly that the Colville Report, a report by an esteemed colleague of this House, was against exclusion orders. I make no big point of the fact that he did not mention—and it is no great matter of relevance—that it was not merely the recommendation on one occasion but was the conclusion of the noble Viscount in two successive reports. Furthermore, those reports and the examination which led to them came after the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.
It is useful that your Lordships should be reminded on the Second Reading of this Bill of' what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said about exclusion orders. However, before I quote from what he said in his very recent report, let us be reminded what we are talking about as regards exclusion orders. We are talking of internal exile—a principle unknown in our law for several centuries. It is something about which we learn. I an not trying to quote this as a complete or even a partial parallel but it is reminiscent of exile to Siberia. That is still a part of the USSR and we regard that sort of internal exile as horrific. An exclusion order is made by the Executive without a trial and without charge. It is usually made to exclude people from our part of Great Britain and sends them to Northern Ireland on the basis, presumably, that it is unsafe for us to have those people ambulating throughout our streets in freedom but perfectly all right for them to do that in Northern Ireland.
I now remind your Lordships of what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville—a distinguished member of the party opposite—said at page 39 of the report presented in December 1987:
"Exclusion orders deprive certain people of the right to move freely around the United Kindom and to live where they please. The evidence against them is not tested in a court of law nor made known to the person excluded and it is possible that some of it may he inaccurate … Exclusion orders can divide families, make it difficult to seek a job and difficult too to get away from former terrorist associates. These restrictions are only feasible because there is a stretch of sea between Ireland and Great Britain. ft cannot be envisaged that such a power could be exercised against Scottish or Welsh separatists however terroristic their activities. It cannot be used against naturalised or British-born citizens from other countries who become caught up with disputes from overseas and resort to terrorism in Britain … It should not he forgotten that one of the aims of terrorism is to lead a Government to introduce repressive measures; the unpopularity thus caused can be exploited further to excite criticism and turmoil as part of a vicious circle … I obtained the impression that the authorities in Northern Ireland would not encounter problems of any substance if exclusion orders were to disappear; although by contrast orders excluding people to the Province do add to the heavy load already borne by the RUC and the armed forces."
That is a fairly conclusive and definite recommendation by a Member of this House who was able to do something which no Secretary of State—and, with respect, no Minister—has the time to do. He examined all the conditions, all the papers, all the documents, saw the police force, saw every

19
representative organisation and made all inquiries possible and then came out with this assessment on page 40 of the report:
"However I am not convinced that the ends justify these means. I renew my recommendation, made in the annual report on the Act for 1986, that Part II of the Act should not be renewed in 1988, or not replaced in the new Bill".
Having asked for the guidance, the Government have received it and are ignoring it. Can that be right?
Perhaps I may move on to something which was equally frankly dealt with by the noble Earl. He talked about the Brogan case and talked about arrest. I am talking about ignoring the advice of someone who has been asked to investigate matters and make recommendations. We are signatories to the European Convention. As the Minister rightly said, we were found by a court to be not guilty of contravening, in the special circumstances of terrorism, the power of arrest and we were not even criticised for having that power of arrest before charge extending to five days. The criticism was that we were in breach of the convention by virtue of the fact that the 48 hours is extended to five days by an administrative act of the Secretary of State and not by a judicial officer—and I am using shorthand English in talking about a judicial officer.
Perhaps I may say that the noble Earl put forward a proposition which is foreign to me as a humble follower of the legal profession. He said that it was no part of our normal code that judges should interfere in matters of that kind. When the cry of liberty of the subject comes down the corridors of any of our courts in this land, by tradition it has precedence over every other case. Liberty of the subject is what is involved. Freedom from the possibility of arrest without charge for a certain period of time in no way breaches any of the conventions or traditions of our law, if such an extension has to be approved by a judicial officer.
I recognise that there are some difficulties in this matter and I shall face them frankly. A most extraordinary situation which the Minister did not refer to occurred in the other place. Under our rules I am permitted to quote what Ministers say in another place. In regard to the Brogan case and a solution to it, the Secretary of State said very clearly (and I quote from his Second Reading speech on 6th December):
"Our system contrasts with that on the continent, in which examining magistrates supervise police inquiries and also, normally, authorise detention. I have no doubt that the House, as I would, would have preferred to see this matter resolved before debating the Second Reading of the Bill today. But it would not have been sensible to rush into hasty decisions—
a phrase which I believe was used by the Minister today—
"on a highly complicated problem between last week's judgment and today's debate. I believe that the House will understand why we feel it necessary to proceed with a little more deliberation in this case. We are examining the problem with an open mind"—
I invite your Lordships' strict attention to the following words—
"and I shall bring forward our proposals, as the House is entitled to expect, before the Bill leaves this House".—[0fficial Report, Commons, 6/1211988; col. 211.]
20
It was difficult in the other place to deal with this matter, as the Secretary of State well understood, without the conclusion which was promised and the solution to the Brogan case before the Bill left the other place. That is what happened on 10th January, only a few weeks ago towards the end of the Committee stage in another place. The Minister suddenly produced a letter which was handed to the Member of the Opposition who was in charge of matters in Committee. I quote from column 257 of Hansard of another place:
"This is a letter that I wrote yesterday to the hon. Member for Huddersfield …: 'I thought you might find it helpful, in advance of tomorrow's sitting of the Standing Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, to give you some idea of the line I will be taking on the ECHR's judgment.
'The Home Secretary made it clear at the Committee's last sitting that it remains the Government's wish to find a judicial solution to the problem of extended detention under the terrorism provisions. Urgent work continues to this end, involving consultation between a number of different departments and bodies across the United Kingdom. This inevitably takes time and, because it is so important, it would he unwise to try to rush it'."
I shall not quote the rest of the paragraph where he talks about the Bill having to have Royal Assent before 22nd March. But this is what he says right at the end:
" 'I will therefore be inviting the Committee to proceed with its consideration of the Bill on the basis that we will not be bringing forward amendments to the arrangements on extended detention'."—(0fficial Report, Commons. Standing Committee B. 10/1/1989: col. 257.)
So, having promised—and the Secretary of State well knew the problems of' the Brogan decision—on Second Reading that the House must have an answer on the Brogan decision befor the Bill left the other place, at the very last moment on 10th January the Secretary of State is saying that there will not be an answer even before 22nd March, by which time he wanted the Bill on the statute book—"You are going to pass this Bill and you won't know the answer to the Brogan case". That is not good enough. I say, frankly, when one is dealing with liberty of the subject, that that just is not good enough, because I recognise the Government's difficulty. It was a difficulty that was perfectly obvious. Does one give away to the person opposing the extension of the 48 hours to five days all the secrets that you do not want the other side to have? I am talking personally. I have no right whatever to do anything other than to talk personally on this matter. I should have thought that it would be preferable to have a judicial process rather than to derogate as we are, from the European Convention and put ourselves into that critical position. In other words, it might be preferable to have faith in a judge and have a procedure by which the detainee (if I may call him that) can argue before the judge that he should not have the extension. But the judge should be the only person in receipt of any report that has to be given by the prosecution (if I can call it that), by the authorities. I should have thought that that was perfectly all right, but in all humility I am giving a personal opinion to the House.
It is because of considerations like this that the official Opposition is worried. We want to join hands in the fight against terrorism. We absolutely correctly, as the Minister has said, brought forward in 1974 this kind of legislation following the

21
Birmingham bombings. We renewed it quite correctly. We have now had 14 years' experience and we ask ourselves whether these violations of ordinary civil rights are counterproductive.
There were other matters that I wanted to mention, but time does not allow. In conclusion, what does the Bill say at the end of the day? As the Minister told the House, once a year it will come up for annual review. I have studied Clause 17, or it may be Clause 20, which deals with renewal. As I read the clause the Secretary of State can come before Parliament to ask for an affirmative resolution to renew the provisions of the Bill, either in whole or in part. If the statutory instrument says that it should be in whole, what can Parliament do about such matters as I have referred to: the exclusion orders and the power of arrest? Why do not the Government face the issue and undertake to bring in a statutory instrument to renew each separate part of the Bill? If that were done, year after year Parliament would be able to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that exclusion orders are out but it will renew otherwise. Or will Parliament possibly be left in the position we are in today: we either take the lot or not? At the Committee stage something may be done in relation to these matters, but I fear that, however optimistic I may be, it may be difficult to carry a vote in respect of fundamental amendments.
The least we can ask for is this. Before we legislate for the particular, which is so often in danger of future legislation for the general, in defeating civil liberties which have been our pride and glory for many centuries, unless that statutory instrument at least provides for each part to be sanctioned separately we are not having a temporary provisions Bill for an emergency but a fairly permanent Bill which is an impairment of civilian rights.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I think this is the tenth occasion on which I have spoken in this House either on the Second Reading of a prevention of terrorism Bill or on one of the continuance orders. Therefore, I think one is faced with the real danger of becoming involved in tedious repetition of arguments.
There are only two comments I should like to make by way of introduction. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I welcome the fact that we are to have a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, in a few minutes' time. I can remember only too well the occasion on which I made my own maiden speech on an extremely minor Home Office order and being deeply concerned about every conceivable aspect of that order when I spoke. Therefore. I suspect that I know how the noble Lord is feeling now, just before addressing us. Nevertheless, he is a welcome addition to the House and we look forward to what he has to say.
I think it is right to say, particularly in the light of the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that we on these Benches, unlike the Labour Party, support this legislation and its broad principles. In our judgment there is the clearest evidence of a continuing and serious threat of
22
international and Irish-based terrorism. In those circumstances this Bill, conferring as it does substantial powers on the police and on the Secretary of State, is justified.
The original Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead following, as the noble Earl reminded us, the public-house bombings in Birmingham. It is also right to say, in the light of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it received the total support of the Labour Cabinet on that occasion. When those bombs exploded a prevention of terrorism Bill was already in draft form. It had been prepared by Home Office officials following discussions with the police in case the terrorist campaign in our cities was escalated by the IRA. As we all know, it was, and the Bill was introduced.
Is is therefore entirely wrong to suggest, as one Member of the House of Commons suggested on Second Reading of this Bill, that the 1974 Bill was cobbled together at short notice in order to appease a mood of public anger. The Member of Parliament concerned was not, when she was a Home Office official, in any way involved in the work on the Bill and therefore had no knowledge whatever of the matter. What she said was simply untrue.
Having been involved with my noble friend in 1974 in the detailed discussions which led to the introduction of the Bill I hope I can say, without being accused of either smugness or complacency, that it has stood the test of time reasonably well. Its provisions, as the noble Earl said, have been subjected to detailed analysis; first, by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, then by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and finally by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Although, following the reports, a number of changes have been made, the main provisions of the 1974 legislation are repeated in this Bill: the power to proscribe; the arrangements to permit examinations at ports in the common travel area; the special powers of arrest and detention; and, finally, the power to exclude.
I do not propose to discuss today at any length the case of exclusion orders. No doubt we will be dealing with that matter in Committee. However, as I indicated last year when we debated the continuance order, although I have immense respect for the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I regret to say that I do not agree with his conclusion in this respect. I do agree with the view of the Home Secretary In the light of the fact that a Labour Government introduced this legislation—in my view, absolutely rightly—I should have been rather more hesitant than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in making that unfortunate reference to Siberia. I was not wholly clear what he meant by it, but, in so far as he meant anything, it is profoundly unfortunate that he referred to it in any way at all.
Exclusion orders have clearly saved lives. In my viwes, there is absolutely no doubt about that. I have seen the evidence that men and women of violence have come to this country with the object of killing people in Great Britain. In such circumstances it is of course highly desirable that they should be brought before the courts and charged with specific criminal

