Sitting of 16 February 1989

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS HULL BILL (By Order)
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL (By Order)
HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)
WAVESCREEN BILL (By Order)
INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL (By Order)
ISLE OF WIGHT BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND VICTORIA BILL (By Order)
WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL (By Order)
BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE SOUTHBANK BILL (By Order)
BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL (CRYSTAL PALACE) BILL (By Order)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 23 February.

  PENZANCE ALBERT PIER EXTENSION BILL (By Order)
  Read a Second time and committeed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Contaminated Food
    Mr. Wray: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the contamination of food supplies in the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): Expert and comprehensive monitoring work is undertaken by a large range of scientists, academics and others. This surveillance work ensures that, if action is needed to ensure or enhance safety margins, it is taken swiftly and on a firm basis of scientific study and assessment.
    Mr. Wray: Is the Minister aware that the London Food Commission considers that the Government have acted deplorably by their cover-up of food poisoning? According to its statistics, one in 12,000 eggs is contaminated and since 30 million eggs are distributed every day in Britain, 2,500 eggs per day must be contaminated. Will the Minister take into consideration that the average person eats 151 eggs a year, so one in 79 people in Britain will eat a contaminated egg and the average person will eat two infected eggs in a year—[Interruption.] Does the Minister agree that the Government have failed to face up to the problem and that he should resign?
    Mr. Ryder: There has been no cover-up. Clearly we take this matter very seriously, but it must be seen in perspective. The hon. Gentleman fails to do that.
    Sir Hal Miller: Will my hon. Friend confirm the stand taken by the Foreign Office arid by the Minister for Trade during last night's debate on the EEC position on hormones in beef, that the Government act only on the basis of scientific evidence, unlike the Labour party spokesman who claimed that we should act without evidence? In that context, how does he rate the evidence from the London Food Commission about a multiplier of 12,000, as we have just heard?
    Mr. Ryder: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Beggs: Speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom, will the Minister make it absolutely clear, and not leave it to the Minister responsible for Northern Ireland, that food products from Northern Ireland have an excellent health record?
    Mr. Ryder: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Robert Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the obligation of any responsible Government to inform and not to alarm, and that the recent allegations about the desirability of eating certain foodstuffs are misplaced and in many cases irresponsible? Will he respond to those allegations, made without scientific evidence, in a very robust manner?
    Mr. Ryder: The Government will continue to answer those charges in a clear and robust manner. The problems must be put into perspective but the Government take their responsibilities for food safety extremely seriously.
    Mr. Martlew: Does the Minister agree that, in 1983, the Government failed to ban the sale of so-called green top mil—untreated milk—whereas they banned it in Scotland? Does he accept that, as a result of that inaction, eight people, including a baby, died in the Calder Valley area of west Yorkshire? Is it not a fact that the Government have waited six years to ban such milk because of pressure from the farming lobby?
    Mr. Ryder: On 3 February, my right hon. Friend the Minister announced that, under the Food Act 1984, we will consult to see whether a ban should be imposed. The consultation document will be made available early next week.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: As well as ensuring the highest standards of hygiene in animal husbandry and food processing, has it not become essential to emphasise the importance of hygiene in the preparation of food in the home, in case the normal commonsense standards of preparation do not always prevail?
    Mr. Ryder: It is precisely because of that matter that, next month, the Department of Health and my Department will launch a joint food hygiene in the home campaign to ram home the points that have been set out by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that too many contradictory statements about food poisoning have been made by various Government Departments over the past month? Does he further agree that it is time for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House to allay the fears of consumers and producers alike?
    Mr. Ryder: In his speech on Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Minister stated that there is no complacency and no conspiracy. The Prime Minister, in answering questions later that same day, set out in precise detail the Government's view on pasteurised and unpasteurised milk.
    Mr. Paice: Does my hon. Friend take comfort from the fact that nearly a week has passed since the last scare story about British food? Does he agree that much of the furore has been blown out of all proportion by the press, which has sensationalised a genuine but tiny problem?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively.
    Dr. David Clark: If there is no cover-up or complacency about food contamination, will the Minister confirm that the application by the Monsanto drug company for a product licence for bovine somatotropin-produced milk has been rejected on safety grounds, not once, but twice by his own scientifically composed veterinary products committee?
    Mr. Ryder: This question is about the contamination of food. The veterinary products committee has said that there is no evidence that milk from BST-treated cows is dangerous.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the standard of hygiene in food factories in this country is second to none? Does he agree that it is high time for those who speak on this matter to show a sense of responsibility rather than to create hysteria?
    Mr. Ryder: It is precisely because we are not complacent about this issue that the Government have
    472
    been preparing a major food Bill since October 1987, when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary issued a press release on the matter. More than 500 organisations have been consulted about what should go into that new food Bill. The new food Bill will be set before Parliament as soon as is practicable. There is no doubt that there are no grounds for complacency, and the Government are showing that to be the case.

    Farming Diversification
    Mr. Kennedy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the knock-on effects of farming diversification on the sheep sector.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Donald Thompson): The aim of the farm diversification grant scheme is to encourage the creation of new businesses rather than the displacement of existing farming activities, so the answer is none.
    Mr. Kennedy: Is the Minister aware that that answer will only confirm increasing worry, not least among hill and upland farmers, about the knock-on effect of diversification? As the Minister will appreciate, if more producers opt for sheep production, the increase in the number of sheep will lead to a corresponding decrease in the level of support. Therefore, will he make sure that any new sheepmeat regime will take account of the need for generous headage payments, not least in areas such as the north of Scotland, where agricultural activity is already stretched to the margins, if not beyond?
    Mr. Thompson: It is important that when, in a few years' time, my right hon. Friend renegotiates the sheep meat regime, he takes careful note of those areas of Great Britain which have traditionally, and so well, bred sheep and improved the quality by 77 per cent. since 1980. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do just that.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Government are continuing to pay farmers in the less-favoured areas through the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme is a major factor in supporting sheep farmers in the less-favoured areas? May we have an assurance that when the Government negotiate the new sheepmeat regime—unlike in the case of the beef regime which was announced recently—we shall have a regime which reflects the different requirements for sheep farming in northern Europe as opposed to southern Europe?
    Mr. Thompson: We already have a scheme which reflects the differences in Great Britain compared with the rest of Europe, although that does not seem to please all farmers. We must, of course, do what we can to ensure that the high quality that exists in this branch of farming is not disadvantaged in the whole of Europe.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the higher up the hill we go the harder it becomes to diversify? Will he therefore give every encouragement possible to increasing the hill compensatory allowance, to the suckler cow subsidy and to maintaining the sheep premium? That is essential if we are to keep a viable rural economy.
    Mr. Thompson: The very basis of the rural economy is a strong farming economy, especially in areas such as that which my hon. Friend represents.

    Nitrate Pollution
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to designate areas vulnerable to nitrate pollution following the European Community directive on nitrates in water.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The European Community directive is only a proposal at this stage. It will have to be examined carefully and agreed by the Council of Ministers before the question of implementation, including the designation of vulnerable areas, arises.
    Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he recognise the widespread and justifiable public concern that exists about the levels of nitrates in water? May we have an assurance that when the matter comes before the Council of Ministers, the British Government will not seek to undermine any proposals or seek derogation but will take a positive attitude to any steps to control nitrates?
    Mr. MacGregor: As for the proposals which come within my sphere of agriculture, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Water Bill already provides for the National Rivers Authority to make proposals to the Secretary of State for the Environment who, after consultation with my Ministry and any necessary public inquiry, could make an order, subject to parliamentary approval, to introduce protection zones. We have already said that we would be prepared to do that if we cannot get voluntary agreements with farmers within those zones, and to take compulsory powers as a fallback. So already we are making it clear that we will take a series of actions to deal with the nitrates question. Of course, we must also take into account the progress of negotiations on the directive in the European Community.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is almost as much nonsense being talked about nitrates in water as there is about food at the present time? Is he further aware that in areas where there is the lowest level of nitrates, such as north Wales, there is the highest level of stomach cancer, whereas in areas where there is the highest level of nitrates, such as East Anglia, stomach cancer is at the lowest level? The message should be "Come to East Anglia if you want to avoid getting stomach cancer." In any event, does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent provisions of the Water Bill will improve the standard and quality of water and that the sooner it is on the statute book the better?
    Mr. MacGregor: More and more people go to East Anglia for all kinds of reasons, perhaps even including the one mentioned by my hon. Friend—though we certainly do not want too many people going there. It is very often the case that the incidence of stomach cancer falls below average in areas with above-average levels of nitrate in the water supplies. Nevertheless, medical advice is that we should continue to keep nitrate levels below 50mg, to allow for a very good safety margin. That is what we seek to achieve. Where there are problems, we propose taking steps to deal with them.
    Mr. Dalyell: From whom is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food getting its research advice about nitrates?
    Mr. MacGregor: From a variety of sources, including Rothamsted—which shows that it is a very complex issue. The measures that we take contain a variety of ingredients, usually depending on local circumstances.

    Egg Producers
    Mr. Adley: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many individual applications he received for compensation from egg producers; and how many were accepted.
    Mr. MacGregor: Of 48 applications confirmed by producers to cull hens under the slaughter of hens scheme, 44 were accepted. Under the egg industry scheme, initial applications were normally by telephone inquiry and were not logged, but a total of 1,434 applications were accepted as eligible. For both schemes, not all eligible applications were followed through.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, following the retraction of devastating and inaccurate remarks about egg producers, and contrary to the opinions expressed in some quarters, most of those affected were small egg farmers who had put a lifetime's effort into their businesses—and who, if the Government had not acted quickly, would have found their businesses destroyed? Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, for the speed with which his Department acted?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We must recall the exceptional circumstances in which we took action, when egg sales dropped by 30 per cent. in one week and by 50 per cent. in another. My hon. Friend is right to say that many of the country's 45,000 flocks are owned by very small producers with modest incomes. They faced a serious situation, and the scheme that we introduced was well designed and achieved its objective of restoring stability to the market in a thoroughly cost-effective way.
    Mr. Tony Banks: I am very reassured to know that the Prime Minister is now in charge of the campaign about poisoning the nation—for which she certainly seems to he eminently well qualified. Is it not time for an independent food and health executive, so that the public will know that it is hearing the truth? Frankly, nobody really believes the Government any more. I fully expect to read in the newspapers soon that another Minister recommends that we start boiling our Easter eggs.
    Mr. MacGregor: I have no idea what that has to do with the question on the Order Paper, which concerns individual applications for compensation to egg producers. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with complex matters. We make all the relevant information that is known to us available to the public, and we give advice whenever we think that that is necessary. It is important that, when comments are made, the public considers carefully what has been said. It is important also that advice is kept in perspective and does not get out of proportion.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is my right hon. Friend willing to consider compensation in cases where there is evidence that a farmer has suffered losses because of delays by departmental officials in handling samples that they have taken?
    Mr. MacGregor: We have made clear what we are doing in respect of the compensation scheme, which was designed to put a floor in the market place. Payments made in response to applications went to egg packers, and in that way back to egg producers. I was not aware that applications were delayed. We certainly moved very speedily with the whole scheme.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that the compensation scheme is the subject of inquiries by the National Audit Office, which will report to the Public Accounts Committee? The Minister said that there has been no cover-up, but was there not a cover-up in respect of the names of the 21 protein processing plants that were responsible for the whole disaster? Why cannot the names of those 21 companies be given? If the Minister does not give that information to the House there will be a cover-up.
    Mr. MacGregor: Not at all: there are perfectly good reasons for that and it has nothing to do with the egg compensation scheme. I am perfectly content for the egg compensation scheme to be thoroughly examined. The whole point and the key aspect of the scheme was the prices: 30p per dozen offered to take eggs off the market and the price set for culling young hens. In both cases the prices were low but they were there to give some stability and assistance to the market by lifting the prices from the rock bottom that they had reached. In both cases this objective was achieved. With spending of, it appears, just over £3 million on the two schemes, they have proved a very cost-effective measure.
    Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the totally unfounded remark by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) underlines the very scurrilous way in which the Opposition have been trying to flog this matter up? The general public is very concerned about infection in food. Does he agree with me that, for reasons of their own, the Opposition are seeking to create the maximum possible misunderstanding over the whole matter?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that in all these matters we retain a sense of perspective. It is difficult always to get the information through directly to the public, but it is important for everyone to take a responsible attitude. Regarding the egg position, we have taken, over a period, some 17 measures to ensure that at the production end and right the way through the food chain everything possible is done to deal with the salmonella risk that we face. Indeed, ours are among the most comprehensive measures taken by any country in the world.
    Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister accept that the only long-term solution to the problem of salmonella in eggs is the elimination of salmonella enteritidis from the poultry flock? Why will he not institute a phased inspection of the whole of the 45,000-strong poultry flock in this country,
    476
    culling where necessary, instead of carrying out his half-hearted scheme, which he admitted in Monday's papers will apply to only four flocks?
    Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has got it entirely wrong; let me take him through it. First, it is not possible to find, and no country in the world has yet found, a way to eradicate salmonella. Salmonella is in the environment; it is carried by wild birds and rodents, and this includes salmonella enteritidis. We are taking every possible step to minimise the risk of salmonella, but it would be irresponsible to claim that we can eradicate it.
    Secondly, we are introducing, as one of the 17 measures, a requirement for bacteriological monitoring. It is also necessary for producers and their vets who find traces of salmonella to report it to the Ministry under the zoonoses order. From those sources we are getting a clearer and more accurate picture of the exact state of infection.
    Regarding the four flocks, the hon. Gentleman really must get this properly in context. These are the four flocks on which we currently have restriction notices as a result of monitoring and reporting. I have no doubt that there will be more, but four flocks out of 45,000 helps to put in perspective the extent of salmonella.

    Rabbits and Game
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the draft proposal for a Council regulation (EEC) on animal health and public health problems affecting production and distribution in the territory of the Community, and importation from Third world countries of rabbit meat and game meat.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: In its present form the draft proposal which the Commission is developing would require game meat to be inspected and processed under veterinary supervision in premises meeting the requirements for slaughterhouses engaged in intra-Community trade. There would be some provision for member states to permit exceptions for personal sales by the producers or sportsmen and for local trade in small quantities of small wild game.
    Mr. Colvin: Next time that my hon. Friend is in Brussels, will he ask our Commissioners if they can stop dotty directives such as this one ever being drafted? Will he acknowledge that, if guidelines for game meat production are to be introduced, they should be based on traditional national practices and not subject to European harmonisation?
    Mr. Thompson: I will have a word with our Commissioners and people in Brussels along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests, as I have done very time I have been to Brussels. We have achieved some important improvements in the draft directive, but I still see difficulties where it attempts to apply rules similar to those applied in the slaughterhouse, in various different circumstances, to game that is shot and dealt with by the traditional methods.
    Mr. Home Robertson: What is the Minister doing to ensure that Britain is not opened up to serious animal diseases, including rabies, as a result of the internal European market from 1992? I hope that the Minister is

    477
    aware that the European Commission is seriously considering proposals to remove all national frontier controls and replace them with feeble, discretionary and voluntary controls for a group of diseases that specifically includes rabies. The Ministry of Agriculture's reputation for food and health protection in Britain is wearing a bit thin just now, so is it too much to hope that it will make a stand to protect Britain's shores against the introduction of rabies?
    Mr. Thompson: I have seen the hon. Gentleman's written question this morning, which refers to a document that is about six months old. That is about the speed at which the Opposition keep up with these matters. The hon. Gentleman will get a full written reply. That document was circulated to all European countries suggesting a three-band scheme, which was initially our idea and which includes various diseases. We are determined that rabies will be in the first band of that scheme, and we intend to keep up all possible precautions to keep this country rabies-free.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that the proposals from Brussels are causing great concern in the Highlands of Scotland, where game is an essential part of the economy? Account must be taken of the fact that the traditional methods that have been in use in Scotland for centuries and have proved their worth should be continued. May I suggest that my hon. Friend, or anyone else who is looking for assistance and advice, will find no shortage of that in the other place?
    Mr. Thompson: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. I have already consulted his friends and our friends in the other place about the directive. We are concerned that our traditional methods of looking after game and of hunting game should be preserved. We are doing all that we can in Europe generally, as well as in the Parliament, to preserve our existing methods.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister assure the House that at no stage will the Government accept a rabies-free policy that is based on certificates of origin from exporting countries of the EEC which, as the Minister knows, the EEC has proposed? Will he assure the House that we will retain the right of control and inspection at our frontiers, whatever Delors and his cronies try to impose on us by 1992?
    Mr. Thompson: I shall not chase the hare of Delors and the Opposition now. We are determined that our animal health status remains the highest in Europe, as it is now, including rabies control.

    Countryside Commission
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Countryside Commission; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. MacGregor: The Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) met the chairman of the Countryside Commission on 7 November when he discussed many issues of concern to the countryside. I frequently meet the chairman of the Countryside Commission, and I am always ready to discuss matters of mutual concern with him.
    Mr. Riddick: Did my right hon. Friend discuss the environmentally sensitive areas scheme with the chairman and can he confirm that the Government are still committed to it and would be prepared to extend it to take in the village of Marsden in my constituency? The local residents have a major problem with sheep wandering into their gardens and homes. The scheme would give incentives farmers to take some of their sheep off the moors during the winter. Can my right hon. Friend make some hopeful noises on this matter?
    Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend discussed the highly successful environmentally sensitive area scheme with the chairman of the Countryside Commission when he met him, although I do not believe that he considered the village to which my hon. Friend refers. We have moved very fast in creating ESAs in a considerable part of the most attractive areas of the country, and we must await the review before we decide whether to extend them further; and if so, how and to where.
    Mr. Knapman: When my hon. Friend met the chairman of the Countryside Commission, did he discuss the farm woodland scheme, and can my right hon. Friend say what progress has been made on that?
    Mr. MacGregor: Yes, he did and that, too, had a warm welcome. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that in the first four months of the scheme up to January this year nearly 4,600 hectares have been included. That covers about 7 million trees to be planted after only four months' operation of the scheme, which shows that it has got off to a most encouraging start. Moreover, I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that it looks as though broadleaves will comprise about 75 per cent. of that 7 million.