23
offences. However, despite powerful intelligence information, that is sometimes not possible. In those circumstances the police are, by legislation of this character, able to go to the Secretary of State and ask for an exclusion order. Sometimes they have been granted and sometimes they have not. All that I can say to the House, on the basis of my own experience when I was in the Home Office, is that the standard of proof then required by Ministers was high and that the inquiries conducted by our colleagues into the working of the Act have demonstrated that that remains the situation as regards the present Government.
I propose to deal briefly with only three other matters. First—and on this I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—I should be grateful if the noble Earl would speak at rather greater length about the Brogan case. It is wrong to suggest—and on this I agree with the noble Lord entirely—that the European Court of Human Rights in effect struck down major sections of the Act. It did no such thing; but it did say that the seven day detention orders permitted under the 1974 Act should be subject to some form of judicial intervention. I noted what the noble Earl said. He said that the matter was still being examined. This examination has taken a rather long time to conclude and I therefore hope that before we reach the Committee stage the noble Earl will have rather more explicit information to give on this matter.
Secondly, I should be grateful if the noble Earl would touch at slightly greater length on the contents of Clauses 22 and 23, dealing with remission. I am worried about the concept of the so-called scheduled offence. We can obviously have an opportunity to discuss this matter in Committee but I think that there are problems associated with those clauses which will need to be looked at rather carefully.
Finally, I turn to those clauses of the Bill dealing with the financial roots of terrorism. I believe all of us welcome this part of the Bill without reservation. For many years the IRA has grown fat on the proceeds of protection rackets in Northern Ireland, as have some of the Protestant paramilitaries. More recently they have moved into apparently legitimate businesses and it is obviously necessary to take firm action to deal with this new threat.
Of course, terrorist racketeering is not necessarily confined exclusively to Northern Ireland. We heard from the noble Earl about the activities of some Middle Eastern terrorist groups in London and I have heard of others. Clearly we are dealing with not only Northern Ireland terrorists but also, to some extent, Middle East based terrorists. It is necesary to study the legislation with that in mind.
I hope that the new powers set out in this section of the Bill will prove to be adequate, but I confess that I am by no means sure that they will be. The noble Earl referred to the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, which we spent a fair amount of time discussing in this House. As the noble Earl rightly said, this Bill deals, in part, with some similar issues. When that Bill was before the House in, I believe, 1986 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and I tried, entirely
24
unsuccessfully, to persuade the Government to accept an amendment that provided that any substantial cash deposit made to a bank or to any other financial institution should be reported to the authorities; the figure to be determined by the Secretary of State.
The reason for that amendment was the American experience. Under the United States Bank Secrecy Act any cash deposit of more than 10,000 US dollars has to be reported to the authorities. The American authorities have told me—I have not the slightest doubt that they have also told the Government—that they have found this of immense advantage in dealing with people involved in organised crime, including those involved in drug trafficking.
I find it odd that once again the Government appear to be declining to accept the very clear evidence on this matter from the United States. I am well aware that British banks would not like this at all. The American banks did not when the Banks Secrecy Act was piloted through Congress. The fact of the matter is that if we are to succeed in our battle against both terrorists and organised crime syndicates (the two sometimes overlap) bankers and others will have to accept more intervention in their affairs.
If I may say so to the noble Earl in the most amiable spirit, the term self-regulation will not be enough. Only an hour or so ago we heard the noble Earl speaking about the way to respond to the evidence that organised criminals, drug dealers and for all one knows people involved in international terrorism have been using bank deposit centres. It appears that there had been some kind of amiable discourse with the British Security Industry Association. The noble Earl later added that the police will be involved in those discussions. I regret to have to tell the noble Earl that there was no indication of urgency on his part in dealing with the clear evidence that organised criminals had been using these centres to launder or to hold the proceeds of their criminal activities.
Given the fact that, as the noble Earl said, we now have evidence that Middle East terrorists are involved in this as well and find London a very attractive place in which to operate, it seems to be a matter of far greater urgency than he suggested in his reply at Question Time today. I believe that this matter should be dealt with far more vigorously by the Government.
In conclusion, let me say this. I believe that it is essential that on a matter touching the civil liberties of our fellow citizens legislation of this kind should be scrutinised with great care. But let us not try to pretend that there is a massive chasm separating Members on both sides of the House. As I have indicated, the broad principles of this Bill introduced by a Conservative Government are remarkably similar to the broad principles of the Bills with the same name introduced by Labour Governments in 1974 and 1976. We have to accept the fact that terrorists have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent people in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, they will kill many more in the future. In our judgment this legislation is the necessary

25
response of a civilised liberal democracy to a threat directed at this country. I believe that deserves the support of a united Parliament.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Macaulay of Bragar: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank my noble friend Lord Mishcon and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his kind words in anticipation of my participation in this debate. I trust that the anticipation will not be greater than the event deserves. I am told that the previous Lord Macaulay, who was also of Hebridean stock and an historian, politician and scholar, had the ability to talk for hours on end. But I can assure your Lordships that I have not inherited that trait and that I shall abide by the normal conventions of your Lordships' House.
What is being discussed today is the desirability of having a Bill that deals with one of the most controversial aspects of life in the United Kingdom and that touches most of us at one time or another. It deals with an area of strife that has been with us for a long number of years. It is unfortunate that it is necessary to have such legislation. The legislation itself has its own flavour which distinguishes it from any other. Within the Bill there are admitted to be found many provisions which are alien to the concepts of freedom of movement within the United Kingdom and which run contrary to the well-known presumption of innocence of the individual.
In those circumstances it is understandable that there should be a critical and adverse reaction to the Bill, which to some extent inverts the onus of proof. It requires a citizen who would normally carry the presumption of innocence with him on his travels to prove that, within the context of the Bill, he is in fact innocent of involvement in the activities of terrorism to which the Bill is very properly directed. That is a very dangerous intrusion into our basic legal structure. It is therefore extremely important that the reasons for the continuation of this legislation should be closely examined. The particular provisions which in effect take people out of the normal processes of the law and access to the scrutiny of the courts should be put under the closest scrutiny. I have no doubt that your Lordships will do that in due course at the Committee stage.
It is particularly important because these so-called temporary provisions are now taking on the status of permanent provisions. It is important that Parliament should have the right to scrutinise and amend this legislation in order to reflect changing situations. There is a real danger that concentration on what can be termed the rights of the individual will overshadow an examination of the rights of the nation as a whole. It is correct to say that our civil liberties and rights should be jealously guarded and only eroded, even to a minimal extent, when there is good and just cause for that. It will only be in exceptional circumstances that this should happen.
The question now posed is whether the problem of terrorism particularly as regards Irish affairs, falls within the ambit of exceptional circumstances. The reality of life is that, despite the recent optimism about a possible settlement of the Northern Irish and
26
indeed the Irish question, the evils of terrorism will be with us for some time to come. Terrorists in whatever shape or form are the arch-enemies of freedom and democracy and cannot live with democracy. They will always try to oppose agreement and peace and their justification in life is violence and terror. Who dies, who lives or who is maimed as a consequence of their vile deeds does not concern them. They pay lip service to what they like to call their "cause", which when examined is merely a vehicle for the exercise of violence mutually exchanged between opposing elements.
Terrorists must be sought out and dealt with according to the due process of the law. Therefore it is essential that in pursuit of that objective the investigating and prosecuting authorities should have as much freedom of action as is consistent with the maintenance of the rights of the individual against the machinery of the state. How that balance between the state and the individual is to be struck is a very difficult matter to judge. It is a delicate balance but it must be achieved.
The affairs that make it necessary for this Bill to be before the House are unique politically and geographically and in the manner in which mindless violence is perpetrated. With that unique background it can reasonably be argued that unique steps are called for to counter the terrorists of whatever complexion, creed or code. They take advantage of every weakness shown by the authorities. They kill and maim and then insult the whole nation with pious apologies. Therefore it is necessary in order to reduce the carnage, death and destruction that they should be harried until they either disappear or they are caught and brought to court. The essence of this exercise reflected in the Bill, as I see it, is the prevention of terrorism. Once the act of terror has been committed, it is too late so far as concerns the victims. Prevention is an important element for as long as the violence continues and there is a problem to be faced.
The Bill has its shortcomings but in posing the primary question, "Is this type of legislation still necessary in principle?", there can be only one answer; and that is in the affirmative. No one welcomes or wants a Bill of this kind but most people will recognise the necessity for it. It is easy to take an academic view of the issues involved while ignoring the reality of what is going on. In Scotland, experience has shown that such legislation appears to have been a powerful weapon in the hands of the authorities. The situation in Scotland now appears to be that, perhaps due to a combination of the existing legislation and the vigilance of the police, presumably allied to excellent intelligence information, the prospect of terrorist activities has receded and it is to be hoped that one day this will be reflected throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. That is not to say that legislation should not be introduced to Scotland. Its existence may well be the deterrent that is required to keep the terrorists out.
What worries many practitioners in the area of the law is the lack of legal scrutiny of what happens to people when they are being detained. Being locked up for up to seven days must be a terrifying prospect for any individual, particularly an innocent person.

27
There are well-recognised circumstances in which persons who are being detained without access to someone other than the investigating authorities eventually, to use a colloquialism, crack up. They make statements sometimes amounting to confessions of guilt which in fact are untrue but are made in desperation in the loneliness of detention and in the hope that making such a statement will get them their freedom. That should not happen if it can be avoided because once such an injustice has occurred, and as events have shown, the road to freedom thereafter following conviction becomes a tortuous and tedious one for the unfortunate innocent and his family.
It may be that in order to balance the public interest in apprehending terrorists there should be built into the system better immediate access to legal advice as part of the detention system immediately a person has been detained. It is easy to recognise why there should be minimal access to anyone while there is an active investigation which might be spoilt by information being fed to the outside world, even by a lawyer, which is probably not unknown. But that must be balanced against the considerations of the presumption of innocence. The individual should always be entitled to access to legal advice when in custody unless there are exceptional circumstances to deny him that.
It has to be said also that, even with the best will in the world, there will inevitably be courtroom clashes between the defence and the prosecution about the fairness of admissions made during the time of detention. Consideration will have to be given as to whether any such admissions should be admitted in evidence at all unless they have been tape recorded, as happens in police stations in some areas in Scotland, or videoed or acknowledged by the suspect in the presence of his solicitor as being something that he had voluntarily said while being detained and questioned.
The Bill is a piece of legal machinery which is considered to be necessary to attempt to at least contain the activities of terrorists, to get at their existing funds and to deprive them of access to other funds. That aspect of the Bill is welcomed on this side of the House. It is a special Bill dealing with special circumstances, but the state should not shirk from its responsibilities towards the individual to build into the system adequate provisions for the protection of the innocent. It is inevitable in this field that innocent people will be caught in the dragnet of investigation, and while the Bill has provisions for review of detentions it should also ensure that such detained persons should have reasonable and ready access to help to ensure that they are released at the earliest opportunity. That might help to balance the Bill between the public and the private interest.
The purpose behind the Bill is basically the obtaining of evidence by the process of detention and continued detention and the obtaining of such evidence by questioning or otherwise. That makes it even more important that the whole process should be carefully monitored. Few persons would argue that some form of special investigative powers should not be given to the authorities, but the zeal to find the
28
men of violence should not be allowed to override the basic principles of the legal system.
Many argue that, by the nature of their activities, terrorists have given up any right to enjoy the presumption of innocence and to have the burden of proof of guilt always placed on the shoulders of the prosecutor. That is an understandable attitude but it is one which prejudges the issue of innocence or guilt. Having had court involvement with members on both sides of the divide, I have seen the fanaticism and blinkered approach of persons eventually accused of crimes of terrorism. Even being in court facing many years in prison does not alter their commitment to what they see as their just cause which sees violence as the only language the other side will understand.
Violence begets violence, and only when it has been eradicated will the troubled island of Ireland find peace within itself. While the politicians strive but fail to achieve peace the problem of terrorism will be with us and the legislation now before the House will be necessary to give the authorities the freedom of movement they need to contain the men of violence.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, all noble Lords will know from their own experience that the delivering of a maiden speech in this Chamber is something of an ordeal. Even if one is accustomed to addressing audiences or courts in other places, it is different here. We all congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macaulay of Bragar, on his maiden speech, which we enjoyed very much. He brings to our discussions a well-informed and balanced approach to the difficult problem of the liberty of the individual and the rights of the state as a whole. That is not altogether surprising because he is a distinguished advocate and I understand that his practice was to a considerable extent in the criminal courts. I also understand that he is to continue his practice, which is unfortunately some 400 miles away. We all hope very much that the necessity to continue practising will not keep him away from the House too much. We look forward to his contributions to our debates in the future.
As my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in introducing the Bill, it is an international Bill. However, I think the House will understand if, in view of my own history, most of my remarks relate to Northern Ireland. I should like to start by picking up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. When speaking to the Bill a few moments ago he referred to his support for waging war against terrorism. I hope that he will not use that phrase again. It is the terrorists' belief in Northern Ireland that they are at war. They believe that a war is going on. If someone is locked up, they believe that that person is a prisoner of war. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the special category prisoners, of whom fortunately practically none is left. He will remember the blanket protests and the dirty protests in the Maze Prison. The protests arose because they wanted to be treated as prisoners of war. A war is not going on. This is an effort by society to stamp out crime—no more. Any impression given that we regard it as a war, as I am sure the noble Lord on reflection will agree, is unhelpful.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I would always welcome a correction from the noble Lord and would take it, as he will know, in good spirit. But there is such a phrase, well known to all of us, as the war against crime.
Lord Colnbrook: Indeed there is, my Lords, but I have made my point and I know that the noble Lord will reflect on it. I know that he does not want to give any aid or comfort to terrorism.
Perhaps I may refer to a point made by Mr. Hattersley during the Second Reading debate in the other place. He urged the other place to decline to give a Second Reading to the Bill and his friends supported him in that Motion. One of the reasons he gave was that the defeat of terrorism in Northern Ireland could be achieved only with the wholehearted support of the community. He went on to suggest that the existing legislation and the new legislation did not have that support. He is quite wrong. Virtually everybody in Great Britain, and I suggest not less than 99 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland, desperately want an end to terrorism.
Perhaps I may make a slight diversion at this point. Television, radio and most newspapers have the habit, when reporting on some terrorist outrage, of saying that such and such an organisation "claims responsibility". My dictionary tells me that the word "claim" means to demand as a right; in other words, that there is some legitimacy attached to these matters. What shadow of legitimacy can possibly be attached to the apparently endless stream of atrocities, large and small, committed by terrorists in Northern Ireland?
Ten years ago almost to the day in the precincts of this Palace a distinguished Member of the other place and a good friend of many of us, Mr. Airey Neave, was murdered and the Irish National Liberation Army claimed responsibility. What conceivable legitimacy attaches to that? They may think that there is some right to do this, they may think that there is some legitimacy attached to it, but nobody else does. So I very much hope that the television, the radio and the editors of newspapers will stop using the words "claims responsibility". "Admit" is a much better word and I hope that they will use it.
To return to my main point, I said that 99 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland want an end to terrorism. If anything, that is an under-estimate. If 99 per cent. want an end to terrorism, only 1 per cent. actively support it. There are 1.5 million in the Province and 1 per cent. of 1.5 million is, I think, 15,000. I simply do not believe that there are 15,000 people in Northern Ireland who actively want the campaign of terrorism to continue.
There are many reasons for that and there are probably two most important ones. First, it is against all their upbringing. The people of Northern Ireland, as I am sure your Lordships know, are a great deal more attached to churchgoing and the teachings of their religious leaders than, unfortunately, many people are in England. Every church—Roman Catholic, Anglican, non-Conformist, the lot—teaches the same message: that murder is evil and that murder for political reasons is no less evil than any
30
other. The people of Northern Ireland have been brought up in that belief since they began to talk.
Then of course there is the second reason. The activities of the terrorist are so indiscriminate. When they launch some major horror on the country and blow up a dance hall, a shop, a group of people gathering around a war memorial, whatever it may be, it is the innocent who get killed—people who have nothing to do with the cause for which these people are making these explosions. They are just bystanders, old and young, children in arms, people who have nothing at all to do with it. Even when the attack on society is much more limited and the terrorist sets out to shoot somebody, quite often he shoots the wrong person who has nothing at all to do with the cause. Occasionally he is good enough to say that he was sorry he got it wrong.
The point I am making is that the terrorist campaign is totally indiscriminate and everybody in Northern Ireland knows it. You can be on one side or other of the political divide or have no politics at all, but you may get caught up in it purely by chance. That is why I maintain that the Government, in bringing forward these measures, have massive support both here in Great Britain and in the Province of Northern Ireland.
To turn to the Bill itself for a moment, my noble friend said that it differs in a number of respects from previous legislation and we shall be going into all these matters in Committee. I should like quickly to mention just two points. The first has been referred to by virtually every speaker; that is, Part III, which attacks the funds of the terrorist. I am delighted that this has come forward. It has always been the prime concern of the terrorists to ensure that they have money. They must have money because Colonel Gaddafi does not give them weapons; he sells them weapons. You cannot find Semtex explosive lying about. You have to go and buy it.
Furthermore, you have to maintain your own people when they are in hiding preparing to mount some atrocity. They have to be paid and they have to spend money. The terrorist needs money and he has been getting it over the years. I am happy to say that the provisional IRA get a great deal Mess from the Noraid organisation than they used to do. I think that the US Administration deserves our congratulations on taking steps to ensure that that flow of funds is a great deal less than it was a few years ago.
The terrorists get money in all sorts of other ways, as has already been said, some legal but most of it illegal. The difficulty—and it is increasing—is that if they manage to get money illegally they can launder it. I am no financier, but I think that that is the right word. In other words, they make it into legal money and, as has been said, they invest it in enterprises quite properly while hiding the fact that it was improperly come by. Anything we can do to deprive them of money will be a severe blow to their campaigns. If we can starve them of money by operating the provisions of this Bill, we shall all benefit and they will be restricted quite noticeably in what they can mount in the way of terrorist attack.
My final point is about the permanence of this Bill which has already been mentioned. It differs from the

31
1984 Act in that it does not have an end date. I think that the 1984 Act was wrong to have an end date and I am glad that this one does not. I will tell your Lordships why I think that. It goes back to what I was saying earlier about the belief of terrorist organisations that they are fighting a war, that the war will come to an end and that they will win it.
Anything that they detect on the part of what they regard as their enemy—in other words, the British people—any weakening of their resolve to continue what they regard as the war, they seize on and are pleased about. It encourages them to make one further, two further or 10 further efforts. The thought that the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1984 passed a Bill which lasted for only five years gave them encouragement, because they thought to themselves: Why did Parliament do that? It is because they do not think they can carry this on for any longer than five years. Therefore we have only to keep going for another five years and we have won. Of course we know that that is absolute nonsense, but I believe that that end date in the 1984 Act gave some encouragement to the terrorists. So I am very glad that it is not in this Bill.
Of course we have to look at it every year, which is absolutely right and proper, but if we can demonstrate today, and hopefully in future years as and when necessary, that we are determined here in this House and in this country to continue to do everything we can to bring an end to terrorism, and the more determined we can show ourselves, the nearer comes that day when terrorism can be banished.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gave us a reasonable and noncontroversial presentation of the Bill. I believe that he struck the right note and he certainly carried me with him. Equally, my noble friend Lord Mishcon, who was cautiously hesitant about welcoming the Bill, gave the right warnings about the erosion of our civil liberties. He was quite right too. Any dismantling of our established civil liberties is a matter that is bound to cause all of us some concern. But in combating terrorism I think we have to accept that some erosion is inevitable. We pass these measures in the hope that the liberties will all return.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar on his learned and authoritative intervention. It was quite obvious from what he said that it is a subject in which he takes a great deal of interest and we look forward to him entering our deliberations in the future.
I am in favour of the provisions in the Bill and, although not everyone will agree with all I say, I hope that everyone in your Lordships' House hates and detests everything that is planned and executed by the terrorist organisations and wishes to eradicate this evil that operates within our shores. We differ only on the ways and means of achieving that goal.
I believe that in a democratic society it is defensible to stifle all outlets and eliminate all forms of support for those terrorist groups who are bent on
32
undermining the authority of the state and intent upon smashing our democratic institutions. That is certainly the aim of the Provisional IRA. Therefore, I do not hesitate to back a measure which is designed to apply more pressure and tighten the legislative grip on all terrorist activities in Northern Ireland.
This Bill seeks to reduce remission of a jail sentence in Northern Ireland from one-half to one-third for people who commit serious offences and who are sentenced to fixed terms of five years or more; that is mainly those convicted of terrorist offences: murder, attempted murder, weapons and bomb offences. I ask, why not? In retrospect I believe that it was remiss of me not to have recommended this measure 10 years ago. Just imagine the terrorist murderer gaining 50 per cent. remission of his sentence in Northern Ireland, whereas on the mainland it would only be one-third. I believe this to be a ludicrous situation. Those who have suffered grief because of the loss of a loved one, in many instances a totally innocent bystander, must think that the law is crazy, unfair and unjust.
It is estimated that 30 per cent. of released Provisional IRA prisoners rejoin the paramilitaries. Alan Wright, whom I very much admire and respect is the spokesman for the Northern Ireland Police Federation, representing 10,000 members of the RUC. He has said:
"no doubt that a large proportion of them went back to terrorism—it is like a conveyor belt system."
How frustrating and heartbreaking it must be for the police force that has so painstakingly tracked, trapped and successfully charged a terrorist, to see him return so quickly into an active service unit. The Royal Ulster Constabulary needs our support. I believe the Bill to be a morale booster. A life sentence is still not life, but at least this will keep more of these evil men out of society for a longer period of time.
The Bill also seeks to retain the right to arrest and detain a suspect for up to seven days. I believe this to be absolutely right. It recognises that the personal permission of the Secretary of State shall be sought for the extension of seven days, and that proper presentation of reasons shall be submitted with the police application. I know from personal experience the seriousness of this exercise. The police have never treated this aspect of the legislation lightly. The noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in their reviews of terrorist legislation, have all thought this measure to be necessary, and so do I.
The terrorists wage an insidious and devilish campaign. In order to outwit the terrorist who has had anti-interrogation training the police need the necessary time to do the job: time to check fingerprints, complete forensic tests, check all their police records, conduct patient interrogation; check alibis and find witnesses. Time is needed when the detainee is unco-operative and may well have had a spell in the Maze Prison (that university of Provo terrorism) where he had been taught anti-interrogation techniques. Time is therefore most important. Knowing full well that the extensions are not lightly sought, I support the RUC's desire for its continuation.