    Green Alliance
    Mr. Summerson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Green Alliance; and what matters were discussed.
    Mr. Ryder: I met leading representatives of the Green Alliance on 9 November 1988 and had a useful exchange of ideas on a wide variety of environmental questions. Subsequently, I invited Mr. Tom Burke, the director of the Green Alliance, to talk to a group of my constituents in Norfolk on 27 January 1989.
    Mr. Summerson: When my hon. Friend next meets the Green Alliance, will he make sure that he mentions the new farm and conservation grant scheme, which is something to which I react with the greatest enthusiasm, and then tell the House of the enthusiasm with which the Green Alliance reacts to it?
    Mr. Ryder: When I met the leading representatives of the Green Alliance on 9 November 1988 my right hon. Friend had not announced the new scheme. However, the next time that I meet the Green Alliance I shall certainly raise that matter and explain that we had a useful debate in the House early yesterday morning when the Opposition supported that new scheme brought before the House by a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Skinner: Did the Minister mention to the Green Alliance that now that the Prime Minister has adopted the environment strategy, she has promised to get aboard

    479
    Greenpeace in a green anorak and sandals, and eating rice, but that while she may want to convey that impression, many Opposition Members will not buy that image?
    Mr. Ryder: I find that so-called question of no interest at all.
    Mr. Alexander: Was my hon. Friend able to elicit from his meeting the fact that the interests of the producers can easily be reconciled with those of the environmentalists?
    Mr. Ryder: I discussed that with the Green Alliance on 9 November and subsequently with its director in January. It recognises, as do the Government, that those two interests are working closely together.
    Dr. Godman: When the Minister met members of the Green Alliance, did they raise with him the issue of radioactive hot spots recently revealed in Cumbria and Scotland by aerial surveys conducted by his Ministry and scientists from the radiation centre at East Kilbride in Scotland? Surely, the time has now arrived for the Minister, along with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Northern Ireland, to commission a full aerial survey of radioactivity levels throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ryder: I did not discuss that matter with the Green Alliance. It does not share the Opposition's view about the conspiracy theory of history. However, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question but that all the material that we have on that matter is published and that all safety margins are properly explained to the public.

    Farming Diversification
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what he is doing to help farmers address the planning implications of diversification projects.
    Mr. MacGregor: Last month we published a guide written especially for farmers, entitled "Planning Permission and the Farmer". This was prepared jointly by my Ministry, the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office. This guide explains how the planning system works; describes how to find out whether or not a project is likely to need planning permission; and gives advice on how to present a case to planning authorities. I hope that it will be helpful to farmers.
    Mr. Nicholson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that farmers seeking to establish farm shops and other businesses would benefit if clearer and more consistent guidance were available to planning authorities?
    What advice does my right hon. Friend have for Mr. Tom Morris of East Lydeard farm in my constituency, who has established a cricket pitch and a pick-your-ownstrawberries patch on his land—which will benefit families visiting the farm—but who is now facing difficulty from the county surveyor over signposting his new business?
    Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that I am well aware that planning issues are becoming a major concern in connection with farm diversification. That is why I, my hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment have not only given guidance to
    480
    planning authorities to take into account the new situation in agriculture and the need to diversify, but are going round the country urging them to do so.
    I recommend the guide to farmers—especially Mr. Morris—because I believe that they will find that it contains a great deal of helpful advice about how to deal with the planning system, very often for the first time. With regard to the signposting, I would ask my hon. Friend to draw Mr. Morris's attention to annex D of this document.
    Mr. Boswell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the attitudes of planning authorities vary in different parts of the country? Will he and his colleagues do their best to ensure that those who are now acting as nimbys join the others that take a more positive attitude to rural diversification and similar developments?
    Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend and I would wish to do so. It is fair to say, however, that many planning authorities are taking a much more constructive approach than they perhaps did in the past. They recognise that—wherever the planning and environmental considerations can be met—it is highly desirable that diversification takes place in the interests of rural employment and prosperity.

    EC Food (Distribution)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will re-examine the arrangements for distribution of surplus European Economic Community food to pensioners and others.
    Mr. Ryder: The current scheme for the distribution of surplus European Economic Community food was introduced in 1988 and is to be reviewed after two years' operation. Charitable and non-profit-making organisations were invited to participate on this basis, and they will be consulted shortly about detailed arrangements for the 1989 distribution.
    Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware of the antagonism among those pensioners who are not entitled to receive any of the surplus butter, beef or whatever? Will he ensure that any future scheme is far fairer to all pensioners so that that sort of local problem does not arise? After all, £112 million was spent on surplus food in the redistribution. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that either there is no problem, because there is no redistribution, or, if there must be redistribution, it is carried out fairly?
    Mr. Ryder: About 6 million people are entitled to receive the food under this scheme and they fall mainly into three categories. They are those receiving family credit or income support, those of no fixed abode, and those living in welfare hostels. Many pensioners already fall into those three categories.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that a vast number of deserving and needy pensioners in my constituency were denied the opportunity to benefit from the surplus EEC food because of the nonsensical distribution arrangements? I am sure that the Minister will ensure that this year's arrangements are fair and that pensioners will get a fair deal.
    Mr. Ryder: I have already explained to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that many

    481
    pensioners already fall into the three categories which I mentioned. In all, 6 million people are entitled to receive the food, many of whom are pensioners.
    Mr. McGrady: Will the Minister take into account the fact that the distribution of surplus EEC foodstuffs in Northern Ireland was a complete disaster? Will the Minister investigate the allegations that certain bodies—even those with political connotations—were selling that food to people who were not within the categories which the Minister mentioned?
    Mr. Ryder: If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence about the abuse of this system, I hope that he will present it to Ministers as soon as possible.

    Women's Farming Union
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the president of the Women's Farming Union; and what matters they discussed.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: My right hon. Friend met the chairman of the Women's Farming Union most recently at its annual general meeting on 23 November 1988, and a range of issues were discussed, including the impact of the single European market.
    Mr. Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. In his discussions, did my right hon. Friend the Minister recognise the excellent role played by the Women's Farming Union in helping to diversify farmers' products and in particular introducing regional marketing for regional products and developing speciality food? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister be developing those points with the Women's Farming Union?
    Mr. Thompson: I have considered that, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has also discussed the matter with the Women's Farming Union. We congratulate the union on the Fresh Taste of Britain competition which will be a schools competition and will be directed at young consumers now and in the future. That initiative will operate alongside Food from Britain.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with the President of Bangladesh.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the total hostility and opposition of the people of Dartford to British Rail's proposal to build a high speed rail link through north-west Kent concentrating in particular on routes 1 and 2? In case Parliament should give British Rail its private Bill, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity today to reaffirm the pledges already given by
    482
    Transport Ministers that the Bill will have significant environmental protection and generous compensation for the people who will be affected by the route?
    The Prime Minister: I am very well aware that people in Kent are deeply concerned to know what proposal will come forward about extra rail capacity. There is general agreement that there must be increased rail capacity for the people of Kent. Both British Rail and the Government are well aware that a single firm proposal must be brought forward soon. I hope that that will ease the position. I agree that the proposal must take full account of environmental factors and be accompanied by an announcement of proper compensation arrangements.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister tell us how her plans to reach zero inflation are getting along?
    The Prime Minister: They are proceeding—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has only managed one sentence.
    The Prime Minister: —by methods which the right hon. Gentleman opposes. I note that the best performance of the Labour Government was 7·4 per cent. inflation, which was a low level according to their standards, which they reached for only one month. That must be compared with our best performance so far of 2·4 per cent. We have already had inflation at 3 per cent. or below for six months. The chances of our getting down to zero are good.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows that under this Government there has been no oil price hike, no major rise in commodity prices—[Interruption.] So can the Prime Minister tell us why it is that under her Government the rate of inflation is now higher and rising faster in Britain than in any comparable industrialised country?
    The Prime Minister: Under this Government there is no incomes and prices policy to keep incomes down and put prices up, as happened under the Labour Government. There have been far fewer strikes, a far better standard of living, far better manufacturing output and far better profitability—better all round.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the blistering attack yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice of England on the Government's Green Papers for law reform? Is she further aware that the result of those Green Papers will be the virtual abolition of the independent Bar, which will drive up legal costs—[Interruption.] The Green Papers will restrict the availability of lawyers, particularly in country areas, and will reduce the quality of services. Is my right hon. Friend further aware that those recommendations are directly contrary to the proposals of the Benson Royal Commission in 1979, which the Government accepted in 1983—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman make it brief?
    Mr. Lawrence: What has happened to cause the Government to stand on their head? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I think that I heard half that question. I must point out to my hon. and learned Friend that any proposal, or set of proposals, put forward by our most distinguished Lord Chancellor is worthy of serious consideration and merits serious debate. I know that my

    483
    hon. and learned Friend has strong views, and I think that strong views will also be expressed by those who oppose his point of view when we debate this very important subject.
    Mr. Leighton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Leighton: How many Cabinet Ministers has the right hon. Lady sacked since she became Prime Minister? Was there any pattern in their behaviour that might enable us to forecast who will be next?
    The Prime Minister: Really. How very ungentlemanly of the hon. Gentleman. Cabinet Ministers resign from time to time.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to suggest that we should maintain the independent deterrent, but then to say that there are no circumstances in which it would be used, undermines its credibility? Does she agree that the authors of the proposal are interested not in the peace of the world but in creating an uneasy peace within their own party?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree fully with my hon. Friend. Any such suggestion betrays a total lack of understanding of nuclear deterrence, which has been the basis of NATO strategy and has kept the peace for 40 years. The proposal betrays a fundamental weakness in defence policy. This Government will maintain our defences to ensure that the defence of freedom is strong.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the excellent news that she is soon to become a grandmother?
    Dame Peggy Fenner: That is more than the hon. Gentleman will ever manage.
    Mr. Banks: Everything is possible in this life. When her hard-working son once more graces these shores with a shiny new—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. These are not matters for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Banks: Her son must be a matter for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must ask a parliamentary and not a family question.
    Mr. Banks: When her son returns to these shores—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions to the Prime Minister must relate to her parliamentary responsibilities.
    Mr. Churchill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Churchill: Now that the last Soviet soldier has left Afghanistan, will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the Afghan people over more than nine years of occupation? Will she also express our appreciation to Pesident Gorbachev for the new-found realism in Soviet foreign policy? Does that not make possible the opening of a new and more productive chapter in the relationship between our two countries?
    The Prime Minister: yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that it has been the superb courage and determination of the resistance which have meant that the occupying forces have now left Afghanistan. That is good for Afghanistan and good news for the world as a whole. We should also pay tribute to the role of Pakistan in receiving many refugees over the years and in looking after them so unselfishly. I shall certainly convey our appreciation to Mr. Gorbachev, when he comes in April. This is a new chapter and indicates a new realism. We hope that it can be used also to solve other regional problems.
    Dr. Owen: As less than half of Conservative voters think that the National Health Service is safe in the hands of this Government and one third of them think that it is unsafe, is it not time that the Government withdrew the proposals to commercialise the Health Service, to introduce an open, not an internal, market and to create a two-tier Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that there are no proposals to privatise the National Health Service; nor could there be any such proposals because one does not pay for the service at the point of use; nor should one. The National Health Service is a great deal safer in the hands of a Conservative Government than it ever was in the right hon. Gentleman's hands when he was Minister of State for Health and than it ever was in Labour hands, when they spent only a fraction on the Health Service of what the British taxpayer is spending now.
    Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Couchman: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when she met the Israeli Foreign Minister, Mr. Arens, she made it clear that there can be no peaceful settlement to the middle eastern conflict without acceptance of the principle of territory for peace?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we had a very fruitful discussion yesterday with the Israeli Foreign Minister and we made it absolutely clear that when the Arab world is negotiating, it will be territory in return for peace. That is, of course, the basis of United Nations resolution 242, which Israel accepts.
    Mr. Ashley: I welcome the Prime Minister's condemnation of the sale of kidneys, but can she tell the House which she finds more abhorrent—the sale of those organs or the

    485
    debt and poverty that induce people to sell them? Now that the British people have begun to sell organs, can the Prime Minister tell the House what she feels about the fact that more than 3 million people in Britain are in debt and more than 6 million people are living in poverty—as I hope she acknowledges? That record is the shameful and shabby result of her policies.
    The Prime Minister: I made my views known on the sale of kidneys. I think that it is utterly abhorrent and even though people are poor, it does no mean that they should forfeit all the respect to which they are entitled. The right hon. Gentleman referred to poverty. Poverty, on his definition, is constantly upgraded, as far as income is concerned. In fact, there are fewer pensioners now in the bottom one fifth of income than there were under the Government that he supported.
    Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's confirmation that unemployment has fallen below 2 million is a significant landmark in the Government's campaign to create more jobs? Is it not also significant that unemployment is falling throughout the country and that the number of job vacancies, including in the north of England, is rising?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Today's news that unemployment has fallen—seasonally adjusted—to below 2 million was very good news. Not only has unemployment fallen, but there are now more people in employment in this country than at any time ever, and that, too, is excellent news. There has been a particularly good record since the last election. During the last election
    486
    campaign the Labour party promised that it would create 1 million jobs in two years. They would have done that by methods that would have undermined the economy, whereas we have created very nearly 1 million new jobs in under two years by methods which have reinforced our prosperity.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—or the hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady, whichever it is, to the answer that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: During the Prime Minister's discussions with the Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Ahrens, has she raised with him the fact that in four days last month in the occupied territories eight children, one as young as 11, were killed by rubber or plastic-coated steel bullets—sorne shot at close range in the head or chest? How are the Government of Israel to be censured, other than by sharp, economic direct action—if not by the Government, by the workers of this country?
    The Prime Minister: We have made our views about some of the events in the West Bank very clear to Israel. The hon. Gentleman points out—it underlies his remarks—that there is a need to get negotiations going and that they need to be properly prepared on the basis of United Nations resolution 242, which deals with territory for peace. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority of people in Israel seek a maintained peace with security behind their own border. That is also the purpose and wish of the Arabs in the region.
    Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Government's failure to give proper care to the safety of food and water".
Motion on the Rate Limitation (Councils in England) (Prescribed Maximum) (Rates) Order.
WEDNESDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the
Official Secrets Bill.
Motion on the London Regional Transport (Levy) Order.
THURSDAY 23 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of the White Paper on developments in the European Community January to June 1988 (Cm. 467).
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the prevention and reduction of air pollution from municipal waste incineration plants. Details will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on a motion to take note of proposals for agricultural prices for 1989–90 and related issues. Details of the EC documents concerned and of those relevant to the debate will be given in the Official Report.
[Thursday 23 February
Relevant European Community Document:

51421/88

Air pollution—municipal waste incineration plants

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee:
HC 43-xxiv (1987–88), para 1

Monday 27 February

(a) COM(89)40

Agricultural price proposals 1989–90

(b) 8960/88

Review of the sheepmeat and goatmeat regime

(c) 10083/88

New Zealand lamb

(d) 9629/88

Cereals: incorporation in animal feeding-stuffs

(e) 8502/88

Court of Auditors' Special Report: Management and control of public storage

(f) 8951/88

Pigmeat market

(g) 9658/88

Cereals: co-responsibility levy

(h) 9275/88

Aid for agricultural conversion

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 15-xi (1988–89), para 3

(b) HC 15-ii (1988–89), para 3

(c) HC 15-v (1988–89), para 1

(d) HC 15-v (1988–89), para 3

(e) HC 15-i (1988–89), para 3

(f) HC 15-i (1988–89), para 13

(g) HC 15-v (1988–89), para 8

(h) HC 15-v (1988–89), para 7.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Over the past few days, the Prime Minister's publicity machine has briefed the news media to the effect that she is most concerned about her Government's failure to get their act together to improve the safety of everyday foods. For instance, we learn that she is so unsatisfied with what the various Ministers are doing that she has set up a special Cabinet Committee, under her chairmanship, to try to sort things out. As the subject is so important, why is it that the right hon. Lady does not intend to be here to reply to the debate on the topic next Tuesday? Perhaps she has some more pressing engagement on that day. If so, will the Leader of the House bear in mind the fact that we would be quite willing to shift the Opposition day to a day convenient to the Prime Minister so that she can answer to the House on this important topic?
While on the subject of answering on important topics, I remind the Leader of the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer leaked the likely inflation rate in a speech at the weekend and will be publishing it formally tomorrow. Could he split the difference and make a statement to the House today, giving the facts?
When may we expect the debate on student loans which the right hon. Gentleman promised in January? When can we expect the promised debate on the Fennell report on the King's Cross fire? Can he confirm that the debate on housing that was postponed because of the debate on the by-election writs will take place shortly? Can he confirm also that we shall shortly have an opportunity to debate the Joint Committee's report on the future of private Bill procedure? Finally, can he tell us what stage has been reached in drafting legislation to outlaw the buying and selling of kidneys in private hospitals?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked seven questions about the business for next week. The first concerned Tuesday's debate on the Opposition motion on food and water. On the Government side, the debate will be handled by the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who are more than competent to deal with any matters that the Opposition may seek to raise.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will not be making a statement. The official retail prices index figures will be issued in the normal way.
On the question of student loans, I recognise the need for a debate, but I am not in a position to announce when it will take place. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman details.
I have already told the hon. Member the degree of importance we attach to the Fennell report. I agree that it would be appropriate to have a debate, but it would be best to leave the precise timing for discussion through the usual channels.
I recognise that the House missed an opportunity for a debate on housing. This is an important subject, and the Government have a very good story to tell. I note the hon. Gentleman's request, and I will certainly arrange for further discussions through the usual channels.
With regard to the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, I recognise that there is keen interest in having a debate on its report. This is a major report, and we are currently studying the recommendations in detail. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman precisely when the debate will take place, but it will not be long delayed.