33
Thirdly, the Bill seeks to stifle the illegal finances that flow into the terrorist organisations' coffers, constantly lubricating the activities of the Provisional IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army, and I am sure too the Ulster Volunteer Force and some of their units.
There will be virtually no opposition in Northern Ireland to this provision in the Bill. It enables seizure and confiscation of proven terrorist funds and allows sentences of up to 14 years for the offence of handling terrorist-bound cash. There are far too many innocent, frightened people in Northern Ireland, and this aspect of the Bill, apart from tackling the ill-gotten financial resources of the terrorists, will gradually lift the veil of fear from hundreds of persecuted and intimidated people in the Province. There is the opportunity in this legislation for the police, backed by the security forces, to stamp out the protection rackets and the intimidation and death threats against workers on building sites, prison buildings, government buildings and those repairing and building new Civil Services offices—many hundreds of totally innocent men and women who are singled out and constantly threatened just because of the job they do. The spin-off from this attack on terrorist finances will give so many people greater freedom and enjoyment of liberty that a permanent depression will be removed from their lives. This measure is worth it for that alone. I only hope that the police will be able to act swiftly and effectively to release these people from this constant misery.
Finally, this Bill seeks to continue with exclusion orders. I believe that, with recent instances of terrorist activity in Great Britain, the British police must have the right to arrest, suspect and exclude persons from British soil. The powers to arrest and detain persons on reasonable suspicion of being involved in a terrorist act causes so much concern, inconvenience and personal upset, that it is constantly criticised. Of the people stopped at ports and airports, many are innocent and feel greatly hurt. There is always the possibility that the police may be conducting a trawl—maybe with harassment or indeed abusing their power. However, these powers are still necessary. The surveillance team observing the home of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his movements had only one obvious objective in mind; but at the time of arrest they had not committed the act. There was the disturbance by a car thief of a terrorist look-out, which scattered a team of terrorist suspects from their lair, wherein were found explosives. There was no doubt about their mission but it had not yet been carried out. They are still at large and, when arrested, there will be the right to use exclusion orders and so on. Herein is the right to arrest and exclude them from our shores. These men are over here for real, deadly business. To many Irish people it is an unacceptable level of intrusion and injustice but many others, including the British on the mainland, especially those who are conscious of the extent of terrorist activity and its effects on their lives, say"Thank goodness". It gives them some comfort that the police have the necessary legislative power to act.
Unfortunately the circumstances are such within the United Kingdom that some liberty must be
34
sacrificed in the defence of liberty, insidious though that may be. It is the price that must be paid in defence of our democracy. I believe that there should be all-Party support for the introduction of these limited special powers to resist and tackle terrorism. Nothing gives the IRA more joy and some encouragement than to see a divided House, and especially the image created by some within Parliament of seeming to be too protective of the terrorists and their political allies, rather than wishing their destruction.
When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland my opposite number was the late Airey Neave. I took him into my confidence. We jointly discussed projected anti-terrorist measures. We had a bipartisan policy. We stood together with the major political parties behind us. The terrorists received no joy from us. On a matter where the basic freedoms that we all enjoy are under serious threat, that is how it should be. I am sorry that this was not achieved in another place, but I am more hopeful that it will be so in your Lordships' House.
4.40 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I hope that it will be helpful if my Irish voice can contribute a little to the debate. because this legislation has had over many years, and will continue to have in the future, a great effect on Irish people. There is quite a lot that I had intended to say, but in view of the awful event which occurred yesterday in Belfast, where a very brutal and gruesome murder took place, and the atmosphere which exists there today, it may be inappropriate to mention some of the things which I had intended to say. However, I hope that before the Bill leaves this House, I shall avail myself of that opportunity.
I remember vividly in 1974, when the original Act was first promulgated in another place, the atmosphere of fear and despair which then prevailed throughout Britain in the wake of the Birmingham bombing. In the few remarks that I was able to make on the introduction of that Bill, I did hot blame the British Government for introducing that legislation; I blamed the IRA for making it necessary for them to do so. I have never had any reason to change my mind since then. There have been occasions in debate after debate in another place when I have voiced my fears about certain aspects of the Bill. But I have always been convinced that while terrorism and the threat of terrorism exists in these islands, it is necessary to have some powers to combat it.
When my noble friend Lord Mason was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I do not think that he and I agreed on every single issue as we saw it then. However, I found myself in total agreement with him today when he said that the protection of the people in these islands from terrorism should be a non-party affair, and that both sides of the House—that is, in this House and in another place—should be in total agreement on the matter.
As I said, I listened to the debate which took place in this House last week, and I have been listening to debates and reading Irish legislation as it has gone through another place over the past few weeks. I detect a certain element of opposition in the speeches

35
which have been made by Opposition Members in another place, which is totally inappropriate, to attempts by the Government—Conservative though they may be—to protect the citizens of this state from murder. I have heard it repeatedly in the remarks made by Members of the Opposition, and, regrettably, in those made by my noble friend Lord Mishcon today. He said that elements of the Bill were leading to harassment of the Irish people. That is exactly how the IRA wants this legislation to be seen.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that my noble friend Lord Fitt will forgive my intervention here. When I used those words, I was quoting deliberately from an association of non-political people; namely, Catholics, Protestants, lawyers and academics. Those people asked me to quote those words in your Lordships' House and I did so. They were not my words.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, that is quite right, and I apologise to the noble Lord. But I do know that it was read from a document. I know the people who constitute that committee and I would not say that the majority of them were non-political.
I repeat, in speech after speech in another place, both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, the charge was made that the proposed legislation was harassment against the Irish people. As I said, that is exactly how the IRA wants it to be seen; members of that organisation want it to be seen as a racist attack on the Irish people. They hope that by putting out this image that it will garner them more support from Irish people living in this country.
I have said repeatedly in debate after debate that the vast majority of the Irish people living in this country, and in the island of Ireland, want absolutely nothing to do with the IRA and terrorism. I have with me a quotation which I have come across over many years. It is printed in every IRA "hit sheet" and it is used on the propaganda leaflets of Noraid in America. Morever, regrettably, it is used by very responsible newspapers in their editorials in the island of Ireland when the occasion suits them, especially when there is disagreement about extradition, or some other issue. The quotation is dragged out again and again and printed. I should like to lay this quotation, which appears to be of such benefit to the IRA and its supporters, to rest once and for all.
It appears that about 200 years ago there was a man called Sydney Smith. That name, to say the least, is not the best-known name in the island of Ireland or, indeed, in this country. However, with the assistance of the Library of the House, I was able to obtain some information about him. The information I have reads:
"Sydney (1771–1845), English journalist, clergyman and wit".
However, so far as concerns this quotation, he was a halfwit. Nevertheless, he was very much involved in the debates which were then taking place as regards Catholic emancipation and the great arguments which were then raging not only in this country but also in Europe.
36
Again, with the assistance of the Library, I was able to find further information culled from a book called Peter Plymley's Letters. It would seem that Peter Plymley was even less well known in Ireland than Sydney Smith but, according to the information I have, Sydney Smith is evidently writing to Peter Plymley. I shall read but two sentences to your Lordships. He wrote:
"Every body who knows Ireland knows perfectly well, that nothing would be easier, with the expenditure of a little money, than to preserve enough of the ostensible appointment in the hands of the Pope to satisfy the scruples of the Catholics, while the real nomination remained with the Crown".
That is gobbledegook to most people; in fact, the whole letter is gobbledegook to most people. Indeed, I would urge noble Lords to check the matter out in the Library. However, the next sentence is of devastating importance. In relation to Catholic emancipation and other issues which have absolutely no relevance to the events of today, he goes on to say:
"But, as I have before said, the moment the very name of Ireland is mentioned, the English seem to bid adieu to common feeling, common prudence, and to common sense, and to act with the barbarity of tyrants, and the fatuity of idiots."
I have seen that quotation bandied about in Ireland for at least 20 years, or perhaps even 30 years. It bears absolutely no relation to what is happening in these countries today, but it is dragged out by Noraid; it helps the provisional IRA and it helps all those who want to exacerbate existing tensions between Ireland and Britain. However, it is simply not true.
If the Irish people feel harassed, if they feel that they are second-class citizens, why is it that 20,000 of them come here every year from both Southern and Northern Ireland? Further, why is it—as your Lordships know—that the hundreds of Irish people who work in this very building in no way subscribe to the belief that they are being treated barbarically because they are Irish'? As I said I would, I have made only a few remarks today. There is quite a lot more I should have liked to have said but in view of the happenings in Ireland yesterday, I shall refrain from going along that way.
Regarding exclusion orders, I find myself in disagreement with most of what has been said this afternoon. If a person is suspected of terrorism or acts of terrorism in London, Wales, Scotland or anywhere else, and the authorities and the security forces cannot find sufficient evidence against him, I do not believe that he can be dumped in Northern Ireland. If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom—that is what it is all about, members of the IRA are saying it is not, and that is why they are killing—it should not be used as a dumping ground for people against whom no charge can be made. I am not sure what legislation or what Act can be used. If someone is suspected of terrorism in London and the charge cannot be proved against him, then some means can be found to detain him here where it is alleged that he was about to commit an offence.
It looks as though on the face of the exclusion order the authorities and the powers that be are saying, "We don't want you to commit murder in London, but it is not so bad if you do it in Belfast". I think that is wrong. There have been nearly 3,000 terrible murders in Northern Ireland over the past 20