489
On the question of kidneys, I have nothing to add to what I have said previously. The matter is being considered by the Government, and I will arrange for an announcement to be made as soon as possible.
Mr. David Steel: The Leader of the House will be aware that hon. Members were lobbied earlier this week by relatives of those killed in the Piper Alpha disaster. Although there cannot he a debate next week, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made from the Dispatch Box justifying the mean and callous decision to leave the wreckage on the seabed?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the concern about this matter. Yesterday my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State for Energy met representatives of the bereaved and survivors to hear their concerns personally, and I do not think that I can add anything at this stage.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My right hon. Friend's announcement about next Thursday's business is most welcome, but is he satisfied that that there is adequate scrutiny of European Commission proposals? Does he agree that the Government's negotiating position would be greatly strengthened if this House were regularly able to debate those proposals before the Government arrived at their final negotiating position?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that on the scrutiny, in this House of European documents, things are not as good as they should be. That is not necessarily totally the fault of our procedures. There have been difficulties in bringing matters forward at the right time. I have had discussions with the Chairman and members of the Select Committee on European Legislation—it was a very helpful meeting—and I am having meetings with other Members of the House. I hope that, by consideration of these things, we shall be able to improve the situation for the future. However, I recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman's concern.
Mr. Chris Smith: The Leader of the House will be aware of the deep concern of millions of people about the personal safety of my constituent, Mr. Salman Rushdie, and their horror at the threats that have been made on his life and the lives of others. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement to be made so that we may be assured that everything possible is being done to secure Mr. Rushdie's safety and that we may know what approaches are being made to the leaders of Iran to lift the shadow that hangs over Mr. Rushdie? The Government should state clearly that the freedom to write and the freedom to speak peacefully must be upheld in a democratic society.
Mr. Wakeham: The Government believe that the declaration is totally unacceptable and we have sought urgent clarification from the Iranian authorities. Mr. Rushdie has been given personal protection. The police also have taken steps to protect the premises of the publishers and to advise members of the company on their own security. I recognise the strong feelings, but I am not convinced that ventilating them in a debate or through a statement next week would be the best way of proceeding. I shall certainly refer the hon. Gentleman's concern to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Richard Holt: I am sure that my right hon. Friend recognised at the time the injustice which might be caused because of the insolvency legislation whereby criminals like Mr. Justin Frewin, who has swindled thousands of people, can be discharged from bankruptcy. Will my right hon. Friend find a small amount of parliamentary time to enable the loophole to be closed so that those who defraud others of trust money which cannot be touched until the bankruptcy is cleared cannot do that in perpetuity?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not have before me the facts of the case to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I recognise his concern. I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and perhaps write to my hon. Friend.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House read early-day motion 271 which calls for a code of conduct for private hospitals?
[That this House, noting the Government's insistence on using private hospitals for National Health Service patients, calls for the immediate imposition of a system of medical audit on all private hospitals; further demands that the twice-yearly inspections of such hospitals should be recorded centrally by the Department of Health, with copies of any adverse comments; particularly insists that any failure to comply with the full statutory obligations should merit immediate action by the Secretary of State; and, until such time as an effective regulatory Code of Conduct is in place, calls upon the Secretary of State for Health to desist from allowing National Health Service patients to be treated outside the National Health Service.]
A code of conduct is necessary in view of some of the recent incidents involving the sale of organs. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Ministry to make a statement in the House about how he intends to ensure that National Health Service patients who are put into private institutions, whether or not they want that, will be protected by a reasonable standard of medical care?
Mr. Wakeham: I believe that the vast majority of private hospitals conduct themselves properly and efficiently. The present concerns are being considered urgently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is known that the Government are considering how best to proceed. When they have made the decision, that will be the time to consider whether a statement is appropriate.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: The Government published in January a White Paper on the future of development plans. Unfortunately, we lost the opportunity to debate it earlier this week. Given that the Government intend to legislate on the matter later this year, will my right hon. Friend find time at an early date for a debate on this important subject?
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern. I shall see what I can do, but I cannot make a firm promise.
Mr. Michael Foot: If, as appears from the right hon. Gentleman's statement a few moments ago, the Prime Minister is refusing to speak in the debate next Tuesday, can he tell us who in the Government is responsible for co-ordinating the policies of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health?
Mr. Wakeham: Basically the same system of Cabinet government operates under this Government as operated under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member, although I suspect that it operates better now than it did in his time. The debate on the subject put down by the Opposition will be answered appropriately by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No doubt it will be a good and interesting debate.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 40 residents of Caldy Island in Pembrokeshire have discovered that they are not eligible to vote in parliamentary or European elections due to a confusion caused by the Home Office and the Welsh Office, and that primary legislation in the form of an Act will be required to restore their right to vote? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that my constituents will get their vote back in time for the European elections in June?
Mr. Wakeham: I am certainly aware of the matter because I have a letter on my desk from my hon. Friend and I am busy finding the appropriate answer to give him. I refer him and the House to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office. At this stage I can add nothing more to that, but I know that my hon. Friend wants me to look again at the matter, and I promise him that I shall do so.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Leader of the House accept my plea in support of the question of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Etterick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) requesting a statement in the House so that we can discuss some of the issues affecting the relatives of those involved in the tragic Piper Alpha disaster? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the speculation in the press, particularly today, about the announcement in London next week of an inter-parliamentary body that has been identified with the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees? Have I missed something? Do those committees contain representatives of foreign Parliaments? How does he think that such a body can deal with the future of Northern Ireland when that depends on the will of the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asks his questions with an innocence which is somewhat uncharacteristic. I think he knows perfectly well that discussions are taking place, but the speculations in the press are rather wide of those discussions which aim to discover whether there are ways of achieving some degree of co-operation and discussion among parliamentarians, but it would not be anything in the nature of a Select Committee or a Grand Committee of the House.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the details surrounding Derbyshire's appointment of Mr. Reg Race as its chief executive, his removal from office within nine months and the lack of information being given to elected members of the severance pay awarded to Mr. Race?
Mr. Wakeham: That sounds like a fascinating subject, and I wish that I could find the opportunity for such a debate in the near future. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to try his luck in an Adjournment debate on the subject.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Leader of the House give us his views on the prospects for a debate on an issue affecting democratic debate in the House? Should a Member of the House, paid by outside interests, be allowed to block a Bill which was designed to help people with a disability because that Bill was unwelcome to the people outside the House who pay him? Is it right and proper that that should be allowed?
Mr. Wakeham: If the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that the procedures of the House are right, his best course of action is to refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure or the Select Committee on Members' Interests. He should express his concerns to them rather than to membercontribution.
Sir Anthony Grant: Has my right hon. Friend noted that early-day motion 250 still lies on the Table, that it has now been signed by 209 hon. Members on both sides of the House, but that, despite meetings with Ministers, the matter remains unsatisfactory and unresolved?
[That this House notes the recommendation of the Trade and Industry Committee that petrol prices should continue to be displayed in gallon and well as litre term on boards visible from the roadside; notes that the Price Marking (Petrol) (Amendment) Order 1988 will remove this requirement with effect from 23rd January; and calls for a debate on the Order.]
In those circumstances, would it not be a good idea to have a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I said to my hon. Friend two or three weeks ago and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Warren) that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, as Chairman of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, had a useful meeting with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on this matter. My right hon. Friend was considering the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye put to him. That is as far as I can take the matter at the moment, but I recognise my hon. Friend's concern.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to see early-day motion 416, signed by 116 hon. Members?
[That this House condemns the dumping of hospital incinerator waste, containing refuse from patients suffering from Hepatitis B', AIDS, toxic drugs, amputated limbs and radioactive isotopes at a landfilled site Rixton, Warrington, instead of transporting this to a licensed incinerator; and calls upon the Government to urgently introduce tougher legislation to stop pirates making a quick buck at the expense of the health and safety of the people of Rixton.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that it is only the tip of the iceberg, as there is a shortage of incinerators? Will he make time for a debate? The health and safety of people not only in Rixton but in other parts of the country are being put at risk by people who want to make a quick buck and are cowboys in the waste disposal industry.
Mr. Wakeham: The deposit of hospital waste at the site in Cheshire appears to have been in contravention of Colliers Industrial Waste Ltd's disposal licence, and Cheshire county council has instigated legal proceedings. Proposed changes to legislation announced last June will

493
prevent the recurrence of such an incident. Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has been asked to investigate the incident. That is a practical and sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend happy with the system by which the House debates foreign affairs only about once or twice a year on a motion for the Adjournment, and most of the time is taken up by half-hour rambles by Privy Councillors and former Ministers? Is it not about time that we had more frequent debates, if necessary half-day debates, and preferably on specific aspects?
Mr. Wakeham: I have had discussions and corespondence with my hon. Friend, with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Commit tee on Foreign Affairs, and others.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: And others.
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman wants to be very careful. He will be in trouble with his mother again.
I hope that we can improve matters. It is not entirely a matter for the Government. Some contributions seemed to be a bit on the long side, but I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend says and I will see what we can do about it.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)? Even if he cannot agree at this stage to a statement or debate on a specific book which has been published and is causing great trouble, may we have a debate on the publication of books? John Bunyan spent many years in prison because of the "Pilgrim's Progress". Because of the "Age of Reason" and "the Rights of Man", Thomas Paine was persecuted. Milton had to write "Areopagitica" because of Cromwell. Should we not have a debate on the general principle? There is strong feeling on both sides of the House that this is a fundamental matter of importance, based upon the history of our country.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I recognise also his concern. It is a fundamental and important matter. My point to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was that I am not sure, in the present rather delicate circumstances, whether a debate in the House would help to deal with some serious problems concerning the life and death of several people. I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I cannot promise a debate in the near future.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my right hon. Friend win concordant affability and influence with the Opposition and split Tuesday's debate into two parts? The first half may be concerned with the Opposition's pretence that the Government have mishandled the concept of eating dairy foods which are perfectly safe. The second half could be on haggis, whisky and broth, which are infinitely more likely to be bug-bearing but are totally safe, as are all dairy products. The whole thing is bunkum.
Mr. Wakeham: It will not require any efforts on my part to find some inconsistencies in the arguments that are presented on Tuesday, but we will await the debate with great interest.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Has the Leader of the House had time to consider the contents of early-day motion 427 which concerns the financial condition of the fishing industry and comments made last Sunday on BBC television by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson)?
[That this House notes the comments concerning the financial difficulties of the sea fish industry by the Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Calder Valley, on the BBC Money Programme on 12 February that "I can't run another man's business nor do I intend that a man who can't run his business should be laid at the door of this Government"; calls on the Government to recognise that individual .fishermen, currently caught in a cost revenue squeeze between high interest rates and limited catching opportunities, are subject to Government and European policies over which they have no control; demands that the hon. Member for Calder Valley publicly withdraw his insensitive and offensive remark that fishermen are not able to run their businesses; and further calls on the Government to introduce a coherent policy of fisheries control which will relate catching capacity to available stocks through a range of measures including a planned decommissioning scheme, action at European level on discards and industrial fishing, effective enforcement of mesh size changes, monitoring of the impact of third country imports on domestic price levels, the introduction of special economic assistance for coastal areas dependent on the fishing industry and an end to the excessive reliance on sharp fluctuations in Total Allowable Catches as the only instrument of fisheries management.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those comments have caused enormous concern in the industry because he appeared to set the Government's face against a number of policy options, including a decommissioning scheme? Does he agree that that reinforces the case for an early and urgent debate on the financial condition facing fishermen?
Mr. Wakeham: Fisheries Ministers recognise the problems caused to some fishermen by the reduced 1989 quotas for North Sea haddock and cod. These reductions were needed in the long-term interests of the fishermen. Action must be taken to curb the growth of our fleet, and discussions about improved conservation measures are in train. We have had debates on fishing in the not-too-distant past. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents would like more frequent debates on the subject. I cannot promise a debate, but I recognise that it is an important subject.
Mr. John Bowis: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the recommendations of the Fennell report is embodied in early-day motion 256 on public safety information, which has now been signed by 260 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties and which will arise on the 24th of this month in a private Member's Bill. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will give a fair wind to this literally life-saving measure?
[That this House welcomes the opportunity to consider the Public Safety Information Bill, which comes up for its Second Reading on 24th February, and joins with the all-party group of honourable Members as well as such organisations as the British Safety Council, the Consumers' Association and the Scottish Consumers' Council, and also such local authorities as Slough Borough Council, Middlesbrough Borough Council, Harrogate District Council, Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council, Wansbeck District Council and Bedfordshire County

495
Council, in supporting the Bill; and further calls upon the Government to support the Bill and assist it in its passage through the House, thus ensuring that the Bill becomes law.]
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise my hon. Friend's concern and interest in this matter and his authority to speak, coming from his constituency. I am of course aware that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has introduced a private Member's Bill on public safety information. The Government have a draft of the Bill and are currently studying its provisions. I cannot take the matter further than that.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think again about the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, when he requested a debate on the report of the Joint Committee on the reform of the private Bill procedure?
I ask him to do that for two reasons. First, the delay in considering and implementing the recommendations of that report means that we are costing the taxpayers enormous sums in lost money, as one of the main recommendations was that the promoters of private Bills in this House should pay hundreds of thousands of pounds more than the peanuts that they are paying at present.
Secondly, planning permission is still being given through the back door of this House on issues which more rightly should be the subject of public inquiries. I am wondering whether the Government's delay in arranging a debate on the report is due to the fact that they are trying to assist some promoters in getting Bills in through the back door instead of going through the proper planning procedures.
Mr. Wakeham: I refute entirely what the hon. Lady says. This is a complicated matter and it is a major report. It has taken a long time to prepare and the Government would do it less than justice if they did not study the report carefully, as we promised to do. I have said that we shall have a debate, and that will take place as soon as possible. I would not accept for a moment any of the hon. Lady's accusations.
Mr. Ian Bruce: When will we have a debate on defence matters? I appreciate that there are regular defence debates, but they tend to be bunched together. Perhaps the House would like to discuss, in particular, the new changes to allowances and pay—and I understand that at 4 o'clock this afternoon there will be an announcement on pay and allowances. Such a debate would be a wonderful opportunity for Conservative Members to be persuaded by Opposition Members of their new defence policy, which we understand is under review just now.
Mr. Wakeham: There are expressions with shades of significance in answers which Leaders of the House give. My answer to my hon. Friend is that it will be my intention to arrange debates on the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force in the relatively near future, so my hon. Friend will not have long to wait.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on the number of people—mainly children and the elderly—who are killed on the roads at places where pedestrian crossings have been approved but not installed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my
496
constituency last week, eight-year-old Kerry Allen was killed at precisely the spot on a road in New Parks estate that is to be the location of a crossing approved by Leicestershire county council, but which it says that it does not have the money to install? How many more children will be needlessly killed on our roads because county councils either do not have enough money to install crossings, or say that they do not have enough money?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. and learned Gentleman raised this question during Transport Question Time earlier this week. I can add nothing to what was said then by my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, but I recognise the hon. and learned Gentleman's concern and I shall have a word with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Tim Smith: I reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) about the need for a debate on the White Paper concerning the future of development plans. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no more important an issue in my constituency than planning and the protection of the green belt? If we are to have a planning Bill in the next Session, would it not make sense to have a debate between now and the end of July?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would make an excellent subject for debate, and I know that good speeches would be made about that important issue. I cannot be more forthcoming than I was to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker).
Mr. David Winnick: Arising from replies given to my hon. Friends, will the Government make it clear that all religions must be respected—the Moslem no less than any other—and that we recognise the offence that has undoubtedly been caused to many Moslems in this country and abroad? However, it is also necessary to emphasise that the rule of law applies in this country, unlike in Iran, and that incitement to violence is a criminal offence here. As to the death threat from Iran, is it not intolerable that such a threat should be made by a country with which we have diplomatic relations? Will the Government make it perfectly clear that British people will not stand for that kind of threat or blackmail? We learned 50 years ago this year that there cannot be appeasement of dictators.
Mr. Wakeham: I fully recognise the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings. Given the situation that we are in, I chose my words carefully. I do not think that I ought to add anything to my previous remarks.
Mr. Neil Hamilton: At the risk of sounding mildly unfashionable, I urge my right hon. Friend to exercise considerable caution before rushing to introduce legislation to ban the sale of human organs. Many people feel that if that practice increases the supply of organs, and has the effect of saving life and easing discomfort, it ought not to be banned. Does my right hon. Friend share my bewilderment that Opposition Members who are keen to allow women the right to choose to kill their unborn children seem to become very indignant when other parts of their body are up for choice?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend makes his point, as he usually does, in a clear way. As to the sale of organs and kidneys, the Government have made known their

497
abhorrence of the particularly repugnant trade that exists. Nothing that my hon. Friend has said persuades me to think differently.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I welcome the interest of the Leader of the House in my personal affairs. I wish to ask him about the personal affairs of six Conservative Members. Will he say whether a list of those six hon. Members was available to him when he was in the Whips' Office? Is a similar list available to the Patronage Secretary now?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman raised with me points of order on that subject. I remind him that we are dealing with business questions.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: My question relates to the business of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. Gentleman had better ask for a debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I asked the Leader of the House whether he had a list of the six Conservative Members in question when he was Chief Whip, and whether there was a similar list in the office of the present Chief Whip? May we have a straight answer?
Mr. Wakeham: I do not want to entice the hon. Gentleman into any further trouble, either with you, Mr. Speaker, or with his mother. I have nothing to add to my previous answer, because I do not comment on security matters.
Mr. Greg Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing anger and concern in Derbyshire that ratepayers have suffered a 168 per cent. rate increase since 1982, and that Derbyshire is now the highest rated shire county? May we have an early debate on remaining order No. 36, standing on the Order Paper in my name? If my right hon. Friend agrees to such a debate, may we also learn what has been the cost to the citizens of Derbyshire of the employment for nine months of Reg Race as chief executive?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend adds his significant voice to the calls made to me earlier in business questions. I wish that I could meet his request. I am afraid that I cannot do so, but no doubt my hon. Friend will find another way of ventilating the points that he wishes to make.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: It was prescient of you, Mr. Speaker, to call me so late, because now I am able to put my question in the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who leads for the Opposition in our debates on the Official Secrets Bill, and of the four Ministers concerned. My question relates to Wednesday's business. How came so clever a man as the Home Secretary to be so confused on the radio this morning? Is that not typical of the geological flaws in the Bill? Is it satisfactory that Ministers should write letters over which they have taken a lot of trouble—such as that written by the Minister of State, Home Office—to me and to some of the Minister's own hon. Friends, when, lo and behold, phrases used in those letters appear nowhere in the Bill?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman appears to be addressing his questions to me. I know nothing about the matter. The hon. Gentleman must ask the Leader of the House for a statement.
Mr. Dalyell: Does the appearance of the Attorney-General on the Government Front Bench mean that we are in for better times this afternoon than on Monday? As a non-lawyer, I think that it is high time a lawyer came to the Committee and explained some of the points in the Bill. I commend to the Home Secretary the views of Lord Griffiths, chairman of the Security Commission, who appeared on television last Friday and said, "Of course, the judges do not read Hansard."They are not meant to read Hansard. They must judge matters on the basis of what is in the Bill. What is being said about vital issues in letters and in this House bears no relation to the Bill. The Home Secretary has not answered the key question, which was most eloquently put by a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley arid Sidcup (Mr. Heath), about the difference between state interest and Government interest. Such matters must be cleared up.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with business questions to the Leader of the House. He appears to be taking the opportunity to raise points that should properly be raised in Committee.
Mr. Dalyell: Will we have the Attorney-General here?
Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman talks about people being confused, I listen very carefully to what he has to say—because there is no greater expert in the House on that subject than him. The hon. Gentleman is wrong, and if he listens carefully to the debates, and perhaps takes a few notes as they progress, at the end of the day we may even straighten him out.
Mr. David Nicholson: Further to the subject of confusion, has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to read my early-day motion 365, which has been signed by a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends?
[That this House notes the confusion and dismay which the leadership of the Right honourable Member for Yeovil is sowing in the Social and Liberal Democrat Party, in particular his conflicting statements in the same 'Times' interview that 'I have made a mistake in slamming the door on pacts…' and that 'I believe pacts won't work'; welcomes the Right honourable Member for Yeovil's long-delayed recognition that 'we have no definition', that 'no one really knows what we stand for' and that 'our members don't know'; notes that he is expecting the Democrats to lose about 200 seats in this May's important county council elections, including control of some county councils; welcomes the encouragement this gives to the heavily-burdened ratepayers, not only of Somerset, Devon, Cambridgeshire, Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight, where the Democrats have held control for all or most of the time since 1985, but also of such counties as Cheshire, Bedfordshire, Leicestershire, Warwickshire, Shropshire and Humberside, where the Democrat group keeps Labour in power; and expects Democrat emissaries will soon be begging the honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to take the lead and try to effect a rescue.]

499
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House and the country would benefit from a debate on the confusion in the Liberal party and on the variety of pacts and alliances at local level between the Liberal and Labour parties?
Mr. Wakeham: It has been a moving scene for most of my time in the House, and even if I found time for a debate on the confusion and dismay in the Social and Liberal Democratic party I doubt that it would help to resolve the confusion.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House explain why the Prime Minister has run away from the debate next Tuesday on the subject of food and the various diseases connected therewith? Is it not a cockeyed way to run the Government's agenda, when, after all the furore in the course of the past week, with one Minister contradicting another and the Prime Minister having to try to clean up the mess, she is allowing one of those Ministers to open the debate and the other to close it? We shall have more contradiction and confusion. Will we have a statement on Wednesday to clear up the mess? Is it the case that the Prime Minister is not prepared to take on the argument that there is one law for the egg producers, who get £19 million, and another for tinplate workers in Wales who are thrown on the scrap heap, shipyard workers in Sunderland who lose their jobs and miners throughout Britain who cannot have the same kind of assistance?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman waxes eloquent on these matters, as usual, but it is by no means unprecedented for Cabinet Ministers with departmental responsibility to respond to debates in this way even when initiated by the Leader of the Opposition. This was the case in the debate on the National Health Service on 27 October 1983. My right hon. Friends are more than competent to deal with any matters that arise. At the end of the day, the Opposition may wish that they had chosen another subject.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the answers he has given on the question of Moslem threats, because it appears from the Scottish media this morning that there are eight volunteers in Scotland prepared to carry out the assassination task? We do not want such people living in Scotland. That is the first thing. Secondly, we want a debate on the matter so that it may be properly aired in this place. The Labour party
500
could be given the opportunity during that debate to show that it supports measures which the House passes to deal with acts or terrorism.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise what my hon. Friend says, but I detect even in the way he phrased the question sufficient justification to think that a debate in the House next week would not help to solve the problem.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Leader of the House say a bit more on the question of private Bill procedure? He has said for a number of weeks now that the Government are considering the Committee report very closely, but hon. Members on both sides of the House are getting very worried about the date for a debate. What sort of debate will it be? In the past he said that it would be a take-note debate. If the Government are now studying the report in great detail, will he tell us that we shall have a debate in which we can take decisions? Unless he does so, the suspicion on the Opposition side and the Government side will be that the Government are deliberately dragging their feet so that the private Bill for next Session on the fast routes through Kent will be dealt with under the existing private Bill procedure. We want a fairly short and sharp answer from the Leader of the House today.
Mr. Wakeham: If I had wanted delay, the easiest thing would have been to have a debate before anybody had had a chance to study the report. We could then just have forgotten about it. As it is, we are studying the matter in detail. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman in advance of the debate what line the Government will take, but I will make progress, discuss the matter through the usual channels and hope to find an arrangement that is satisfactory to the House.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread concern about violence on the London Underground, and that the great interest in the Guardian Angels and other forms of possible defence of people threatened with violence is an example of this? May we have an early debate on this very important matter to see what further measures can be taken to ensure that the large numbers of people who travel on London Underground can do so in safety?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree that it is a very important subject and I recognise the concern. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport made some announcements a few days ago. I should like to initiate a debate, but I cannot promise one in the near future.

Points of Order
4.14 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not by nature a whinger, because one has to take the rough with the smooth in this place, but during Prime Minister's Question Time you ruled me out of order when I was asking a question because you said, "It has got to be a matter for which she has responsibility." The question before mine was from the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) and he referred to the Labour party's defence policy. Where is the Prime Minister's responsibility concerning the Labour party's defence policy?
I was asking a question that involved the welfare of the Prime Minister's son and her future grandchild. I cannot see that there could be any other matter more closely within the Prime Minister's purview and area of responsibility than the welfare of her son and her grandchild. I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that on this occasion you grossly overreacted, because you were seeking to defend the Prime Minister when there was no need for you to do so. I had mentioned to your secretary—because I thought that you might be a bit sensitive about this—that it would be a gentle question, and it was.
During business questions, the Leader of the House twice referred to the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). You, Mr. Speaker, did not say at any stage that that had nothing to do with the Leader of the House. What responsibility has the Leader of the House for the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington? That is the last time that I shall try the kid-glove approach.
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I said that the matter referred to had to be part of the Prime Minister's parliamentary responsibilities. If a Conservative Member had put a question of that kind about the Leader of the Opposition, there would have been uproar. When we are dealing with the Prime Minister's parliamentary responsibilities, there is no reason for hon. Members to introduce family relationships.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I always abide by your rulings, but it appeared that you applied one rule to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and another to the Leader of the House. Surely, if the Leader of the House refers to the mother of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), he should he ruled out of order.
Mr. Speaker: Those are two entirely different things. It is a question of the context in which the question was put and the answer was given.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Speaker: No, I shall not call the hon. Member again.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) has a point.
This is a matter directly for you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you have noticed that in today's newspapers there is a report that the Italian Republican party, which I believe is a very Right-wing party, has suggested that it will be calling upon Liberals, or Social Democrats, or whatever they call themselves nowadays, to stand in Italy. That raises an interesting question for you. We had a long discussion about this the other day. What will be the position if they get an invitation to stand on behalf of the Italian party In Europe, in the Common Market or in Italy itself? Will the Chiltern Hundreds apply or the Manor of Northstead? Will we have to get out "Erskine May"? Will there have to be a new copy printed? This may lead to some very interesting developments. Will they get the Short money? Can they serve in both Parliaments? I could go on, but I know that we are very busy people. What is the answer?
Mr. Speaker: We are indeed very busy people. I think that the answer is for the hon. Gentleman to discuss this with me in private. I am sure that with his background of experience he will be able to give me some useful advice.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Speaker: No. I have said to the hon. Member that I cannot help him any more.

Points of Order
  BILL PRESENTED
    AGE OF LEGAL CAPACITY (SCOTLAND)
    Sir Nicholas Fairbairn, supported by Mr. Bill Walker and Mr. Menzies Campbell, presented a Bill to make provision in the law of Scotland as to the legal capacity of persons under the age of 18 years to enter into transactions, as to the setting aside and ratification by the court of transactions entered into by such persons and as to guardians of persons under the age of 16 years: to make provision in the law of Scotland relating to the time and date at which a person shall he taken to attain a particular age; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered 10 be read a Second time on Friday 24 February and to be printed. [Bill 78.]
Orders of the Day

  Official Secrets Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Committee [Progress, 15 February]
  [SIR PAUL DEAN in the Chair.]
  4.19 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): On a point of order, Sir Paul. I should like to refer to the points of order raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) at the beginning of each of the last two sittings of the Committee, on the relationship between solicitors and their clients. The House will find a point of order on 2 February at column 441 of Hansard, and my response recorded there. He also raised a point of order yesterday.
  With your permission, Sir Paul, I should like to tell the Committee that, having considered the matter anew and taken further legal advice, we remain confident that the common law relating to legal professional privilege protects communication between a client and his solicitor of the kind I was addressing during the Committee proceedings on 25 January.
  Legal professional privilege acts to prevent the production in evidence of such a communication and hence to deprive of its foundation any prosecution that might ever be sought to be founded on such a communication in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman envisaged in his first point of order. But of course it is well established that anyone who, when communicating with his solicitor, seeks the latter's help in the furtherence of some criminal purpose, is disqualified in respect of that communication from the benefit of privilege.
  The function of legal professional privilege is to aid the administration of justice and not to aid crime. But such a person's position is quite different from that of someone who discloses information to his solicitor in the process of seeking advice in good faith about his own legal position in relation to it.
  This is not a new issue. It has existed for many years under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and there is absolutely no evidence that it has given rise to any practical difficulties for lawyers or for their clients.
  Mr. Roy Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. This will break new ground for points of order, but may I pursue the point as briefly as necessary, as we are constrained by the timetable motion?
  The advice that the Minister of State gives to the Committee is in absolute contradistinction to the judgment made by the Law Society, which, as it is responsible for solicitors' relationships with their clients, may be thought to have some authority on these matters. It is also contrary to common sense, as it is unlikely in the House and outside that the practice to which the Minister refers can overrule—for that is what he implies—the
  504
  commitment in an Act of Parliament that specifies individuals who can pass on information, but does not include clients wishing to approach their solicitors.
  May I raise a further, and genuine point of order— unlike the Minister of State's first statement and my response to it—about the problems that the Minister of State's statement raises for proceedings on the Bill? Clearly, the subject ought to be debated, but cannot be, because on a guillotine motion, clause stand part motions do not become debatable due to pressure of time. What is more, Sir Paul, with great respect to you and the Chairman of Ways and Means, an amendment that would have allowed us to clear up the matter, at least in part, has not been selected.
  All I can do, therefore, is to make a ritual, but clearly very reasonable, complaint about the problems caused by the timetable motion, and ask that when Mr. Speaker and his advisers select the amendments for the Report stage, they understand that it is essential—a necessity compounded by the Minister of State's statement—that we are able to debate exactly this question and get it cleared up once and for all.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I will take one or two more points of order. I am sure that the Committee realises that I allowed that point of order from the Minister and a response from the Opposition Front Bench, but clearly it would not be in order to debate the matter, especially as we are operating under an allocation of time motion.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. May I say from the Back Benches that we have rights to protect in this sphere, just as much as have spokesmen from the Front Benches. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) agrees with that. We are in great difficulty. Obviously, this was an improper point of order in the first place. I am not blaming you, Sir Paul, because you did not know what the Minister was going to say. But surely, the Minister ought to have asked to make a statement, or made it absolutely clear to the House, rather than raising a point of order, that we would be given a chance to debate the matter in the later stages of the Bill. That is the only way in which the matter can now be remedied.
  I hope that, as soon as the Home Secretary has a chance to take charge of his Bill again, we shall have a clear statement from him and an absolute guarantee that this matter, which should never have been put to the Committee as a point of order, will come up on Report when we shall have the chance of a proper debate. If necessary, further time should be granted, because the Government are apparently seeking to deal with a major matter by means of a point of order, and Back Benchers will have no chance of proper debate.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. I do not wish to be pedantic, but for non-lawyers this is the sort of statement that is much better to see in writing rather than to hear it once, so that one can look at the small print.
  I have one question for the Minister. He used the phrase:
  "seeking advice in good faith."

  505
  I am not sure how we can prove good faith or otherwise, but do we take it that, in general, any communication between a solicitor and someone who approaches him is privileged? I am thinking especially of the position of Brian Raymond.
  Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. The Minister was kind enough to make a statement and if I understood it correctly, he made it clear that his authority was the common law, and not statute law. Could I ask him, through you, Sir Paul, if he will publish in the Official Report, or at least circulate in correspondence, as the Front Bench is wont to do at present, to those of us who are interested, the authorities of common law; in other words, the case law and the judgments that make up that case law? Then we can all have a look at an issue that must be at least debatable, as it seems to conflict with the Law Society's views.
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. Is it not the case that common law is subordinate to statute and that in the circumstances it is inappropriate for the Government to rely upon common law?
  Mr. Hattersley: Further to that point of order, Sir Paul. You will understand, and I think from your demeanour you sympathise with, the fact that the point of order I raised was a response to the Minister's statement, for statement it was. You were kind enough to allow me to reply.
  I now raise what by any standards can be regarded only as a point of order, concerning the intolerable position into which the Committee has been put by the Minister's behaviour. The Minister made his statement under the guise of a point of order. Quite rightly, Sir Paul, you would prevent that statement from being cross-examined in the way that statements usually are. The Leader of the House and the Home Secretary, who are in the Chamber, have a duty to make sure that the situation is redressed. We must have a statement, given as a statement, on some occasion, so that we may question the Minister.
  To allow a point of order that puts on record a contentious viewpoint without its being cross-examined in the usual way is an abuse of the proceedings of the House.
  The First Deputy Chairman: I cannot take this matter any further at the moment. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard what is being said. I shall of course report to Mr. Speaker what is being said. Without, of course, making any commitment for him, I am sure that he will take this discussion into account when he makes his selection for the Report stage of the Bill.

  Official Secrets Bill
    Clause 7

      AUTHORISED DISCLOSURES
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 7, line 17, at end insert
      'or
      (c) to a Member of Parliament.'.
      Mr. Maclennan: Clause 7 deals with authorised disclosures of official information. The purpose of my amendment is to enable an officer to whom a disclosure of information has been made to pass that information to a Member of Parliament in certain restricted circumstances.
      506
      Under clause 7(3), a member of the public who obtains protected information commits an offence by disclosing it to anyone else, unless the disclosure is to a civil servant or has been authorised. My amendment would allow a member of the public to disclose such information to an hon. Member.
      It is important that the House recognises that the amendment does not apply to disclosures by civil servants, but only to disclosures by other persons—members or the public. Therefore, it does not provide a direct channel for a civil servant who wishes to leak information to a Member of Parliament and it does not deal with the Ponting point. A disclosure by a civil servant, whether to a journalist or a Member of Parliament, would not be protected by the amendment.
      It follows that the amendment does nothing to make leaks more likely. The person at the beginning of the chain would commit an offence. However, it would protect a member of the public into whose hands a leaked document came and whose only disclosure of protected information was to a Member of Parliament.
      If one has to decide who is an appropriate person to whom protected information should be disclosed, there is no one more accessible or more suitable than a Member of Parliament.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. John Gorst: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he intends to bracket a Member of Parliament with a Member of the European Parliament as being synonymous?
      Mr. Maclennan: I did not do so in the amendment, but, in the light of the decisions that the House took last night about leaked information from the European Parliament, it would be reasonable for us to address the question whether there might be a case for extending the cover. However, I did not make that proposal in the amendment.
      It is widely recognised that Members of Parliament are accessible to their constituents in a manner that makes them the natural people to turn to if information of a protected kind should come into the possession of a member of the public. Members of the House of Commons are honourable and are to be entrusted with the task of dealing appropriately with information that they are handed by their constituents or any other member of the public. If a member of the public received such protected information, he would be at a loss to know to whom to turn if he could not turn to his Member of Parliament. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
      Mr. Aitken: I have some sympathy for the amendment which I understand would give some protection to a Member of Parliament who was simply carrying out the perfectly fair and honourable role of being as little as a mere conduit pipe between a Crown servant and perhaps the Government of the day.
      I can well envisage circumstances in which a member of the security services, or someone who had been notified under the Act, might seek advice from his Member of Parliament on what he should do in the light of his anxiety about something that had gone wrong inside the security services or the defence establishment, on which, for one reason or another, he had not had adequate redress or a fair hearing through the normal channels of communication.