37
years. I do not believe that the idea should be put around that a murder in Northern Ireland is more acceptable than in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mason. I realise that in saying so I shall he subjected to a good deal of abuse and criticism in Northern Ireland. I have never believed that priority should be given to the Northern Ireland terrorist, and that he should only be given half his sentence by way of remission for the most foul crime that we can see in humanity—the brutal murders that have been committed. When people are sentenced to a period of imprisonment they know very well that they will get 50 per cent. remission. I have always believed that that was unfair. I have opposed, and shall continue to oppose, capital punishment. I do not believe in anyone taking life; but in substituting a life sentence for capital punishment the life sentence should mean what it says, without remission.
Regarding the legislation, I remember saying repeatedly in another place that similar legislation has a great habit of becoming permanent. It was called temporary, but it became permanent and so has terrorism become permanent. If terrorism were not as permanent as it is today, then there would be no need to keep this legislation on the statute book. However, I urge those who will be enacting the provisions of the Bill to treat the issues of the exclusion orders, the searches at airports and at points of entry into this country, with great sensitivity in order to ensure that the IRA and its supporters do not get away with promulgating the belief that it is harassment of the Irish people—either in this country or travelling to or from it.
I do not think that anyone here or in Northern Ireland would have any qualification at all about the new powers contained in the Bill, the seizure of funds. The IRA, acting as it does in a Mafia-type way, living by fear and intimidation, has accrued to itself all the finesse of Mafia organisations throughout the world. It has used every terrorist tactic in the book to ensure that it will never go short of funds in order to carry on its campaign of terrorism. I have serious doubts—and I voice them as an Irishman—as to whether the majority of people in the IRA are really fighting to drive the British out of Ireland or bring about the unity of Ireland. A new way of life has taken over for them. They are acting as Mafia, as the Mafia has done throughout decades.
I said last week—and if noble Lords wish, they may check this in the Library—that when the Mafia first began, it began as an organisation which was allegedly fighting to throw off the oppression by Italy of Sicily. Let us see what has developed throughout the years in that organisation. I honestly believe that the vast majority of young people in the IRA do not know what they are fighting for; but the godfathers certainly do. If the legislation can in any way inhibit and punish those godfathers, then it will continue to have my overwhelming support.
4.55 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the support which noble Lords have
38
given for the Bill. On the whole, that support has been fairly universal. There have been some questions which various noble Lords quite understandably wish to pursue, and they will be able to do so at a later stage.
Throughout the whole of the debate there has been support from all corners of the House—not just for the Bill but for the continued onslaught against terrorism and all that that means. For that I am most grateful because when a government produce a Bill of such a nature as this, where liberties are very substantially curtailed, it is of great importance and comfort, if I may say so, to find that on the whole your Lordships approve of it.
I was particularly delighted—as I know other noble Lords were—at the maiden speech of Lord Macaulay of Bragar. He made a number of points which rang very true and I tried to make a note of them. His method of delivery was so rapid that I may have some of them a little wrong. He said that it was too easy to take an academic view without realising what was going on. That is of real importance. It was good to hear from him such a robust speech against terrorism. He has the unique distinction of coming from the other side of the Border, well- versed in the law. I am sure he will find that he will be enormously welcome here in all capacities, whenever he chooses to speak.
The noble Lord, Lord Macaulay, also showed great ability in his masterly way of being noncontroversial wihout letting on that he did not necessarily agree 100 per cent. He said that the Bill had shortcomings which had already been touched upon. I do not think one could be more noncontroversial than that, and I congratulate him. We are delighted to have him here, and we, look forward to his participation on many occasions.
My noble friend Lord Colnbrook said that he thought that 99 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland were against terrorism. That left 1 per cent. which he said was too much. When I was in Northern Ireland the other day, one person put the matter to me. He said, "If you take 1 per cent. and cut it in half and then cut it in half again and then cut it in half again, you get down to somewhere like the number of people who want to be involved".
It is quite right that with that kind of scenario the Government—whatever government happens to be in power—should take every possibility they can to protect the interests of the majority of those people who abhor terrorism in all its forms. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, also confirmed that the vast majority wanted nothing to do with the IRA.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Colnbrook for saying that the Government have massive support for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that it deserved the support of a united Parliament. I was also glad for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, whose knowledge of Northern Ireland—like that of my noble friend Lord Colnbrook—is very deep. The noble Lord has of course held responsibility in the past regarding Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Mason, was enormously supportive. He supported the right to retain the power to detain for seven days. He aprroved of the

39
exclusion orders. He said that what was needed was all-party support and that when he was in government he had obtained that support. He hoped that that would be the case now. I was grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, started with the happy phrase that the Opposition wished to join hands with the Government in attacking terrorism. I felt a degree of contentment at that. The noble Lord then quoted from an organisation. That body said that the operation of the legislation would lead to alienation, harassment, infringement of civil liberties, and would be counter-productive. That was an unfortunate quotation to use after the noble Lord had just said he hoped there would be a joining of hands against terrorism. I wonder whether his noble friend Lord Fitt, sitting behind him, chivvied him on that.
Much to my surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that he was only quoting from someone else. The noble Lord cannot brush away the responsibility for what he quotes. That is rather like a schoolboy saying. "Oh no, sir, it was not me, it was Smith minor". If the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, quotes from somebody, he must take the responsibility for presumably agreeing slightly with the words of the quotation.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Earl, as always, is not only fair when he argues, but he is witty too. However, I wish to remind him that what I said was that the Opposition wished to join hands. The noble Lord, Lord Colnbrook, did not like my phrase, "in the war against terrorism".
The point concerns how one wages that war. I quoted from an authoritative body in Northern Ireland which said that there were certain defects in the way in which this Bill waged that war. To me there is no inconsistency. If there is to the noble Earl, I bow to his intelligence but not necessarily to his understanding of me on this occasion.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord should have explained what he meant. We shall not take it further than that. The noble Lord referred, as did a number of your Lordships, to exclusion. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that exclusion was virtually exiling. I believe that was the word he used. If exile means sending people away from their homes, that is not an apt description of what is happening.
The majority of people who will be excluded will be sent back to the part of the United Kingdom in which they normally lived. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, was worried about that point. He said that we should not dump people back into Northern Ireland. I should make it clear that the exclusion powers are very carefully framed in order to take account of where a person is settled. The Home Secretary cannot exclude from Great Britain a person who has been resident here for three years. So we are really talking about people who have been resident for less than three years. The Home Secretary must in other cases take account of a person's connections with Northern
40
Ireland or with another country before making an order.
Exclusion does not therefore increase the concentration of terrorists in Northern Ireland; rather, it prevents active Northern Irish terrorists from moving to the mainland with the aim of carrying out major atrocities. That is the purpose of the measure. The Royal Ulster Constabulary has accepted that it is easier to prevent terrorism if it can be contained in Northern Ireland, where the security forces are better equipped to deal with it. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, should regard this not as dumping back into Northern Ireland those who are terrorists but keeping out of the United Kingdom those who have come and who are shown to have connections with Northern Ireland for reasons of a terrorist nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked why we could not renew the legislation bit by bit, instead of as a whole. It can be done either in whole or in part. The noble Lord quite clearly said that if a Peer or a party wished to renew all the legislation except one particular part, they were unable to do so under the system as it is at the moment if the Government produced an order permitting the re-enactment of the whole of the legislation. But if the whole of the legislation were not passed, it would be up to the Government to produce another order which would have the important parts of it enacted. Perhaps I have not explained that to the noble Lord as clearly as I should have done. However, I think he knows perfectly well that if an order were produced for the re-enactment or the continuation of the whole Bill, and if that were found to be disagreeable to your Lordships, the Government would have to come back with another order re-enacting those parts considered suitable.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's courtesy in intervening again. I was trying to say that if there is to be a proper annual review the only fair way of dealing with it is by having a statutory instrument not dealing with the whole. That means that those of us in the House who feel that generally the order is right have to vote against it. That would not be the fair way of dealing with it.
I asked whether the Government would consider that each part should be put before Parliament by way of a statutory instrument, on one day if necessary, so that those of us who felt that a part of the Act was wrong could voice our view without throwing the thing back to the Government to come out with another statutory instrument. I merely ask the noble Earl to consider that. As he well knows, I have asked him in previous years to consider that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord always has the benefit of remarkable clarity of exposition, and I am grateful to him for that. I understand what he means. We shall of course have occasion to return to this matter in Committee. I shall take into account what the noble Lord has said.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the question of Brogan should be clarified a little more. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was also concerned