      507
      A Member of Parliament is quite used to such an approach at a constituency surgery or in correspondence. Such approaches are received several times during one's career as a Member of Parliament, if not always from officials who would be designated under the Act. There should be some protection in the Act of a complainant's civil rights, and, indeed, those of a Member of Parliament.
      In case anyone thinks that that is all fanciful stuff, let me take the House back to an episode that has been well reported by Mr. Chapman Pincher and others, in which I played a modest conduit pipe role, in the months following the disclosures in 1979, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister came to the Dispatch Box having decided, as a result of a written question from the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), to reveal that Mr. Blunt had been a traitor and had been granted immunity.
      Up to that moment, inside the security services there had been much tighter secrecy and general acceptance that the vow of omerta, or absolute secrecy, should prevail under all circumstances, than appears to be the case today. There is no doubt that, when some Crown servants read my right hon. Friend's disclosure—a right and proper disclosure in the national interest—they felt that the statement was not as full as it should have been in the light of extra information that they had. Therefore, they wondered what to do in order to reveal certain additional information.
      For various reasons linked with a mutual friend, one such Crown servant approached me. I am saying nothing new, simply telling a story, perhaps rather more accurately than Mr. Chapman Pincher has already told it. That former Crown servant was a man whom I knew only as a member of the Clerks Department in the House, a Mr. Arthur Martin, who had previously been a Crown servant in the Security Service. He felt strongly that the Prime Minister's statement had left unmentioned some vital matters and he feared that she might not even be aware of that herself. His fundamental fear was that the Prime Minister had gone in to bat on that major issue of Blunt without being fully briefed on the alleged treachery of Sir Roger Hollis. I know that hon. Members hold many views on that. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) feels that those fears were completely groundless and that Sir Roger Hollis's reputation has been unjustifiably besmirched.
      But be that as it may, let any hon. Member put himself in the position in which I found myself, of being told out of the blue the amazing story that a former head of our security services had been a Soviet agent and that a formidable body of opinion inside the security services not only believed that and had a committee set up which reported that they believed it, but also had set up an extra inquiry under Sir Burke Trend. All those matters had gone on inside the barrier of secrecy but, allegedly, might not have been fully known to the Prime Minister of the day.
      What should any Member of Parliament do in those circumstances? Exactly, I suggest, what I did after consulting a couple of close friends who were Privy Councillors. I wrote the whole story down in a letter and sent it to the Prime Minister, after which, for some months, there was complete secrecy and silence, and then in due course, the Prime Minister responded in confidence.
      508
      My point is that any Back Bencher could suddenly have been given a disclosure such as that which seemed to me at that time to be of earth-shaking proportions. I am sure that any Back Bencher, whatever his party loyalties, would have taken more or less the same course that I took—to act as a mere conduit pipe and pass it on to the responsible Minister, in this case the Prime Minister. Against the background of that anecdote—which I assure the House is entirely accurate—I submit that there could easily be similar instances in the future.
      Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If we are to be used as conduit pipes, and, for the sake of argument, it becomes a criminal offence to receive that information, how in practical terms can a Member of Parliament stop himself receiving it? If someone sits in one's surgery and says something or sends one a letter, how can one stop oneself receiving that information?
      Mr. Aitken: I am glad to see that for the first time during these debates my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General is present, because he will be aware that a "conduit pipe" is an expression in law. It is not a piece of plumbing or drainage, but is, in fact, a legal term meaning a quite innocent party who does no more than transmit the information onward. Certainly, if a Member of Parliament were to be more than a conduit pipe—for example, if he spoke on the radio, put down parliamentary questions, or made a song and dance about it—I can see that he could exceed what might be called his normal lawful responsibilities.
      Mr. Gorst: Probably for the purposes of clarity, my hon. Friend is slightly oversimplifying the situation. His premise is that the communication that he or any other Member of Parliament receives will be from a named person. However, as any Member of Parliament who has been here for a short time will know, one often receives anonymous communications. If we receive anonymous communications, that poses a new set of problems. If the amendment is not accepted, people will be more inclined to send anonymous communications than named ones. Will my hon. Friend deal with that aspect of the problem too?
      Mr. Aitken: It would certainly make the role of a Member of Parliament even more innocent if he were to act simply as a post office for anonymous communications. I believe, however, that, if the material were entirely anonymous, most of us would not communicate it to Ministers of the Crown, but would throw it straight into the wastepaper basket.
      There are clearly variations on the theme. Even if a repeat performance of a former head of the anti-Soviet division and the Security Service telling a Back Bencher that the head of the Security Service is a Soviet agent is unlikely, it is nevertheless likely that some Crown servant may approach his Member of Parliament and tell him a story that the Member feels he must pass on. What will be the position of the Member if he passes on that information? As I understand it, under the Bill he could quite easily—depending on the goodwill of the prosecutor or the Attorney-General—be heading for Wormwood Scrubs.
      Mr. David Winnick: In the case of Sir Roger Hollis, if some members of the Security Service felt that there were serious allegations that could not be dealt with in a manner that was considered satisfactory, would

      509
      it not have been better for a Member of Parliament to intervene, because either way that might have cleared up the matter? Sir Roger Hollis's name might have then been cleared. However, now, whether he was guilty or not, there will always be a question mark about his integrity. If he was innocent—as one hopes he was—the matter would have been resolved at the time. Perhaps if a Member of Parliament had had that information in his hands and had pursued it, the outcome would have been much better.
      Mr. Aitken: How the members of the Fluency committee of the security services and the group of Security Service officials known rather inappropriately—in view of their snow-white hair and elderly demeanour—as the young Turks tried to transmit their fears to higher authority is a long and tortuous saga. It had many amusing byways, including one member insisting on ringing the doorbell of No. 10 Downing street and not leaving the front hall until he was shown to the office of the Cabinet Secretary. They did try to transmit their fears about major penetration of the security services.
      I am focusing on the narrow point of the role of a Member of Parliament. A Member doing all the right things, operating entirely correctly and honourably and in accordance with what all sensible right hon. and hon. Members would feel right and proper, would have no protection under the Bill. The only protection that I can envisage is his reliance on the Attorney-General's discretion not to prosecute him. I have considerable faith in the Attorney-General's discretion, certainly when the Attorney-General is as reasonable and as eminent a figure as my right hon. and learned Friend.
      4.45 pm
      I now come specifically to amendment No. 74. Do we need in statute any better protection for Members of Parliament? We do not seek any special privileges, but we must recognise that in our role as constituency Members, holding surgeries, receiving correspondence and listening to the grievances of our constituents, we might face such a situation as I faced in early 1980.
      I believe, therefore, that there is merit in the amendment of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—who unfortunately is unable to be here because he has 'flu—also feels that some special legal status should be written into the Bill. There is a case for doing something along the lines of the amendment, and I therefore cautiously support it.
      Mr. Foot: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) in the case which he was putting. I hope that the Government will give serious attention to the amendment or to one that could achieve the same absolutely clear effect. This is one of the most important aspects of the Bill that we still have to debate. I am not saying, however, that some of the proposed amendments do not also provide ways in which we can proceed, and 1 have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will be putting our case. After all the discussion, we must get the matter cleared up before we leave this part of the Bill.
      When I saw that the Leader of the House was present, I thought that he would intervene on the House of Commons aspect. I am very glad to welcome both him and
      510
      the Attorney-General to our debate. It appears that our appeals for his attendance have carried great weight in the Government, and for the first time we have the Attorney-General present. Now that he has come, I hope that he will not be gagged. I hope that he will have every opportunity of putting forward his case on this matter, which is one which has been brought to the attention of previous Attorneys-General. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have not come to the House without all the detail at his very skilled fingertips. We shall have the advantage of his views later.
      I still have hopes that the Leader of the House may participate in the debate. I am not saying this in denigration of the Home Secretary, who is capable of dealing with some parts of the Bill, but perhaps the Leader of the House and the Attorney-General are better qualified to deal with this part.
      Of course, the case in which the hon. Member for Thanet, South and others were involved has been recalled previously in our debates and in our approach to the idea of having a new Official Secrets Act. One of the memories of the House of Commons on this sort of point is that of the Sandys case. I shall not recite it all, but I believe that hon. Members have not understood exactly the conclusion of that case. That makes it all the more important that, when we get a Bill that carries out what the House presumably wants to be the law to govern these matters for the next 20 or 30 years—as long perhaps as the 1911 Act was the law, but let us do better than that—we are sure of the rights of the House of Commons and of Members of Parliament.
      We must be sure about the rights of hon. Members. Although the Sandys case happened under a Conservative Government which had a very powerful majority, we must ensure that there is no recurrence of the interference in the rights of hon. Members which was tolerated by the Conservative Government in 1938 and in 1939. When I say that, I am speaking not only on behalf of the Labour and Liberal Members who protested so strongly then, but: on behalf of the very small minority of brave Conservative Members who were determined to stand by Winston Churchill as he was conducting one of the most difficult fights of his career. He had fewer followers than the hon. Member for Thanet, South, who has been tabling amendments to this Bill. Hon. Members can guess, therefore, how difficult it must have been to put the case.
      The Conservative Government in 1938 had a Chief Whip who believed that all the matters should be pushed through. The present Leader of the House is very different, although sometimes I think that he has adopted Captain Margesson as his model and wants to live up to the way in which Captain Margesson forced through some of the worst measures that have ever passed through the House of Commons at some of our most dangerous moments.
      The crisis of the Duncan Sandys case was never concluded. No decision was taken after a Member of Parliament had been arraigned by a Minister because he tried to bring to the attention of the Minister's Department some of the deficiencies in the plans for the defence of London. Those were very important matters, but the Government of the day tried to interfere with a Member of Parliament carrying out his duties. The Government acted against the person who went to Mr. Duncan Sandys and provided him with the information.
      The Duncan Sandys case occurred at a critical moment in the history of this country. Having lived through that

      511
      experience, the House should have said, "Well, let's clear up the matter. Let's make sure we never have a Government who exercise ministerial power in the way in which that Government acted through Mr. Hore-Belisha." He thought, and no doubt was advised by the Law Officer of the day, that he was making perfectly proper use of his powers under the Official Secrets Act.
      Churchill did not bring the matter to the House, because he thought that the Margesson-Neville Chamberlain majority would be used against him to crush his case. He had no confidence that if he brought the case to the House, he would receive any sympathy even though such great issues for the future and safety of the country were involved. Therefore, the matter was left.
      No decision had been taken by the House of Commons by the time the second world war broke out. No decision had been taken to condemn the actions of Hore-Belisha and the others. There was some slight protection in the sense that parts of the matter were referred to the Committee of Privileges. To some extent, the Committee upheld Duncan Sandys and his supporters. That was not an absolute protection and even the Committee of Privileges, as far as I understand the full details of the case, did not report to the House so that the House could make a final decision. The matter was left in the air, and that happened in a very important case involving such an eminent Member of this House as Churchill who had shown that he was much more aware of the safety of the nation and the country's public interest than the Government were. Even in those circumstances, the matter was not brought to a proper conclusion.
      The nearest that the matter came to a conclusion was when Churchill—for reasons that I have explained, he did not come to the House, because he did not think that he would receive fair treatment here at the time—wrote to the Evening Standard anonymously, which was a most curious development, and explained how the Official Secrets Act should be applied in future after the experience of the case. He said that it should be applied to spies and people who attack the safety of the nation, but that there must be an obsolute exclusion from the operation of the Official Secrets Act for journalists and others obtaining information of that kind and, of course, for Members of Parliament.
      I have no doubt that if Churchill had had his way and had been able to reform the Official Secrets Act in 1939 or 1940, he would have insisted on a clause to prevent the kind of treatment that he and Duncan Sandys received at the hands of the Conservative Government. Part of that protection would have applied to a Member of Parliament and his rights if he was approached with information. I do not want to give the present Government any easy get-out. An alteration to the clause or to the part of the Bill in which these matters are laid down may be necessary. In some way it should be stated that it will be impossible for the circumstances of 1938 and 1939 to recur.
      When we raised these issues a few weeks ago, the Minister of State replied to the debate as if the matter was dealt with and there was no need to worry. That is not right. Now that we are clarifying the Official Secrets Act—leaving aside our arguments about whether some parts make defence more difficult for people who want to protect themselves—we must ensure that the approach to
      512
      a Member of Parliament is covered. It will not be covered simply by leaving matters as they are. It will not be covered unless there is something specific in the Bill. It will not be covered simply by giving general assurances.
      If the Home Secretary says that these matters could go to the Committee of Privileges, that will not do. Some matters could be dealt with by a reference to the Committee of Privileges and part of the Sandys case was referred to such a Committee, but that was not the solution.
      The Home Secretary should include a reference in the Bill to how an approach to a Member of Parliament is protected. The rights of hon. Members must be explained. We must ensure that, as the law is being changed, the folly, monstrosity or crime—whatever we want to call it—that occurred in the few years before 1940 will never happen again. Now that the Home Secretary has legal assistance, I hope that he will give us that guarantee.
      Mr. Kenneth Hind: While I appreciate that it is a matter of grave concern that people who are notified or public servants who are party to confidential information should be able to talk to Members of Parliament, the major concern must be what hon. Members do with that information.
      Under amendment No. 74 there is the right for a civil servant to disclose information to a Member of Parliament. If I read the amendment correctly, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is suggesting that what the Member of Parliament does with the information, irrespective of the damage or harm that it may do, is totally in his hands. The Member of Parliament is in no way responsible for looking after the national interest or for avoiding damage to the nation's interest.
      I hope that when he responds to the debate, the hon. Gentleman will say that that is incorrect. I suggest that he looks carefully at the earlier clauses in the Bill, particularly clause 5. There is nothing within those earlier clauses to prevent either a civil servant or an official of the secret service who is notified from passing information to a Member of Parliament, provided that the Member uses the information responsibly and not in such a way as to cause harm to the national interest. Such a person is already covered by the Bill.
      If information is disclosed to us, as Members of Parliament, and we use it responsibly—there are a number of ways in which we could use it that would pass the harm test—we will be covered by the Bill and the amendment will be unnecessary.
      Mr. Budgen: What would be considered responsible?
      5 pm
      Mr. Hind: It is open to all of us in receipt of such information to pursue the matter through the channels open to us.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an amazing argument. Did he not see or read about what happened in the United States over the Watergate scandal? Does he actually think that President Nixon and the United States Government thought that what they were doing was in the public interest, and was not damaging to it? Does he not understand that, if disclosures had not been made, the Watergate scandal would never have come out and people

      513
      would never have known about it. Without disclosure such matters remain hidden. Does the hon. Gentleman live in the real world?
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but he must bear in mind the fact that the Bill covers not only that type of information—which obviously points to the misdoings of the Executive, and should be exposed—but sensitive information that could cause much damage to the nation if exposed. That is why the harm test exists.
      I say that Members of Parliament should use such information responsibly because it is up to them to decide to which category the information relates. There is obviously the sort of information that was mentioned in an earlier debate—the information passed by Captain Scott to one of his relatives during the last war about the state of our tanks in the western desert and our inability to defend them against German guns. Such information could have been passed to a Member of Parliament who could have used it responsibly through the channels open to him—the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office or the appropriate Minister—saying that information had come to his notice and something should be done about it. No harm would then have been done to the national interest, and the Germans would not have been aware that we were considering the circumstances and taking the appropriate measures to deal with them.
      Mr. Maclennan: If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 7(3), he will see that the member of the public into whose hands the official information comes has no proper channel of communication other than through a Crown servant. How many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents know Crown servants to whom it is appropriate that they should convey prohibited information
      "in accordance with an official authorisation"?
      What would that mean to the hon. Gentleman's constituents who might come into possession of extremely sensitive information? What would be the proper channel for them to use? The clause seems to make it impossible to communicate such information without committing an offence.
      Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the harm test covers the matter. Surely there is no reason why a person who came into possession of such information should not approach his Member of Parliament, tell him of the circumstances and say, "I wish you to treat this information appropriately, with all possible responsibility and in confidence." Provided that no harm stemmed from the disclosure of the information, no offence would be committed.
      There is no reason, even within the present framework of the Bill, why that could not be done. The basis of the offence—which is relevant—is the damage that is done to the national interest. These debates have constantly ignored that point.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's point about the harm test is a red herring in this context. How is a lay member of the public into whose hands the protected information falls to determine whether its disclosure will cause harm? The existence of a harm test will not offer him any practical assistance in determining what to do with the information. If it is sensitive information, he must decide whether to put it in the fire or whether it warrants official action. The only choice open to him under clause 7(3) is to
      514
      pass the information to a Crown servant, but in my view it would be more appropriate for him to submit it to his Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Hind: Crown servants are bound by the code contained in the Bill, and they include police officers. Why could not the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred approach a police officer with the information? Will the hon. Gentleman show me where in the Bill there is any requirement for a Member of Parliament to be bound by the same code of practice as a Crown servant to act in the same responsible way? It does not exist.
      There is nothing in the Bill to stop Members of Parliament using the information in whatever way they wish. Their actions are not controlled in any way, and that creates a charter for irresponsibility for people who wish to abuse the national interest for political reasons.
      Clause 5 perfectly covers the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described. Members of Parliament have a responsibility to act in the national interest. I appreciate that we have to evaluate what is in the national interest, but we have channels open to us to do so. All those people whom the hon. Gentleman has brought to the attention of the House have access to police officers—who are Crown servants—to whom they can turn.
      Mr. Hattersley: I intervene principally to urge the Home Secretary—if we are to be privileged to hear him speak—to make an early statement on these matters. We were tempted with the news that the Leader of the House might speak, but I understand that the clauses have been rearranged so that he may merely sit here rather than participate in the debate.
      I hope that the Home Secretary will speak, for two reasons. First, a problem of the guillotine is that trenchant speeches are followed by an inadequate reply, with no opportunity for hon. Members to pursue a Minister after he has made one statement. Secondly, perhaps in contradiction to that first point, I hope that the Home Secretary will clarify some points that desperately need clarifying and bring the debate back into the realms of reality, particularly in light of what was said by the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind).
      The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about a different Bill. As I understand it, clause 7 applies to the Bill as a whole. As it interprets the Bill as a whole, nearly all the cases of importance are not covered by the harm test. Clause I is the important clause in interpretation. It prompted the example given by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). Yet the hon. Gentleman talks as though the harm test would solve these problems. He either has not read the Bill or does not understand it. I would not dream of correcting him as categorically as he needs correcting, but I hope that the Home Secretary will put him right and explain that there are categories of public servants.
      With respect to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), it will not be the man in the street or the Caithness crofter who comes to his Member of Parliament to tell him some crucial information that he needs to know. It will be a public servant or a retired public servant. They are the people of whom we spoke in the Sandys and the Churchill cases. We are considering not the man in the street but the man with special information which he thinks, in the interest of the state, should be conveyed to a Member of Parliament.
      Mr. Hind: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a present civil servant, a secret service officer or a retired official will still be subject to the harm test in the situation that he has described?
      Mr. Hattersley: Of course I do not agree. I do not know how anybody who has read the Bill or who has heard our discussions can believe that a civil servant in the Security Service, covered by clause 1, is subject to the harm test. The first two days of debate were concerned with the proposition that the security services were not covered by any harm test, but had an absolute obligation. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, we shall not make much progress in this matter.
      I want to consider the man who is not covered by the harm test and who has information that he thinks important to convey to a Member of Parliament, as in the Churchill or Sandys cases. I shall make my position clear. I am far more worried about protecting the informant than about protecting the Member of Parliament. The hon. Member for Lancashire, West was wholly wrong to say that a Member of Parliament is in any way protected by the Bill. The protected categories are stipulated and Members of Parliament do not number among them; ergo, they are not protected. I have sufficient faith—if that is the word—in the British establishment to believe that in the modern circumstances, even the Attorney-General—a man of undoubted objectivity and probity—would think twice before prosecuting a Member of Parliament for receiving that information or for raising it in the House.
      Mr. Gorst: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in practice, Members of Parliament will be protected by Parliament?
      Mr. Hattersley: They will certainly be protected in their use in the House of information supplied to them, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that the Home Secretary said earlier that, were I or the hon. Gentleman to receive protected information, although the House of Commons would protect when we used the information here, if either of us went to St. Stephen's entrance and repeated the information outside, that would be a different kettle of fish.
      Mr. Budgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hattersley: I know that the hon. Gentleman is on the right side, so I do not want to deter him, but I want to finish this point.
      There would be no legal protection for him or me were we to use that information outside, but I am sceptical about whether the Attorney-General would mount a prosecution, except in the grossest and most extreme circumstances. I give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he is still interested.
      Mr. Budgen: Does that not give rise to an unsatisfactory anomaly between Members of Parliament and members of the public? The right hon. Gentleman is really saying that he supported the decision taken in The Daily Telegraph case, when my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who was then a young member of the public, was prosecuted, as was the editor of The Daily Telegraph, whereas Sir Hugh Fraser, who was then the right hon. Member for Stafford, was not prosecuted, although he had done exactly the same thing, simply because he was a Member of Parliament and a Privy Councillor.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am always sceptical when a question begins by asking whether what I am really saying is something other than what I said. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am wholly on his side in the drift of what he said. I do not believe that a Member of Parliament should have the advantages that I have described. 1 merely suggested that in a wicked world—even the Attorney-General inhabits the same wicked world—it is more likely that a Member of Parliament will escape prosecution than an individual. That is why I said that my principal concern was not for the Member of Parliament who received the information but for the individual who passed it on. It is that individual whom I want to protect.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although I do not pretend to be able to read the mind of the Ponting jury, it seemed that it weighed heavily with the jurors that, instead of running to the press with information that could have come only from one of the people to whom my right hon. Friend referred, who knew a heck of a lot about the particular subject and how the House of Commons had been deceived, I gave it to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, so it was deemed to be a proceeding in Parliament? That is an important point in backing up my right hon. Friend's argument. If these matters are kept as proceedings in Parliament, that may weigh with juries.
      Mr. Gorst rose—
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall not give way again because, 10 minutes ago, I said that I would intervene briefly, in the hope that I might intervene again after the Home Secretary had made his statement. I have been helped by so much support from hon. Members of all parties that I have gone on longer than I intended.
      I want to make a point to the Home Secretary in the hope that he will let us know the Government's views. It seems to many hon. Members that one of the essential elements in our freedom is the right of a man or woman to approach a Member of Parliament on any issue about which they feel the Member of Parliament should know. For a constituent to be prevented by law from telling his or her Member of Parliament some item of information that the constituent believes should be passed on seems to many of us to be a basic contradiction of the liberties that should characterise this place.
      I ask the Home Secretary to tell us whether the Government will incorporate amendment No. 74 in the Bill and, if the Government are not prepared to do so, what their objections are. Are the Government saying that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted? Are they saying that the mere fact of pasing information on, in clause 1 cases, is a danger and that a total limit must be placed on all circumstances, whether there is any real need for it or not? We need to know at this early stage whether the Government are prepared to incorporate amendment No. 74 or something similar, or their objections; otherwise we shall not have the proper debate that the subject warrants.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I support the drift of the amendment. It is important against the background of the saga through which we arrived at the Bill, when one remembers the actions that have been pursued through the courts. The House will recall that during those actions the final judgment that my right hon. and learned Friend the

      517
      Attorney-General submitted in the case against sundry newspapers made certain contentions. Lord Griffiths then made an observation. In saying that there was an unexceptionable and lifelong duty of confidentiality for those civil servants covered by clause 1(1) and the designated or nominated class of persons, he expressed an anxiety. He said:
      "theoretically, if a member of the service discovered that some iniquitous course of action was being pursued that was clearly detrimental to our national interest, and he was unable to persuade any senior members of his service or any member of the establishment, or the police, to do anything about it, then he should be relieved of his duty of confidence so that he could alert his fellow citizens to the impending danger."
      That proposition was behind the public interest defence that we tried to insert, which the Government have seen off. The amendment is another route to provide a safety valve in the extraordinary circumstances envisaged by Lord Griffiths, that if everything went wrong, there should be a legitimate way of alerting one's fellow citizens. It seems wholly appropriate that the last line in a democracy should be those who are elected to represent the public's interest in the national forum—the House of Commons.
      Mr. Gorst: Suppose that, under privilege, we could reveal the circumstances that my hon. Friend has in mind. Is my hon. Friend not worried that, as prior publication is no defence, the press will not have the defence that the information has been published in the House if it carries the contents of a speech—unless we can get an assurance that the privilege that protects the reporting of our proceedings will be carried forward regardless of what the Bill says?
      Mr. Shepherd: That presupposes that it is necessary to expose the iniquity on the Floor of the House. Each individual Member must judge that for himself. I was deeply disheartened by the emphasis placed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on what he perceived to be a responsible Member. One of the glories of this place is that those judged irresponsible often turn out in the long run to be the most responsible. This may sound like special pleading, but in this solemn and over-pompous place it is often judged that quite correct actions are irresponsible. When dealing with liberties we should be mindful that it is often important to say things that run contrary to the popular ethos of the day or to the Government's interest.
      Mr. Hind: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Earlier in the debate, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) correctly picked me up on a point concerning the receipt of a disclosure from someone who has been notified. Surely the person who is notified commits an offence by disclosing the information to a Member of Parliament and someone who is not notified is subject to the harm test. We have a responsibility to consider the matter very carefully—especially in respect of somebody who has been notified. We have to decide where the national interest lies. We have a heavy responsibility in that regard, and must be extremely careful. Channels are open to us—through the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister—to pursue these matters. That was the point that I sought to make.
      Mr. Shepherd: At the bottom of each case is a question of judgment. Every citizen has a duty to try to exercise his judgment as best he can, with regard to the nation and the circumstances in which he lives. I respect that point.
      I was arguing on the basis of the preface to Lord Griffiths's judgment, and saying that one might possibly conceive of circumstances in which it was necessary to alert the public to a danger. The Government have been consistent in their view that there can be no danger that cannot be remedied internally. They argue that the Bill can satisfy all the possible contingencies that every hon. Member—and Lord Griffiths—can imagine. The Bill is defective in that very assertion. In an important speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sunderland (Mr. Maclennan) talked about that assertion in relation to the European convention on human rights.
      The Government are constructing legislation that will bring us before the European Court of Human Rights because it allows only for the internal review of possible grave injustices. The authority of the state alone—unsupervised, and unchecked—may make unreviewable decisions on all these matters. I think that the Bill will fall before the European Court of Human Rights and I do not know many lawyers who think otherwise, although the Government seem to have their own special legal advice on these matters. It is important to caution them again and again about the dangers of not providing arrangements for the independent review of decisions that affect freedom of speech and our liberties in general. That is where the Government will come into conflict with the European court.
      Were the option left open to me—the Government have wilfully closed most avenues to us—I should find it extraordinary that they should take the view that there should be no last-chance mechanism by which one can remedy an iniquity or possible danger to fellow citizens of the kind to which Lord Griffiths referred in his judgment.
      Lord Griffiths's judgment is not the only judgment that we have had. I consider the Bill very much as the Baron Armstrong Bill. That gentleman has argued for most of the principles in the Bill in front of almost every court that he can find. In each court—in one court after another—the judge has overturned the central contention that there is an absolute lifelong duty, which cannot encompass the possibility that anyone else should ever have sight of a balanced reflection or an alternative view.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) has repeatedly reminded us of Mr. Justice Scott's observation—that this Government are
      demanding a degree of confidence that cannot be achieved this side of the iron curtain. Yet we sit here while the Government pass the Bill in to law. It is a mistake, and it will be confounded by a court which, fortunately, can override the judicial decisions and view of the Government, and which is sited outside the realm.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) referred to the Duncan Sandys case, and mentioned the function of the Committee of Privileges. The Times recently carried an important letter from a former colleague of ours, Mr. Christopher Price. Referring to the nature of privilege, he quoted a Privileges Committee report:
      "The privilege of freedom of speech enjoyed by Members of Parliament is in truth the privilege of their constituents. It is secured to Members not for their personal benefit but to enable them to discharge the functions of their office without

      519
      fear of prosecution, civil or criminal. The Commons, in their famous protestation of 1621, declared the privileges of Parliament to be the birthright and inheritance of the subject."
      That is what the House of Commons is about. There is an assault on the very basis of our liberal democracy every time Government assert that only they may take a view of what constitutes national security.
      A little later, we shall have a very important debate on the issue of prior publication. That, too, touches the very nature of our democracy. Judgments in the United States and Canada—and in our own history—have overturned many of the contentions in the Bill.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman may not have wanted to quote two further sentences from Christopher Price's letter:
      "This is why the drafters of the 1688 Bill of Rights separated the powers of the High Court of Justice from the High Court of Parliament so clearly; it was also the basis for the acquittal of Clive Ponting by a British jury. They saw Ponting's action, like that of Duncan Sandys, as in the public interest and therefore incapable of being criminal."
      Christopher Price's point is doubly valid.
      Mr. Shepherd: I should have read the House that assertion because it is important to remind the Government that the course on which they have embarked serves neither the interests of the Government and the Conservative party, nor those of the House and the country.
      As there is unlikely to be a debate on clause stand part, I should add that I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. It is defective, because, as has been pointed out, there is a tremendous anomaly. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has advised us that one of the liberalising aspects—in fact, it is a dangerous aspect—of the Bill is that former and existing Security Service officers could be called to give evidence in court. A newspaper that cites its source could render itself liable to prosecution, albeit with some form of damage test. It is quite respectable for a newspaper to want to call its source to give aid to its defence. The Home Secretary accepts that there will not be Crown prosecution immunity certificates and tells us that that is one of the risks.
      Clearly, the contention is that the Crown servant—the member of the Security Service—may give the information only to fellow Crown servants. That is the only way in which Crown servants can be relieved of their duty of confidentiality. What happens when the Crown servant is asked to give evidence in court? He has a conflict of duty, because he has the duty of a citizen to give evidence under oath but the Bill explicitly rules that out.
      The law reform committee of the Law Society of Scotland says of this clause:
      "This would permit a disclosure by a Crown servant or, in certain cases, another notified person as being with lawful authority if it was made in accordance with his official duty. We are concerned that this would still leave cases of conflicting duties where the position of the person concerned would be unresolved. If a Crown servant is giving evidence on oath, for example, and is asked in effect to disclose information covered by clause 1(1), he clearly has, in one sense, a duty to disclose, but this cannot be called his official duty as such. We do not comment as to which duty should prevail in such circumstances, but believe that a clear resolution should be provided by statute for such a conflict."
      That seems to be a wholly respectable position to adopt.
      520
      While I do not think that the amendment is the most satisfactory way of remedying the anxieties that will clearly confront our constitution and, I believe, will render the value of this House, in the eyes of citizens, as being ever more marginal than they now perceive it to be, I commend it to my right hon. Friend as a way of helping the Government out of the impossible dilemma that they have provided for themselves.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Heffer: We may not agree entirely with everything that the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has said, but the Government should at least take a look at this amendment and perhaps bring forward a more suitable one covering the proposals that have been made today.
      I should like to comment on one or two things that have been said about this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made the point that the Attorney-General would not be rushing to prosecute Members of the House of Commons—and he has great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have. What worries me is whether "Queen Margaret" or "Mother" would be in quite the same frame of minor Would the Attorney-General make the decision? Would the Prime Minister be breathing down his neck? It is just conjecture, but I am not happy about the way the Government are going at the present time. I am not happy about the Prime Minister's actions.
      The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind compliment, but what he has just posited as a possibility is rather in conflict with it. May I assure him that every one of my predecessors in modern times has always brought to the question of prosecution a judicial mind and would have dismissed instantly any suggestion that he could be subjected to any pressure of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. In my experience this has been so clearly understood by all the Attorney's colleagues as really not to be worthy of sensible consideration at all.
      Mr. Heffer: And long may it remain so. What worries me is that if Ministers—even the Attorney-General—came into total conflict with the right hon. Lady they might find themselves out of a job.
      Mr. Budgen: Of course, there is great conspiracy among Law Officers. They all scratch each other's backs and try to enhance the dignity and importance of their office. But, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, the first Labour Government were brought down as a result of a great row over the Campbell case. Even in recent times very disagreeable allegations were made against Mr. Sam Silkin in relation to his attitude towards the Clay Cross councillors. The back-scratching was not very effective at that time. So the idea that all Attorneys-General are persons of the utmost political virginity in all circumstances is simply not borne out by history.
      Mr. Heffer: I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman; I am just making the point that I am not too happy with the way things in government are going at the moment. I just hope that the Attorney-General and the other Law Officers, as perhaps they should have done on past occasions, will stand up to the Prime Minister of the day and say quite clearly, "So far as we are concerned, there is