41
about that. I should explain that the maximum period for which people can be detained under the Bill is seven days; that is, two days on the authority of the police and five days more on the authority of the Secretary of State. After that they must be charged, deported or excluded from the United Kingdom, Great Britain or Northern Ireland, under the provisions of the Bill, or released.
The point of the European Court's judgment which has put us in difficulty is that the way the system operates in Europe is different from the way it operates in the United Kingdom. In European countries suspects generally have to be brought more quickly before an examining magistrate, but examining magistrates commonly have the power to remand suspects in custody for much longer than seven days without there being a specific charge in a form our courts would recognise. Therefore, we are in a difficulty because the systems operating in Europe and those operating in the United Kingdom are different. It is not a question of those who are kept in custody not being charged in time. They are bound to be charged within seven days. It is merely the system that is different here. That is why we shall have to take some time in finding the right answer to that difficulty.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary outlined in another place some of the difficulties we would face if we were to adopt a judicial procedure for considering the extension of detention. As he pointed out, our own criminal justice system is radically different from those of the other signatories to the European Court of Human Rights. For the courts to take on from the Secretary of State the function of authorising extensions of detention would be to involve them in a role in which they have not hitherto been involved. It is not surprising that we are therefore bound to have to take a little time to conclude the right way of dealing with that. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who is a particularly zealous advocate of the law, and his noble and learned friend, Lord Elwyn-Jones, beside him will think that is a prudent course to take.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the package of measures dealing with terrorist finances. I am glad that he welcomed that part of the Bill. We have given some considerable thought to the American legislation to which he referred. As the noble Lord acknowledged that is concerned with organised crime as opposed to terrorism. We have not so far been convinced that the American approach is the right one for this country.
If we can break the rackets which the paramilitaries operate, we shall deny them the money on which their business depends. That will limit their capacity to prepare for further acts of violence and will undoubtedly save lives.
It will also relieve the community in Northern Ireland as a whole from the systematic bleeding of its precious resources. If the drive against funds brings about conditions of greater normality that may have a significant effect on the level of support for the men of violence. I am glad that the initiative will on the whole, have the general support of the House.
42
I do not wish to minimise the extraordinary nature of some of the powers which we are taking. I am deeply grateful for the support for the Bill which noble Lords have given from all round the House despite the reservations which have quite understandably been expressed. When we reach the Committee stage we shall have to deal with those matters. Your Lordships will be quite right to probe them more deeply. I shall do my best to give your Lordships the assurances which you will expect and require.
I am grateful that we have had support in principle for a Bill which seeks to remove the fear of terrorism. If in so doing it curtails the liberties of others I think that we shall have to accept that curtailment.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Avebury World Heritage Site
5.12 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet rose To ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to protect the World Heritage site at Avebury, and whether they will arrange for the three major planning applications there to be considered together by a planning inquiry commission or other procedure having the same effect.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question concerns a World Heritage site; rather, it concerns half of the World Heritage site which consists of Stonehenge and Avebury. My Question relates only to Avebury.
World heritage sites receive no special protection in law in this country. The question that we have to address is, if that is the case what is the point of the special status? In a recent answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, the Government have said that they believe that such sites are adequately protected by present planning law. However, given the present wave of prosperity and, in its wake, the movement of capital from here to there seeking ever new opportunities of a quick return, there is probably a need for special protection for those sites; also because they have recently received that extremely grand name of World Heritage sites. It has proved a magnet, and the foxes of instant greed are coming down. Small local authorities inexperienced in the lore of foxes are at immediate risk from developers with their tempting offers of "social gain". They need help.
Avebury is many things. It is a majestic neolithic site: a very large stone circle with smaller ones inside it, all still standing, inside gigantic banks from which radiate avenues (one of which is still in a very fine state of preservation) to other extremely important sites. Those include Silbury Hill, which is the largest and perhaps most mysterious neolithic monument in the whole of Europe. They also include the West Kennet long barrow, a large masonry tomb with a thing like a small piazza of St Peter's in front, with arms to welcome the dead and a wall across to keep them in. The fourth is the Sanctuary. There are three major sites above ground.
There is probably a connection with the four seasons. In the 26th century B.C., which is the century concerned, we are in the age of the Great White Goddess. She is presumed to have become pregnant in the great circle itself at the fertility rites of midsummer, to have proceeded to the mound of Silbury—which is like the belly of a pregnant woman—and to have given birth there. She is then thought to have repaired to the tomb at West Kennet long barrow, where she lay dead for three months. She then went to the Sanctuary, the round place of initiation, for the spring ceremonies where the youth went through initiation rites into maturity. That is as good a guess as any that I have read, and I think that I have read them all. I like to think that it is true.
Within the great circle itself there is a textbook, picture postcard village. Its main features are a very fine Saxon and 13th century church and a manor house, part Elizabethan and part 17th century, which is also very fine. As manors go it is tiny, it is a case of minute perfection. It has perfect 17th century gardens round it.
Above Avebury runs the Ridgeway, which was the M.1 of the 26th century B.C. Not far away is the Roman road—and here we are coming to quite modern events. Beyond that is the Wansdyke. Elsewhere there are the newly discovered remains—the holes—of a very large stone circle. Three recent planning applications threaten to disrupt completely the sensitive event which is Avebury. The first is for a development on the Ridgeway itself, right on the skyline above the village. It is a proposal for a hotel and conference centre with very tall buildings of an extremely silly design. They would dominate the site. The application has been refused, an inquiry has been held and the report is awaited.
At the end of the Kennet Avenue is the West Kennet Farmhouse site. It is a not particularly distinguished but nice 17th century farm building, with very fine rows of early 18th century classical farm buildings around it. They include solid stone and brick buildings. The application is for a 90 bed hotel, and sport and leisure complex, with 200-odd parking places. It would double the built-on area on the site. That is where the new circle has been discovered and the complex would obliterate part of that circle.
A very poor feasibility study was carried out by the English Tourist Board at the expense of the applicants. It showed extremely defective local knowledge. The English Tourist Board had taken its demand assessment from the personal assistants of general managers of companies in Swindon. They rang up and asked if the companies had difficulties putting up foreign guests, and the answer was: yes. Swindon is 12 or 13 miles away.
The hotel is to be four-star. To the English Tourist Board the important thing is that it should have trouser-presses and hairdryers in every room. In the opinion of most people in the area what is needed is a 20 or 30 bed hostel or one-star hotel of a standard which pleases walkers and archaeologists. It is a pity that the tourist board did not apparently consult the
44
National Trust or English Heritage in preparing its report. It is no disgrace to seek expert advice. As to what is offered now; it will be an ace car park with a neolithic temple underneath.
The church is safe for the moment. The manor has recently been bought by a successful developer from way outside the area. He is planning a theme park which will contain not only the standard old car museum—and no slur is intended on the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, who I am pleased will speak later in this debate. Since the noble Lord started his own wonderful museum such museums have become numerous and have gone down hill. A plant shop is also planned, as are licensed bars, tat shops, the sale of craft work—which we know all too well means more tat, only brought in from Hong Kong—and also a torture dungeon. The whole has already been advertised for conferences, banquets, wedding receptions, corporate hospitality and private parties.
No doubt like other councils, Kennet district council has a tourism development manager. He submitted a report on the Avebury Manor application to the planning committee, giving it his full and enthusiastic backing. I understand that the officer's wife is, or has been, on the payroll of the applicant, as his "administrative consultant". The tourism manager did not declare any interest to the planning committee. I expect that the Government will agree with me that this arrangement is improper—certainly, it looks improper—and that it should have been avoided. Perhaps it has already ceased; I hope so. I am not surprised that the applicant thought it a good idea. But I would be surprised if the Government continue to think it all right to leave the planning of these world sites to rural councils which are not yet versed in the lore of urban foxes. Despite all this, however, the council was wise enough to refuse most of the applications for the manor and to decide, after many months of dithering, to prosecute the developer for the work that he had done without planning permission.
For the future, we must get certain principles right. We must get them accepted in all our minds. The main principle is that these places can only be spoilt once. If excessive visiting will spoil the place, then visiting must be limited. No planning decision should therefore be taken which will attract more visitors than the place can presently deal with. For instance, if the place is too small for coach trips, there should be no coach parking other than for school trips putting down for educational purposes.
The second principle is that we should never entice idle curiosity. No people should be enticed to these places who do not particularly want to see whatever it is and would be happy to go somewhere else. We should not entice businessmen visiting Swindon or "magical mystery tour" coach trips.
The third principle is that there should be no irrelevant building. No buildings should be built which would change the particular character of the place. We should note that those characters vary widely between sites. The Giant's Causeway and Hadrian's Wall are wild; Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal, which constitute one group, are formally perfect and in one place holy; Durham is

45
urban, vertical and in one place holy; Stonehenge is rural, open and in one very small place holy; and Avebury is rural, open and holy over two or three square miles.
The fourth principle is enforcement. Enforcement must be serious. Penalties for ignoring enforcement and stop notices must be adequate to the case. In a recent case, an owner quite near to Avebury was fined £20,000. That sounds a large sum to most of us, but it so happened that it was tuppence ha'penny to him. The law must be changed.
In addition, enforcement must mean that the building comes down, not that the fine is a fee for letting it stay up. For that, only a small change in the law is required to make it clear to councils that, so long as their judgments are sane, they will not be stung for compensation by the foxes. Furthermore, unauthorised change of use must not be allowed to continue on the grounds that it is not all that important. It is always important because it is the thin end of a dangerous weapon.
The Government must find ways—perhaps the House can help them—to obtain a system that embodies those principles by means of which the Government could fulfil what they are already committed to by their adherence not only to the World Convention under which these sites are designated but also to the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, which entered into force for us in March last year.
Rural World Heritage sites could automatically be made environmentally sensitive areas under European Community laws. That would allow the recently broken open downland to be properly managed, especially by the National Trust if it is there, and to be returned to the permanent pasture that it was and should be, instead of being left to moulder under set-aside.
Planning applications should be dealt with in a manner which ensures that the special nature of the site is fully taken into account and that, when there are batches of applications—hailstorms of applications, like those at Avebury—they are considered together in their relationship to one another. I believe that a good way would be through the planning inquiry commission which was put on the statute book in 1968 by a Labour Government, and continued in 1971 by a Conservative Government. It is there to deal with complicated new applications or groups of applications and can be effectively used, I should think, for cases where it is important to set the right precedent for a new sort of case.
We must also remember that the operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention state that a site is struck off the world list if it,
"deteriorates to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which determine its inclusion".
Any of those three big applications at Avebury could, if permitted, lose Avebury those characteristics and thus cause it to be struck off the list.
I repeat: places like Avebury can only be spoilt once. At the very least, the Government should issue a circular to local authorities; better would be
46
automatic application to these sites of all the special planning and conservation statuses that already exist. They could be repealed later if it looked safe to do so, but at the moment we should allow very little indeed. I doubt whether Avebury can afford any more tourists than it now has. I hope that the Minister can tell us what is the annual number: I believe that it is probably 150,000 to 200,000 per year.
Perhaps the best starting point of all this might be the planning inquiry commission for which my Question calls. The fact that an inspector has already held an ordinary inquiry into one of these three applications—the Ridgeway Hotel—should not stand in the way. The planning inquiry commission could simply welcome his report as having done part of its work and it could then get on with the rest and deliver a global and inclusive report to the Secretary of State.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, many in this House, and many more outside, will welcome the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, this afternoon. It is very timely and touches on a matter of some importance. The House also acknowledges his expertise in this matter. He is not only a most knowledgeable and lifetime local resident but he is a former Minister for the environment with a particular interest in all aspects of conservation.
I speak as chairman of English Heritage. I do not wish to comment in detail on the current planning applications at Avebury. It would be invidious if I were to do so as, at any forthcoming planning inquiry, we might wish to give expert evidence, and in any case we have the monument at Avebury in our care.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to raise some wider issues concerning World Heritage sites, Avebury being one of them. Your Lordships may be rather hazy as to what a World Heritage site is, so perhaps I should explain that, under the terms of the convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage adopted by the general conference of UNESCO in 1972, it was decided that the World Heritage Committee should establish, under the title of World Heritage list, a list of the unique properties forming an essential part of the world's cultural and natural heritage which the committee considered as having outstanding universal value.
The United Kingdom became party to this convention in May 1984 and thus became party to the main purposes of the convention, which are, first, to draw up a list of World Heritage sites, which member states pledge to protect; and, secondly, to operate a World Heritage fund to give practical support to conservation projects at threatened sites on the list. I do not think that the latter has yet come about.
There are now 11 sites in the United Kingdom inscribed on the list and a further 18 submissions have been made for consideration. The A vebury area was one of the first to be inscribed in 1986, a judgment with which we at English Heritage were in entire agreement. Its qualities are indeed of outstanding universal value. Other examples for your