      521
      going to be no going down that path." That is the only point I am making. It is just a slight caveat in relation to the point made by my right hon. Friend. I was not actually disagreeing; I just wondered what the position might be in the present situation. However, I am glad that this aspect of the matter has been brought out.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) that a Member of Parliament obviously has to be responsible. We all get documents through the post, and people come to see us. If we are intelligent, responsible Members of Parliament, we look at those documents closely and decide whether they are important and whether they contain anything significant concerning the national interest. If we think that the sender is a nut-case, we put the documents in the fire or in the bin.
      But from time to time somebody will come along with a significant document. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. MacLennan) said, it may not be a civil servant, although I agree with my right hon. Friend that perhaps it would be. But it could be somebody else; the clause makes the point that it does not have to be a civil servant. However, somebody had been notified and, to that extent, was responsible. Such a person might come to one with information, and one might well decide that it concerned a matter of the greatest national importance,.
      I believe that a Member of Parliament should have that role. Who else? The suggestion that it should be a policeman is ludicrous. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman who made that suggestion lives. Will he go to his local police station and say, "I have this information. it is of the gravest importance, and I should like to speak to the chief constable"? He might get the reply, "I don't know about that."
      Let us be serious about this matter. If something is of grave national importance surely the Member of Parliament has a responsibility to do something about it. I accept that there may be one or two Members of Parliament who wrongly use privilege in the House of Commons, but that is rare.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): One is enough.
      Mr. Heffer: I am just giving an example. It may be that one or two Members have used privilege wrongly. In all my years in the House I have not seen it happen, although there may have been some things about which I have thought, "I would not have done that."
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary has just said, "One is enough." Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one police constable misusing information that had been put in his hands would also be enough?
      Mr. Heffer: That is absolutely right—I could not have put it better myself.
      The fact is that most Members of Parliament—in fact, all that I have known—raise matters in this way only when they consider them to be matters about which the nation must know. It is that important. Certainly, I would never use the privilege of the House of Commons except in respect of a matter that the nation needed to know about and had a responsibility to act upon. I do not think that Members of Parliament use their responsibility—or their so-called responsibility—wrongly. If hon. Members have
      522
      proof to the contrary they have to argue that case, but in all the years I have been here I have not known Members to use privilege in that way.
      The important point has already been made that we are the representatives of our constituents. We are not here as individuals. The people elect us. We are their voice. If someone comes to a Member of Parliament as a representative of the electorate and says, "I feel you should know about this matter," or, "I want you to act upon this in the interests of the nation," the hon. Member has not just a responsibility but a duty to do something about it. Therefore, that should be covered in the Bill.
      Let us consider the point about going to a police officer or to the chief of police in relation to the civil servants who gave information to Churchill.. What would a police officer have done if he had got that information? The only way the information could have been used in the interests of the people was for Winston Churchill and his friends to act upon it. When we look back at history, we can only thank God that they did. Unfortunately, there were too many people ranged against them, so their action was not as effective as it might have been, but things would have been far worse if the information had not been passed to them and they had not used it. Anyone who took similar action now would be in real trouble under the provisions of the Bill. Members of Parliament should have the responsibility to act in similar circumstances.
      In the Watergate case, the revelations were made to the press by civil servants around the President. We know how it happened. We have read the books and seen the films. Elected representatives should have had the opportunity to act on the information in the interests of the United States.
      All Governments, including Labour Governments—despite my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) for whom I have a great affection—tend to use their power to keep things secret and to act against people who want to open matters up. I do not know why, because when I was a Minister I never found a secret worth bothering about. I do not know what people were on about when I was told, "Do not let the world know." What was I not to let the world know? I never knew any great secrets about anything.
      For years I was classified by some organs of the press as an agent of Moscow because I was once a Young Communist. I used to joke that the worst thing that had ever happened to me was that when Stalin died, he stopped sending me a cheque regularly. I never got a cheque, but I am sure that the press thought I did.
      Absolute nonsense is talked about secrecy. It is time we had a different discussion about how we can make things available to the people. The greater the lack of secrecy and the more people are involved, the more democracy there will be.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is not so much that secrecy is about national security; it is often about political embarrassment. That is what causes the problem. A great deal of this problem has been about lying to the House of Commons rather than about national security.
      Mr. Heffer: I could not agree more. As a Minister I regularly wrote a column for the Walton Times,. I had written it before I became a Minister. I also used to write a column for The Times, but I had to stop that. I continued to write a column for the Walton Times. I do not know the

      523
      circulation of the Walton Times, but it was not great. The Prime Minister of the day said that I had to stop writing that column. [Interruption.] It was not for literary reasons; he thought that I might embarrass the Government. I said in pleasant terms, "Thank you very much; get knotted," because I had no intention of stopping my column in the Walton Times.
      Mr. Dalyell: Did the Walton Times have a circulation in part of Huyton constituency?
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Heffer: No, it did not, but some people in Huyton might have read it. That was absurd; it was secrecy taken to the nth degree. On one occasion I got a notice from the Prime Minister that I should not appear in a television programme. Where did the notification come from? It came from Moscow because the Prime Minister was on a visit there. How the heck he knew that I was about to appear on a local television programme, I do not know. All this secrecy is absolute nonsense and it is time it stopped.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland may not have used the best words in his amendment, but the Government should agree that it raises an important point involving the vital role of a Member of Parliament. The Government should agree that Members should be the voice of the people and should be the recipients of information that people want raised publicly. If we cannot get the point about public interest into the Bill, at least hon. Members should be able to act in the public interest. Therefore, I ask the Secretary of State to note the arguments used in the debate and to bring forward on Report a suitable amendment covering the basic principles advocated by various hon. Members.
      Mr. Hurd: It is always agreeable to hear the autobiography of the stormy youth of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). This is the third time that I have heard it during these debates. I am sorry that, perhaps because of the pressure of the timetable motion on this rushed, hurried debate, he left out the next chapter about the clicking on his telephone. Perhaps we can hear that later, as it is very good stuff.
      Mr. Heffer: It has stopped now.
      Mr. Hurd: It is one of my worries that the hon. Gentleman has become respectable. I am afraid that he has produced evidence to that effect. I shall try to show later that inadvertently in part of what he said, he mortally wounded the case for the amendment.
      As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said in his modest introduction, this is a modest amendment in that it does not cover Crown servants. It covers any other person and members of the public. Therefore, it does not attract the advantages that some of its supporters have argued for it. I will not dwell on that point, which is rather technical. The hon. Gentleman was making a different point about a different part of the public than that made by many of his supporters on the Conservative Benches.
      This trenches on matters of privilege. That is why the Minister has to choose his words carefully. The Bill does not affect the operation or the present extent of
      524
      parliamentary privilege which has developed over many years; nor does it seek to add to it through the medium of primary legislation. It is not for the Executive or for Ministers at the Dispatch Box to tell the Committee the full extent and doctrine of parliamentary privilege, because these are ultimately matters for the House of Commons.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) rightly reminded the Committee of the Sandys case. He said that it led to an inquiry into the operation of the Official Secrets Act 1911. The report of the Select Committee was published in April 1939. It is worth making three short quotations from that report because they are germane. The report said:
      "Privilege enjoyed by either House of Parliament or by members of either House in their capacity as members can be abrogated only by express words in statute".
      I think that we would all agree with that. There are no such words in the Bill. It continued:
      "Your Committee are of the opinion that disclosures by members in the course of debate or proceedings in Parliament cannot be made the subject of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act".
      That is a statement of the extent of privilege and I do not think that anyone would disagree with it. The report concluded:
      "it would be inadvisable to attempt by legislation or otherwise to define with precision the extent of the immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts to which members of Parliament are or ought to be entitled."
      I know that later committees have returned to the question of putting some definition of parliamentary privilege in statutory form, but that raises questions which are outside the Bill. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and, in a more ambitious way, his supporters, seek to extend by statute the operation of parliamentary privilege, thus making lawful any disclosure of official information protected under the Bill by a member of the public to a Member of Parliament.
      The matter was raised earlier this week when Mr. Speaker said in response to a point of order during the timetable debate on 13 February:
      "As the rules stand at present a communication from someone outside the House to an hon. Member is not privileged."—[Official Report, 13 February 1989; Vol. 147 col. 114.]
      That is a statement by Mr. Speaker of the existing situation. The question is whether that existing situation should be changed.
      In answer to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), the House should think long and deep before extending privilege not to hon. Members but to members of the public who might wish to communicate with them, and think about whether it wishes to provide by statute some privilege by which a member of the public might communicate with a Member of Parliament on a possibly criminal matter. I believe that the House should reflect deep and long before doing that.
      Mr. Dalyell: I questioned Mr. Speaker on this matter and was told by the Clerk of the House that the distinction was between members of the public volunteering information and, for example, witnesses who had been called before a Select Committee and who were covered by privilege. Is there really a distinction between those who are called by a Select Committee as official witnesses and members of the public going to their own Member of Parliament? I think that that is a rather dangerous distinction.
      Mr. Hurd: I think that it is a crucial distinction, because of the point that I have just made. In effect, the amendment is extending privilege in a way that would have implications and ramifications which the House would need to consider very carefully.
      Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that there will not be any narrowing of privilege in the sense that, if an hon. Member were to reveal on the Floor of the House something that was privileged and it were reported by the press, the newspaper reporting the matter would not be treated in any way differently from the way in which newspapers are treated in reporting our speeches today?
      Mr. Hurd: There is no narrowing of privilege under the Bill. In one respect, which I shall mention, the position of individual members of the public is improved.
      I shall now consider the matter from the other point of view that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook mentioned—the view of the member of the public, or Crown servant.
      Mr. Hattersley: I am beginning to understand the Home Secretary's debating technique. He told us that to allow the public to reveal such matters to Members of Parliament is a matter on which the House will want to think long and hard. We have thought hard for as long as the guillotine will allow, but we need to know the Home Secretary's view on the matter. We want to know not that it is a difficult problem, but whether he thinks it is appropriate. If it is not appropriate will he try and justify an assertion which up to now has been wholly unsubstantiated?
      Mr. Hurd: I am coming on to my view about putting it into statute. What I have said up to now has been rehearsing the present situation in terms with which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman disagrees. However, it is important because Opposition Members have made claims that the Bill restricts parliamentary privilege. I have already established that it does not, but from the point of view of us all as Members of the House of Commons, the amendment lays down a completely new principle which I do not think can be dealt with within the confines of the Bill. It raises the point whether it would be sensible to extend privilege to members of the public communicating with Members of Parliament over matters which might be criminal. That is a major matter which goes beyond the confines of the Bill.
      I now turn to members of the public or, although they are outside the terms of the amendment, Crown servants or members of the security and intelligence services. Members of the public who are covered by the amendment—people who are not Crown servants—would not in the majority of cases be affected by the amendment. It would have no effect on the ability of a person to consult his Member of Parliament about some piece of unauthorised official information which had come into his possession. In most cases, the information would not be protected by the Bill. Furthermore, in all but one of the areas that are protected by the Bill—that is warrants, which we shall discuss later—a disclosure by a member of the public is subject to a harm test, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said, or in the case of crime, its equivalent, which means that it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
      526
      It would be an offence for a member or former member of the security and intelligence services, or someone who is notified under clause 1—the general category with which the Committee is now familiar—to disclose information relating to security or intelligence to a Member of Parliament. That is the nub, not of the amendment, but of the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. Are we really saying on reflection that that would be a wise conclusion?
      I now turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Walton. Any hon. Member—it does not have to be the relevant constituency Member—might well receive such information. The hon. Member for Walton has said that two or three hon. Members might abuse privilege, but I am not talking about abuse of privilege. An hon. Member, on receiving information, which might be of enormous sensitivity, from members or former members of the security or intelligence services, might, in the light of his own political convictions, decide to publish or to announce to the House what he had been told. The damage might be very substantial and would be fully protected by the privilege of the House.
      The analogy with a police officer mentioned by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is wrong, as the police officer would not be protected while a Member of Parliament would be protected. When I said that it only needs one, I was simplifying the argument, but some Members of Parliament might feel, not as a matter of abuse but as a matter of political conviction, that it was their duty to read out what had been disclosed, in a manner fully protected by privilege. In that case, the damage would have been done. Does the Committee believe that it would be sensible to embody that risk in statute?
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Winnick rose—
      Mr. Heffer rose—
      Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland who tabled the amendment.
      Mr. Maclennan: I do not understand the Home Secretary's argument that a police constable would not be in the same position as a Member of Parliament. As I read the definition in the Bill, the police constable is a Crown servant and is covered under clause 7(3)(a). A police constable could take it into his head to act inappropriately, just as a Member of Parliament might. He is in pari materia.
      Mr. Hurd: He is subject to discipline and under the law, whereas the Member of Parliament has the full protection of privilege, as long as he makes his disclosure not outside St. Stephen's entrance but on the Floor of the House or in a Select Committee. There is a basic difference.
      6 pm
      Mr. Heffer: If the individual goes to a police constable, he cannot say anything more about it. He certainly cannot go to the public. He can go to an hon. Member, but he cannot go outside. If he did, he would immediately be in trouble. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that, no matter how strongly an individual may feel, no matter how an hon. Member may

      527
      feel on receipt of the information, the information must not be disclosed. That means that the Government are saying that, for all time, no matter what the problem is or how seriously it might be against the national interest, it must never be disclosed and nothing is ever to be done about it. That is the most serious statement that any Government can make. It is like what has happened in the past in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe, and all the countries that the hon. Gentleman and I have opposed because they have kept from the public the real interest of the people.
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I am coming to the rights of a Member of Parliament if he were to receive such information. I am still at the earlier stage. I am talking about the absolute duty, as set out in clause 1, of a former member of the intelligence and security services. The amendment would limit, restrict or remove that absolute duty in communicating with a Member of Parliament. It is right that that should not be permitted by statute, for the reason I have given. I simply believe—I am sure that the overwhelming number of our constituents would believe it—that that is not a sensible course to take. Therefore, I could not recommend it to the House.
      Mr. Gorst: Is not the protection of free speech a matter for the House to decide? If there is a danger of abuse, is it not for the House to decide, and not for the Government to lay down the parameters in statute?
      Mr. Hurd: That is one of the points that I have been making. The amendment suggests that, by statute, we should create the risk that I have described. I simply do not think that many people would regard that as a safe or sensible thing to do. My hon. Friend is right. Suppose we did take that risk and put it into statute, and an hon. Member does what I fear, and uses parliamentary proceedings to disclose something of great difficulty or danger. There might then be questions about privilege and about whether he had gone too far. I am not postulating an abuse of privilege; I am postulating somebody who, because of his genuine political convictions, felt that it was his duty as a Member of the House to disclose information.
      Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Hurd: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, and then I should like to answer other points.
      Mr. Winnick: As the Home Secretary has just acknowledged—and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) made this point—if there is an abuse of parliamentary procedure, it is for the House to take any action that it considers necessary. The lurid picture which the Home Secretary is painting concerns alleged spies and someone reading out a list of their names on the Floor of the House. That will not happen every one, 10 or 15 years; every case in which abuse has occurred is far more likely to be a Cathy Massiter type of case. What she revealed confirms our view that if such abuses occur, they have nothing to do with foreign agents, spies or anything else, and they should be dealt with on the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Hurd: I do not think that I have been at all lurid. I have made no accusations. I have been extremely careful in the words that I have chosen. I do not wish to be pushed
      528
      further into suggesting abuse of privilege, which the hon. Member for Walton himself suggested on a limited scale. I have made the point that I wanted to make—it is an important one. Honestly, it is a strange proposition before us, and it would be hard for our constituents to understand it.
      To complete the argument, I refer to the civil servant—that is to say, a person who was not a member of the public in the terms of the amendment, and not a member of the security or intelligence services or notified. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West was quite right. A person in that category making unauthorised disclosures to a Member of Parliament may be committing a disciplinary offence. Whether he commits a criminal offence will depend on whether the disclosure satisfies the harm test in the Bill.
      The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has come up several times. It has also been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). What is the position if a Member of Parliament receives such information? There is no offence of receipt of information in the Bill—everybody agrees with that—but there has been under earlier proposals. Quite a substantial change has been made. The Member of Parliament has not committed any offence by receiving the information. What he could do in the circumstances described would depend on the harm which he judged a disclosure by him was likely to cause. The options are wide. If he considered that any further disclosure would be likely to cause harm under the Bill, he could put the matter to the Secretary of State, under Clause 7(3)(a), or, if he was uncertain, he could seek authority to disclose it. He could behave in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South evidently behaved in the case that he told us about.
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is right. We are not concerned so much with the position of the Member of Parliament, because that is safeguarded under a combination of the Bill and the existing extent of privilege. We are talking about the position of the member of the public and, in particular, a member of the security or intelligence services. I do not believe that it would be wise, from the purely parliamentary point of view, from the point of view of the extent of privilege, or from the point of view of the protection of necessary secrets against risk to accept the amendment or, rather, to accept the line of argument that the amendment begins and which my right hon. and hon. Friends have developed.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend refer to evidence in court, the duty as contained under the statute, and the duty to give evidence?
      Mr. Hurd: I am obliged for the reminder. It is a point that my hon. Friend has made.
      If a person acting as a witness in legal proceedings is asked to disclose official information and he believes that to do so would be an offence under the Bill, he may explain to the court that he does not believe that he can give the information without committing an offence. It is then for the court to decide whether to require that the information be given. If criminal proceedings cannot be concluded without a disclosure of official information which is harmful, or more harmful than the offence which is the subject of the proceedings, then the prosecution may have