47
Lordships' interest include Stonehenge, Ironbridge Gorge, Durham, Blenheim Palace, Bath and even St. Kilda's archipelago and the Giant's Causeway. The nearest are this Palace of Westminster and St. Margaret's. They were all chosen because they are unique and outstanding examples of world cultural and natural heritage. At English Heritage we were happy freely to submit our advice in their selection. But these sites need special treatment.
Avebury is under threat. There is not yet a local plan for Avebury and it is difficult to see how there can be proper co-ordination of the various statutory controls (which may be relevant to such an area) without clear guidance based on a master conservation plan. It is not just a question of protection. Their management as World Heritage sites is needed because sadly their designation often attracts leisure entrepreneurs to cash in, like bees round a new honey pot, on what they see as a dramatically increasing number of potential visitors. They then create ever more attractions, some of them quite incompatible and out of sympathy with the uniqueness of the site.
Too many visitors, as we well know, may spoil what they come to see. We need a policy, we need a plan, we need a programme and we need management. But what controls are there? Local authorities have certain powers on planning matters, but they do not have powers over taste. They can restrict numbers of visitors where desirable by regulating the number and size of car parks, by controlling opening hours and what days to open. They can restrict if necessary the size and nature of tourist facilities. They can control signposting and impose a degree of traffic management. Of course all these matters are fully considered in the case of any individual application, or certainly should be. But what happens when, as at Avebury, there is a succession of applications from different applicants within the area, not even all on the same site? Are there to be individual consents without reference to any planning or policy or government guidance, or appeals leading to separate public local inquiries? How can the aggregate effect of these applications be gauged or a fair judgment arrived at?
English Heritage has decided to take the initiative and will be submitting such a master plan. It will consult widely in setting up and financing such a study of the Avebury World Heritage site and its future, in co-operation with the local authorities, the National Trust and others. Apart from informing the present public debate, it is hoped that this study will act as an exemplar for other World Heritage sites. We wish to seek to weigh the balance in terms of both archaeological management and tourist management. That will be our contribution, but we intend to publish it and if necessary offer our findings as evidence to any inquiry that the Government accede to as the result of the request of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
5.34 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am aware of my inadequacy in this debate compared with the two
48
distinguished speakers: the noble Lord who preceded me and to whom we are grateful for introducing a chance to discuss Avebury, my noble friend, if I may continue to call him that, Lord Kennet; and the distinguished chairman of National Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I should like to try to bring to this short debate the ideas and disquiet of the ordinary man. It seems that in Avebury, in the application for planning permissions and in some of the breaking of the planning laws, into which I shall briefly go later, we have subjects which are of some disquiet in the country. These disquiets are growing and people are becoming increasingly worried about the possibility of loopholes in the planning laws or the inadequacies of the planning laws which enable—and I would not put it so strongly as to call them the urban foxes—those who see the opportunities, perhaps short-term opportunities, to make money in areas which are of cultural, historical and archaeological interest, which touches on the subject of this debate.
As has been graphically described by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, it seems that we have here one of the unique sites in Britain, indeed one of the unique sites in the world, otherwise it would not have the designation of a World Heritage site. I read in one newspaper article that it has been considered by some experts to exceed in importance the remains to be found at Luxor. It is quite clear that as these stones in the unique ring at Avebury go back some 5,000 years and throw light on previous civilisations and people who inhabited these islands, it is of extreme interest and importance that we should make every effort to protect them not only for those who have an interest in them now, but for those who succeed us. That is an aspect of the protection of sites and houses of historical interest which does not get enough emphasis.
We may today have ideas about the importance of historical sites and the balance between conservation and tourism, but what will our descendants think of our approach to these matters? If we do not consider such things carefully and take the right action to protect them, we may be gravely letting down ourselves and our responsibilities to our descendants who may be more numerous than us. There may be disasters that may decrease the world population. Nevertheless we should recognise that there may be different interests and views about the culture of our islands and the monuments and remains which represent them. We have a responsibility to whoever succeeds us in following centuries. I wonder whether that is something which the Government are taking into account. I am sure that the National Trust and pressure groups will take that into account, as does also the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, but I am wondering whether in our planning laws and the possibilities for developers to ride roughshod over them we may be letting down not only the people who live now but those who will live in the future.
I shall welcome the reply from the noble Lord who is answering this subject. However, I wonder whether the present planning laws do not have too much of an emphasis in terms of retribution for breaking them. Is there a strong enough disincentive for those who would break the planning laws; for those who seek to

49
erect new buildings; for those who destroy old buildings and despoil old sites? Is there enough disincentive to make them consider matters more carefully and to desist?
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned a neighbouring house where a rich developer had carefully calculated what would be the penalties for breaking the planning laws. I believe he was fined a sum which may seem large—some thousands or perhaps tens of thousands of pounds—and he was prepared to accept that penalty. Presumably he is now enjoying the increased value, in his eyes, of the development and possibly has set the penalties against his tax bill. This seems to me to be an area which should be considered most carefully because in recent times we have seen legislation to make drug dealers pay for their misdeeds from the benefits received from their dealing.
In cases where developers have broken the law and changed a site, and where authorities have deemed it pointless to order that he pull down the buildings, is there a way in which penalities can be imposed on those people who enjoy the increased value of their development? There is a particular weakness in the planning laws because there is insufficient sanction against those who break them.
That issue is of particular concern to the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I spoke to a representative on the telephone this afternoon and was informed that it would like to see the Government taking a stronger line and a closer look at the need for a change in the law. One must always bear in mind that, because of the amount of money available to developers, the incentive to break the law is becoming stronger.
I should like the Minister to comment on the fact that in other countries which have sites of national or world interest and where there is an increasing amount of tourism, the idea has been put forward that it may be in our best interests to take away from the sites the organisation of the infrastructure needed to develop tourism.
If a theme park were developed at Avebury there would be an enormous increase in the number of visitors and the area would be unable to sustain that. Is it not possible to develop areas away from such sites but within reasonable distance of transport? Perhaps arrangements could be made to monitor the number of visitors, the development of theme parks, the location of museums and a centre for policing such areas. I think of the problems which occur at Stonehenge.
There are ideal sites for development around Reading where one could construct centres to cover the culture and history of a particular area. Tourists could stay in hotels and be well fed. They could visit museums, attend lectures and then in controlled numbers, could visit sites such as Stonehenge and Avebury in a more organised way, being better informed. In that way they would not damage the site. That is linked with ideas put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, for the protection of World Heritage sites. It would provide a cushion between the tourist and the site, and tourism in the area could be controlled and developed sensibly.
50
It is a balance between the understanding of the past and the needs of the present. It must be acknowledged that we have a duty towards our successors to develop tourism sensibly. The freedom to make money is all very well for the developer. I encourage that, as would all noble Lords. However, there is also the freedom of those who wish to enjoy visiting sites in which there is a minority interest. One must acknowledge the freedom of our successors in future generations to enjoy the sites. We must not spoil them so as to prevent them from reflecting the past, as they do at present.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I welcome the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, because it deals with matters which should concern us all, but it is specific in its application to Avebury.
Since the UK Government ratified the World Heritage Convention in 1984 they have demonstrated their support for the principles enshrined in the convention by nominating a number of sites and monuments each year. As has been pointed out, 11 have so far been accepted for inclusion on the World Heritage list.
Ratification of the convention implies acceptance on the part of the UK Government of a special level of stewardship in respect of those sites and monuments which are acknowledged to be of special significance as supreme examples of human imagination and achievement. They are now explicitly recognised as being of international importance. In this context, the use of the word "international" is comparatively new.
The UK Government have a distinguished record in the protection of archaeological heritage. There is a series of statutes beginning with the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 and culminating in the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Between 1974 and 1979 I was the Minister in the Department of the Environment responsible for this area of government and therefore able to play a part in events.
I should like to point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that at that time one constantly found tensions between development planning on the one hand and the interests of conservation on the other. Although over the years the conservation and preservation interests have gained a great deal, I fear that there will always be tension. Our job is to discover a way in which it can be translated into cons)ructive work so that our heritage is properly protected.
The criterion for protection of monuments has always been that of national importance. The legislation gives the Secretary of State for the Environment wide powers to prevent damage to protected monuments. Recent policy has been to extend protection beyond individual monuments to entire ancient landscapes which embrace a complex of individual monuments. That extension of policy to landscapes has been an important development in recent years.
The areas around Avebury and Stonehenge, included in the World Heritage list in 1986, have the

51
finest examples of such ancient landscapes in Britain or indeed anywhere in Europe. That fact had been acknowledged by their inclusion in the list and was pointed out by the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Montagu.
The Government accept responsibility to afford protection to sites of national importance. Therefore it would appear to be axiomatic that they should demonstrate even greater zeal in assuring the longterm protection of sites of international importance. To do otherwise would be to call into question the UK's sincerity in its support for the World Heritage Convention.
The area within and around the great stone circle at Avebury is a complex of monuments dating from the neolithic period, set within a landscape which has evolved gradually and organically. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out, the village consists of buildings from every period from the early Middle Ages to the recent past. Similarly, the pattern of fields and roads reflects the evolution of the landscape.
Now the area is suddenly threatened by three major projects and all are based upon the commercial exploitation of that great complex of monuments. It is sad and ironic that, in spite of all that has been done and the precautions that have been taken, it is still possible for someone to attempt what is being proposed at Avebury. They represent abrupt and discordant intrusions into an harmonious landscape which will detract from its fundamental quality and may even call into question the validity of Avebury continuing to qualify as a World Heritage site.
I fear that I must quote a passage from a letter from Professor Leon Pressouyre, who is the archaeological adviser to the World Heritage Committee and is the Director of the Institut d'Art et d'Archéologie, at the Sorbonne—a very distinguished man on the world heritage scene. In a letter dated 31st August of last year he wrote to ICOMOS:
"Article 4 in the convention runs: 'Each State Party to this convention recognises that the duty of ensuring the identification, protection, conservation presentation and transmission to the future generations of the cultural and natural heritage (…) situated on its territory, belongs primarily to this state'.
Furthermore, the adequate procedure for the eventual deletion of properties from the World Heritage List (Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention) clearly states what occurs 'when the property has deteriorated to the extent that it has lost those characteristics which determined its inclusion on the world heritage list'.
"This would be, without a shadow of a doubt, the case of Avebury if a large hotel, conference centre and car park was built within the boundaries of the site, being the cause of unacceptable visual and archaeological damage in a cultural ensemble which was considered as safely managed by the National Trust, English Heritage and other responsible bodies.
"The World Heritage Committee, which is very concerned by the management of archaelogical sites already inscribed on the World Heritage List, would probably react very strongly to the news of the threat to the archaeological site of Avebury."
One problem which we have in this country is that we are sometimes in an almost schizophrenic situation of still subscribing to and believing very strongly in the whole concept of international sites but, at the same time, probably due to the fact that this is an island, we too often look at matters only in national terms.
52
It is accepted that cultural tourism is an important component in the economic structure of modern Britain. If the development of this industry is not carefully controlled, however, as has been pointed out by all noble Lords who have spoken before me, the very characteristics that make our heritage sites and monuments attractive to visitors may be destroyed or degraded with the inevitable corollary that the more discerning visitors will omit them from their itineraries.
The answer is for facilities for the more than 150,000 visitors annually to Avebury—which I now believe is the accepted number—of the sort proposed in the three planning applications at present under consideration to be located outside the protected site itself. The visitor who is resolved upon a visit to Avebury will no doubt welcome the provision of hotel accommodation, restaurants and other services but will surely be prepared to travel some distance to reach the site so as to be able to see it in its natural state. The anticipated extra 70,000 visitors to the proposed theme park would be quite unacceptable.
I wholeheartedly support the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as to the immediate problem of Avebury. However, I must again emphasise the need for that to be seen in the broader context. For that reason, it is essential that the Secretary of State should take immediate action to consider the special case of World Heritage monuments. There is a pressing need for a policy which will ensure that they are given protection consonant with their special status as sites of international importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, pointed out, it lies within the power of the Secretary of State to deal with the specific case of Avebury by ensuring that planning consent is not given for the three projects currently the subject of applications. However, what is just as important is that at the same time and with the minimum of delay he should ensure that the sad case of Avebury is not repeated.
As regards Avebury, I believe that the inquiry should be speeded up. There is a public inquiry which will entail the usual amount of delay. I fear that that has always been the same. One always tries to push matters along but the wheels of government and certainly the wheels of the Department of the Environment wax very, very slow and creakily. The speed at which these matters can be, as one hopes, turned down is tremendously important.
If we move further afield and look beyond Avebury, it is just as important that the Secretary of State can, by introducing regulations and if necessary by legislation, amend and extend the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which we should remember was enacted before we ratified the Convention on World Heritage Sites, so as to ensure that those unique sites receive the respect which they and the people of this country and the world deserve.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the Government fully appreciate the importance of the World Heritage site at Avebury.

53
The considerable concern which has been shown far and wide about the three developments currently proposed there is well understood.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has eloquently described the precious environment at Avebury. It is a site of unique importance visited by over 200,000 people which lies in a part of Wiltshire renowned for its prehistoric monuments. As the noble Lord drew to our attention, the Ridgeway is described as an ancient M.1. I question whether in 26 centuries' time there will be the same passions expressed in your Lordships' House for preserving the current M.1. Avebury, along with Stonehenge and associated sites, is one of 11 sites in the United Kingdom which has been accorded the honour of inclusion in the World Heritage list. It was indeed one of the first sites to be so designated.
Apart from being within the World Heritage site, the three proposed developments in and near Avebury which have caused such concern lie within the North Wessex Downs area of outstanding beauty. They are also within an area of special archaeological significance which Wiltshire County Council has designated in its development plan. Those designations provide additional control and restrictions over inappropriate development to that which applies elsewhere.
The first of the three proposed developments is an hotel and tourist centre at the Ridgeway Cafe on Overton Hill, where the prehistoric Ridgeway crosses the modern road, A.4. The present transport café would be replaced by three conical shaped buildings. The application was called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment last March because of its effects on the archaeological and landscape features of the area. A public local inquiry was held last September and the inspector's report is now with the Secretary of State for his consideration and decision.
The second proposal is also for an hotel and tourist centre. It is at the disused West Kennet Farm, some half a mile west of the Ridgeway Café along the A.4. Many of the farm buildings are Grade II listed buildings. The proposal involves the conversion of some buildings, the demolition of others, and some new building. Two applications have been submitted to Kennet District Council, the local planning authority, one for planning permission, the other for listed building consent for the demolition, re-erection, restoration and conversion of the listed farm buildings.
These applications were considered by the District Council on 9th February when they resolved in their favour. In view of the council's resolution, the Secretary of State decided to call-in both of these applications on 10th February so that he could determine them himself. Such action was taken because of the development's possible effects on the landscape and archaeological features of the area, and on the character and appearance of the listed buildings.
The third proposal concerns Avebury Manor, a Grade I listed building with several Grade II listed buildings within its grounds. It is situated in the village of Avebury itself. Seven planning applications
54
and one listed building consent application have been submitted to Kennet District Council.
I understand the owner began works before the applications were submitted. Kennet District Council warned him of the likelihood of enforcement action and as a result an undertaking was secured that no further unauthorised work would be carried out and the necessary planning and listed building consent applications were submitted to the council. The owner also applied for listed building consent to convert a Grade II dovecot to an information kiosk and a similarly listed recquets court to a visitors' restaurant. The council was prepared to grant consent to these applications and the owner commenced work before the council had been notified of the Secretary of State's authorisation.
The seven planning applications and the one listed building consent application were considered by Kennet District Council on 9th February when the planning applications were all refused. The council resolved to grant consent to the listed buildings applications to demolish the outbuildings, which has apparently already taken place.
The district council further resolved to take enforcement action against the owner for the works he commenced without planning permission as well as prosecuting him for the premature demolition of the outbuildings and other unauthorised work he had undertaken on a gazebo and garden walls.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, both referred to enforcement. I am sure your Lordships will wish to know that last July my right honourable friend the Secretary of State appointed Mr. Robert Carnwath, QC, to examine the scope and effectiveness of the enforcement of planning control. I understand that his report is expected shortly. Furthermore, noncompliance with an enforcement notice can bring about a fine on summary conviction not exceeding £2,000 or an unlimited fine on conviction.
The Secretary of State has no standing in respect of the applications that were refused unless the applicant should appeal. With regard to the listed building application for which the council has resolved in favour, the council is required lo refer this to the Secretary of State so he can consider calling it in for his decision. I will write to the noble Lord as soon as it is decided what action to take. If the application is called in, a public inquiry will be held and this may be a joint inquiry if the owner appeals against the refusal of the planning applications. The owner has six months to appeal to the Secretary of State against the council's refusals of planning permission. If appeals are lodged, a public local inquiry will be held and the appeals will be recovered for the Secretary of State's decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also asked whether the three schemes could be considered together by a planning inquiry commission or other similar procedure. Provision for planning inquiry commissions was made by the Town and Country Planning Act 1968 (as subsequently re-enacted in 1971), as the noble Lord pointed out, to inquire into and report on development proposals which raise considerations of national or regional importance or

55
present unfamiliar technical or scientific aspects. A two stage process was envisaged: the first to identify and investigate all the considerations relevant to the proposal, such as national policy matters, and the second entailing a public local inquiry or inquiries into the specific application or applications before the commission.
Despite occasional requests that planning inquiry commissions should be used for various major development proposals—such as the oxide fuel reprocessing plant at Windscale in 1977 and the third London airport at Stansted in 1980—successive governments have not used these procedures because they are thought to be seriously flawed. Instead, the ordinary public inquiry system has evolved in response to increasing pressures placed on it by major developments and is now coping well with all the demands put on it.
The proposed developments at Avebury, either individually or collectively, are not of a kind suitable for consideration by a planning inquiry commission even if the Government were satisfied that these procedures were satisfactory. The normal planning procedures are quite adequate to ensure that they are fully and carefully examined.
As I said earlier, the Secretary of State has called in for his own decision the planning application and application for listed building consent at West Kennet Farm and an inquiry will be held. I will ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is informed of the arrangements when they are made. I will also ensure that the noble Lord is informed what action the Secretary of State decides to take on the listed building consent application for the demolition of the outbuildings of Avebury Manor.
As regards the Avebury planning applications, the Government recognise the concern that inappropriate development should not take place at World Heritage sites and will listen closely to what has been said today. I know noble Lords will not expect me to comment on the three major planning proposals in and around Avebury. Two of them—the proposed hostel-cum-hotel at Overton Hill and the hotel at West Kennet Farm—are already before the Secretary of State. The third, the applications at Avebury Manor, and the alleged works carried out without consent, may come before him shortly on appeal. Your Lordships will appreciate that the Secretary of State's position in these matters must not be prejudiced.
My noble friend Lord Montagu said that there is no local plan for Avebury. While there is no comprehensive local plan, Wiltshire County Council adopted a landscape policy local plan in 1986. This plan accords special importance to the areas of outstanding natural beauty and areas of special archaeological significance. The Government encourage district councils to prepare comprehensive local plans for their whole areas, and in a recent White Paper on the future of development plans it is proposed that a district development plan will become obligatory.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, introduced the novel suggestion of what I could possibly describe
56
as a cultural special development area. I shall draw that suggestion to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Some noble Lords questioned whether local authorities are the best people to start with matters of planning. This Government, or any government, would get very short shrift from all Benches in this House if we tried to deny local authorities the starting stones in the process of these imporant matters. I am extremely pleased with the news that my noble friend Lord Montague has already opened discussions with local interests and other national conservation bodies. I look forward to hearing his report on those discussions which will no doubt contain views on the planning system as they proceed.
My noble friend Lord Montagu rightly spoke of the importance of Avebury in terms of the international heritage. Noble Lords emphasised the need for decisions on planning and listed building applications to be taken against the background of a proper assessment of that importance, and that this applied equally to other World Heritage sites like Durham or Bath. My noble friend suggested that local planning authorities needed more guidance on how they should handle applications affecting such particularly sensitive sites.
The Government do not consider that there is a need for special guidance for local planning authorities. We believe that the natural and cultural heritage of World Heritage sites is adequately protected by the statutory provisions relating to development control and the additional safeguards in respect of the built and natural heritage. There are no specific additional restrictions associated with developments in or near World Heritage sites.
By definition, the sites and monuments justifying World Heritage status will enjoy special protection as Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Grade I or II-star listed buildings, scheduled monuments, or conservation areas. As far as buildings, monuments and conservation areas are concerned English Heritage is, as my noble friend Lord Montague said, well placed to offer expert advice. English Heritage is my right honourable friend's statutory adviser on all matters to do with the conservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments and we have a very high regard for the quality of that advice.
English Heritage is automatically notified by local planning authorities of all listed building consent applications affecting Grade I or II-star buildings; all planning applications which affect the setting of such buildings; and of certain categories of major planning applications in conservation areas. This gives them the opportunity to offer advice to the local planning authorities considering the applications, and to advise my right honourable friend on those applications which it considers he should call in for decision.
Local planning authorities are required to consult English Heritage on planning applications which affect scheduled ancient monuments; and all applications to my right honourable friend for consent to carry out works on scheduled monuments are referred to English Heritage for advice.

57
Thus English Heritage is well placed, in giving advice, to take into account the special features of World Heritage sites, and I welcome the positive proposals by my noble friend for handling these cases in future. I must stress however that inclusion of a site on the World Heritage list is not of itself an instrument of control. It merely signals the particular importance of that site as a material factor to be taken into account by a local planning authority in determining an application or by my right honourable friend in determining a case on appeal or following a call-in.
All World Heritage sites are different and for this reason, as well as the ones I have already given, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State does not consider it appropriate to offer general guidance on their management and conservation. I have, however, taken note of your Lordships most interesting comments this evening.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not comment upon what I said regarding the importance of the World Heritage sites.
58
I believe that they need treating differently even from our very highly regarded national sites. There needs to be some criteria, and there is a need for greater co-ordination. The Government do not appear to be dealing with any of these factors; and that is not to overlook the local planning authorities. I consider the matter to be very important. I realise the difficulty the Minister was in regarding a short debate of this kind in the form of an Unstarred Question. I understand that he may not wish to go into the whole matter. I am not very happy with the point being brushed aside in that manner. Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me at greater length, and I shall be happy to hear from him. I believe that that part of the Minister's reply was extremely disappointing.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I would never ever brush aside anything that the noble Baroness says. I shall take advantage of her offer and I shall write to her further on that point.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past six o'clock.

  ETHIOPIA: UK SHARE OF EC AID
  ETHIOPIA: UK SHARE OF EC AID
  ELECTRICITY GENERATION: PAYMENT FOR ANTI-POLLUTION MEASURES
  ELECTRICITY GENERATION: PAYMENT FOR ANTI-POLLUTION MEASURES
  SALMONELLA: SLAUGHTER OF LAYING FLOCKS
  SALMONELLA: SLAUGHTER OF LAYING FLOCKS
  HOMELESSNESS: REPORT ON LOCAL AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE
  HOMELESSNESS: REPORT ON LOCAL AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE
  PASSENGER SECURITY SURVEY AT LONDON STATIONS
  PASSENGER SECURITY SURVEY AT LONDON STATIONS