      529
      to be withdrawn. If a Crown servant is required by the court to give information, it is not an offence for him to do so, as it is obviously in accordance with his official duty.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) referred to the Scottish Law Society evidence. I listened carefully to the Home Secretary. He will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that he has clarified the point. The Law Society of Scotland is concerned about
      "a disclosure by a Crown servant (or in certain cases, another notified person), as being with lawful authority, if it was made in accordance with his official duty. We are concerned that this would still leave cases of conflicting duties where the position of the person concerned would be unresolved."
      To be fair, I do not think that the Home Secretary addressed this matter. It goes on:
      "If a Crown servant is giving evidence on oath, for example, and is asked in effect to disclose information covered by clause 1(1), he clearly has, in one sense, a duty to disclose but this cannot be called his official duty as such."
      Incidentally, this was the result of a good deal of work by the officers of the Law Society and their working party. It goes on to state:
      "We do not comment as to which duty should prevail in such circumstances but believe that a clear resolution should be provided by statute for such a conflict."
      I gave that statement to officials and I hope that the Home Secretary can clear it up.
      The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke about the Blunt case. This is not the occasion to go in detail into that case, but I am in a minority and believe that such minorities should be able to voice an opinion. I was horrified when the statement on Blunt was made. I was also horrified when the statement was made on Hollis. I was equally horrified when statements were made on Cavendish.
      If Ministers are to make statements of that kind in Parliament, they had better be full statements. Frankly, Cavendish wrote his book, which caused so much difficulty, because he thought that the statement that was made was grossly unfair to a mutual friend of his, and of mine, and possibly of the Home Secretary's, the late Sir Morris Oldfield. It was the unfair treatment of Oldfield that caused Cavendish to write that book.
      This is not the time or place to reminisce, but if statements were to be made on Blunt, the whole story should have been told because—I put it not higher than this—Douglas Sutherland was possibly in a position to know that Blunt acted in the way that he did partly because he was under the instructions and orders of the late Guy Liddell and the late Dick Brooman-White, who later became the MP for Rutherglen and who had been a senior officer in the intelligence services.
      If statements of that kind are to be made, it behoves politicians to tell the full story, and therefore we must be extremely careful. I appreciate that we are under the guillotine, and although the Home Secretary does not have a lot of time, I hope that he will at least comment on the Law Society of Scotland point.
      Mr. Gorst: I would have liked the Home Secretary to more specific when replying to my intervention in which I asked whether something revealed in the House and then reported by the press would in any circumstances attract the possibility of prosecution. I may not have heard my right hon. Friend correctly, but he did not seem to make a clear and emphatic statement on whether any change is likely to take place in that respect as a result of the Bill.
      530
      Will the Bill make any change in the position of a Member of the European Parliament, or will he remain in exactly the same position as he is now?
      My next question arises out of the possibility of information of a classified nature being supplied to an hon. Member on an anonymous basis. This is not as fanciful as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) implied. I recall a few years ago receiving an anonymous letter informing me that a considerable security risk attached to some people employed in the Palace of Westminster. I was inclined to treat the matter in the way that I treat all anonymous letters, but the terms in which it was couched and the information given was sufficiently specific to persuade me to pass it on to the authorities.
      I heard nothing for about two months. Then an official of the House came to see me to assure me that the matter had been followed up. There had been a specific security risk, I was told, and the matter had been dealt with. I mention that case to show that occasionally—it may happen only once in a decade—the odd anonymous tip-off that an hon. Member receives—remembering that some members of the public feel that only their MPs are in a position to follow certain things up—must be followed up, or one takes the risk of something dangerous being ignored.
      If information of an extremely sensitive nature is brought to one's attention, one draws it privately to the attention of the relevant Minister, or whoever else. One hears nothing and in due course one inquires whether anything has been done. Finally one is told, "We have looked into it. We think we know from where you got the information. We have dealt with it. The man is a nut." That is the end of the story.
      One can be left with the feeling that that is not enough and that one should pursue the matter. As I say, this may happen only once in a decade—even once in a generation—and one is left feeling that something is being hidden. One is left wondering whether the tip-off, received anonymously, came from someone who has gone through all the procedures and feels that there has been a cover-up.
      6.15 pm
      What will happen in such a case if one becomes persistent? One may behave in the way in which tin. hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) behaved over the Belgrano affair. One may refuse to take no for an answer, and whether one is right or wrong is neither here nor there. One is persistent and, let us suppose, one is on to something. I want to be assured that there will he no question of making one a notified person so that one can never reveal exactly what one has discovered.
      I believe that there is danger in this legislation of creating a new class of informants—not those who give their names but those who anonymously give information which one must then decide how to use, and if the cover-up continues despite one's inquiries, one may be forced eventually to reveal it on the Floor of the House. That bothers me about the part of the Bill with which we are dealing.
      Mr. Jeff Rooker: I hope that the Home Secretary will speak again and answer various points that are being raised following his last remarks.
      We have heard the expression "nut-case" used by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to describe

      531
      people outside who might wish to raise with us matters that might not seem, as it were, to be quite normal. Hon. Members will agree that those are the very issues that we must watch carefully—the persistent people who raise matters that appear dodgy, stupid and vexatious. They are the very cases at which we look carefully because of the niggle at the back of our minds, "This must not slip through the net just in case there is the germ of some substance of a complaint." The idea that Ministers or others might say, "This is a nut-case; just ignore it; everyone knows about it and nobody has bothered to do anything about it," could be dangerous.
      I have served in the House for only 15 years. I was about to say that I could not recall a certain action being taken by a Member of Parliament. I should refer to a Member of the House of Commons because, in the terms of the amendment, there is no such person as a Member of Parliament. The proposal is deficient because it would cover Members of the other place, whereas we are really speaking exclusively of Members of the House of Commons.
      In any event, I have not known an hon. Member to use—not misuse—privilege in bad faith. That is the test. I have used it and subsequently I have apologised, but not in relation to an issue as significant as that which we are discussing. [Interruption.] I think that the Home Secretary said, from a sedentary position, "One is enough," and I agree that it would be enough if only one hon. Member used privilege in bad faith.
      It could be argued that it is not possible for a Member of Parliament to abuse privilege. The question is whether privilege is used in good faith and as a last resort.
      The Home Secretary, in responding to my right hon. Friend the member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) drew a distinction between the privilege that exists when a member of the public contacts a Member of the House of Commons, and that which exists when a member of the public is called to give evidence to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that the witness before a Select Committee is participating as part and parcel of the proceedings of the House.
      The Home Secretary also says that the amendment goes too wide. Today, unlike 10 years ago, there is a Select Committee covering every activity of Government—save the Scottish Office, for reasons that we understand. Given that an individual cannot send a letter addressed "To Parliament", because it would be opened and sent to the sender's constituency Member—which is something that the Home Secretary wishes to avoid—what would be wrong in that member of the public, who I accept is most likely to be a former civil servant, writing to the chair of, or the Clerk to, the relevant Select Committee? Such a communication would surely carry with it some privilege in respect of the person who sent it.
      The Home Secretary will not think about my suggestion now, and will probably dismiss it. However, we have not yet reached the end of the Bill's passage through this House. I presume that there will be a Report stage, when amendments will be tabled. The Leader of the House indicated that that will be so, if there is time.
      Mr. Hurd: Be relaxed.
      Mr. Rooker: I am relaxed, but the Home Secretary is very relaxed because, as a result of the bad faith among members of the Government Front Bench, Ministers know that they are under no pressure to answer questions or to respond in debate. They are the most relaxed set of Ministers imaginable, because they enjoy the protection of the guillotine. Nevertheless, I ask the Home Secretary to give the matter further consideration before Report. It was the right hon. Gentleman who drew the distinction between an individual corresponding with a Member of Parliament and a witness before a Select Committee. I take that distinction one stage further, introducing the individual who discloses information to the Clerk to, or Chairman of, a Select Committee.
      The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) asked about the reporting of the House, and the Home Secretary was not as clear as he might have been in replying to that point. The right hon. Gentleman only has to say that there will be no changes from the present position, applying as we debate the Bill, when the Bill is enacted. I do not refer to future television or radio broadcasting, but to the existing provisions for the press and broadcasting authorities, which I trust will remain the same when the Bill becomes law. If the Home Secretary gives that reassurance, he will satisfy right hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.
      Mr. Foot: I hope that the Home Secretary will consider the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which relate to additional matters that Parliament should carefully consider. Since the Sandys case, the way in which the Select Committee on Privileges operates has been altered in a way that I thought provided for greater protection and should make the Government more willing to follow the course that some right hon. and hon. Members advocate. As matters stand, a right hon. or hon. Member cannot just raise a matter of privilege on the Floor of the House, but must first take the matter up with Mr. Speaker. So some further protection is given there.
      From what the Home Secretary says, it appears that no alterations will be made to the operation of the Official Secrets Act 1911 as it applies to Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman gave reasons why he does not believe that there should be such an alteration. If that is the case, we are back to the Duncan Sandys position. The report of the Committee of Privileges on that case did not mark the end of the matter in the minds of those people who felt that they had suffered under the Official Secrets Act 1911—the Churchillites, the Duncan Sandysites and the rest. They still felt that the report of the Committee of Privileges was insufficient to deal with the situation, and that the legislation should be amended. That is what Churchill wrote about, and I have referred to that matter on two or three occasions. I invite the Home Secretary to read the words that Churchill wrote on that subject.
      Thirty years later, when we propose making an alteration after all those years, the Home Secretary still says, "There is no real change to that aspect," for the reasons he gave. I am not arguing that amendment No. 74 is wholly satisfactory. I believe that the change required could be effected in a different way. But I also believe that, after all those years, after all the arguments and protests that have been made, and given the opportunity we have to devise a new secrets Act that will govern our country's affairs for many years to come, the Government should be

      533
      prepared to table an amendment that will guarantee to Members of Parliament, and to any person approaching a Member of Parliament, better protection than there has been in the past—and better protection than there will be if the Bill is allowed to go forward unamended.
      The Attorney-General: Perhaps I may be allowed a brief outing, to avoid the perils of over-relaxation to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) referred.
      As to the Scottish point and the disclosure of protected information in legal proceedings, the categories of protected information specified in clauses 1, 2 and 3 have a common feature: they all apply to a Crown servant who
      "makes a damaging disclosure of any information … which
      is or has been in his possession by virtue of his position as such."
      In other words, it will have been by virtue of his position that he came by the information in question. What will happen if that individual is called upon to divulge that information in court? He may say, "I do not believe that I ought to disclose that information." What will happen if he is pressed?
      As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, if he is giving evidence for the prosecution—and it will virtually always be in those circumstances—the prosecution can say that, if he does not wish to give evidence and the court is not prepared to give an order, the proceedings will have to be withdrawn if the matter is crucial. But that seems to be so far-fetched as to be unlikely to occur. If matters had got to that stage, the prosecution would have considered it beforehand.
      6.30 pm
      If, on the other hand, the court orders that person to give evidence, he is surely giving evidence in accordance with his national duty, which is the formula found in clause 7, which sets out the circumstances in which disclosure for the purposes of this Bill is made with lawful authority. Of course, it is made then, I suggest, in accordance with his official duty because, if he is a civil servant, it must be in accordance with his official duty that he should comply with an order of a court made in connection with any information that has come to him by reason of his official position.
      I believe that that is all that need be said to allay Scottish and other anxieties on this point.
      I will give way to the temptation to answer one point made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). He says that no change has been made by this Bill in the position of Members of Parliament vis-a-vis the Official Secrets Act 1911. I suggest that a very important change has been made: no longer will they be guilty of an offence of receiving protected information.
      Mr. Hattersley: The Home Secretary having given the Committee his views on the amendment, perhaps I can briefly do the same.
      I do not dismiss in any way the central point that the Home Secretary made. He was either too polite or too pusillanimous to put it in the crude terms that I shall employ, but, as I understand his case, his problem was that, if this amendment is carried, a member of the security services who provides information to a Member of Parliament does so with impunity. Then the Member of Parliament, acting properly in one sense under the rule of privilege, makes that information public in the House of
      534
      Commons and is not prosecuted for doing so. We do riot have to describe the situation which is the Home Secretary's fear to realise that there is a problem at least of a theoretical sort. But I cannot conceive of a Member of Parliament's making public the sort of information which the Home Secretary fears, or ought to fear, might be made public.
      Let me explain what I mean by that. It is not based on any over-elaborate or over-romantic view of Members of Parliament; any such views as I might have had 25 years ago have been dispelled over the past quarter of a century. But I cannot imagine a Member of Parliament, say, being told the name and address of an agent in place and revealing that in the House of Commons. What a Member of Parliament might reveal in the House of Commons is information which is damaging not to the interest of the state but to the interest of the Government. Again, we come back to the nub of the question when we think about the sort of revelation that the Home Secretary fears.
      The Ponting case has been an example in much of our debate. We have been told throughout the debate by the Home Secretary and others that for the aggrieved public servant there are proper channels of communication. I do not think that, despite the reference to this proviso, anyone was suggesting that Mr. Ponting would have been better advised to describe the situation to a policeman. Nor, since Mr. Ponting was correcting the international errors spread by the Ministry of Defence, could it have been in Mr. Ponting's best interests to report the matter to the Secretary of State for Defence. It is in that sort of situation, where the public service officer, the public servant, believes that he must report to a Member of Parliament, not because it is his wish to undermine the interest of the state but because he believes that the Government have acted improperly, that we believe that the revelation ought to be made to a Member of Parliament.
      If the Government vote against this amendment, or at least if they vote against it without promising to put something technically more accomplished in its place, they are, in my judgment, ending what I would describe as the Winston Churchill situation before the second world war. It is a long time since I read Martin Gilbert, but the information that was supplied to Mr. Churchill and that he used with such success to end the days of appeasement and the pretence that we were prepared and were preparing was almost always supplied to him by men who, under the present Bill, would be classified under clause 1 or notified that they were in the special category requiring them to maintain confidentiality on all occasions. We are preventing that from ever happening again, or we are attempting to.
      I make two points to qualify my own assertion. I think, as does the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that in similar circumstances patriots would take the risk and still pass on the information. But we ought to be clear that, if this amendment is carried, we are legislating against the patriot doing what he thinks is his patriotic duty.
      It may well be that the amendment is technically deficient in a number of ways. There is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) about whether it refers just to the House of Commons or to both Houses. I think that it refers to both, but I shall not be so rash as to express my view concerning whether it should refer to our House alone or to the other

      535
      place as well. If this is a proper Committee stage—we still have the vestiges of a proper Committee stage, despite the guillotine—it is not enough for the Home Secretary to rest on the technicalities. If he believes, as we do, that it is right in the circumstances I have tried to describe for a public servant to be able to communicate information to a Member of Parliament, his clear duty is to promise a better amendment. Unless he does so, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the amendment.
      Mr. Maclennan: I listened carefully to what was clearly a very careful speech from the Home Secretary and I found it internally somewhat contradictory. He started by saying that this was a very modest amendment and ended by saying that it would not be understood by my constituents or his.
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is taking a little advantage of my generosity. I was answering not only his amendment, which is a modest one, but the much more ambitious propositions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which would encompass members of the intelligence and security forces, which of course his amendment does not.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful for that clarification, but it does not altogether dispose of the right hon. Gentleman's description of my amendment as one that would not be understood by our constituents. I believe that the opposite is the case: our constituents would find it utterly extraordinary if they thought that, if they came into possession of information of considerable significance, they could not, under the Bill, properly communicate it to the Member of Parliament.
      The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke of its being not very likely that my crofting constituents would reveal this sort of information. I have to tell him that there have been in my experience in the last 10 years two such cases. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) could testify to one of them because he was the Lord Privy Seal to whom I spoke at the time about the incident. I will tell the Home Secretary about these circumstances because they show the reality of the point with which we are dealing and illustrate the fact that this is not a theoretical problem.
      I have in my constituency a nuclear research establishment at which plutonium is handled on site. It is a substance of great significance in defence and it seems to me that it is quite possible that, under the provision of this Bill dealing with defence—that is, clause 2(4), which speaks of the weapons, stores or other equipment and the production and operation of such equipment—the plutonium on site and the manner of the handling of it could conceivably be covered by this Bill.
      A constituent of mine who was not a Crown servant or an employee on the site came to me and said that he had very important information to give me about the manner in which the plutonium was handled. He said that he had obtained the information from someone in the know and who worked on the site and that he wanted me to do something about it because it concerned an important question. If the Home Secretary is suggesting that the constituent would have been more sensible to take that
      536
      information to the village police constable rather than to me, as the Bill provides, then he is making a preposterous suggestion.
      Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the other example that springs to my recollection. There was in my constituency an outstation of GCHQ, situated at Brora in Sutherland. In the early part of this decade it employed quite a large number of people in terms of the locality. Those who were employed there had always been entirely discreet about its operations. During the early 1980s, a constituent of mine who was not employed there came to me and said, "I believe that a decision will be taken to close this outstation of GCHQ. Of course that will have serious employment consequences in the community, but I would not come to you about that. I have come to you because I have been told that this is a grave error in the interests of the nation; this outstation of GCHQ is an essential part of our defensive network, and we cannot be properly looked after without it." He was not an employee. It was, perhaps, tittle-tattle. But he gave me to understand that he had been given chapter and verse.
      Mr. Hattersley: Purported?
      Mr. Maclennan: In the terms of the clause we are discussing, he had had disclosed to him very serious information from a Government contractor. If the Minister is suggesting that that worried constituent would have been satisfied by going to the local police constable with this information, then he is quite out of touch with reality. My constituent's response would almost certainly have been to go to the Scottish Sunday Post with the information, knowing that it would be broadcast very widely. In fact, my constituent came to me and I went to see the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and the whole matter was properly discussed. My constituent's anxieties were alleviated to some extent.
      Mr. Rooker: Did the outstation close? We are curious to know.
      Mr. Maclennan: I do not wish to abuse the privilege of the House; indeed, I want to demonstrate the total propriety of hon. Members in handling these matters.
      I give these anecdotes to show the Home Secretary what he does not seem to have appreciated—that these are not purely abstract matters, and that anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for as long as me has to deal with such matters from time to time. The Home Secretary has tried to reassure us that the Bill does not cut down a Member of Parliament's remedies if he should come into contact with such information. That may be so, but the Bill seems to cut down the remedies available to members of the public. That is worrying.
      Section 7(3) allows for disclosure of information only in a particular way. Both of my examples are in the categories covered by the Bill, which are of disclosures to be made to a police constable or a Crown servant. That cannot be right; it simply does not make sense. The police constable is quite likely to make the wrong use of the information. Indeed, he might fail to satisfy the member of the public who is concerned about the issue that his concern is being properly dealt with. Perhaps the Home Secretary has greater faith that his constituents would be reassured by police constables in west Oxfordshire than I have that mine would be in Caithness and Sutherland. I am bound to say that this is not the appropriate way to proceed.

      537
      6.45 pm
      The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was quite right in saying that the amendment is not primarily about protecting Members of Parliament; it is about protecting the public. It may well he, despite this unsatisfactory clause, that the public will continue to communicate with their Members of Parliament as they think fit. Parliamentary privilege may well protect them, but I am not wholly convinced by the Home Secretary that the Bill does not cut down the scope of the privilege of a Member of Parliament.
      The Bill is specific about the matter. Clause 7(3) describes disclosure by any person other than a Crown servant or Government contractor as a disclosure that cannot be made with lawful authority. Perhaps I should repeat that crucial point for clarification. The disclosure is not made with lawful authority if it is made to anyone other than a Crown servant or in accordance with an official authorisation. At its face value, that means that a disclosure is not made to a Member of Parliament with lawful authority, and that acts as a barrier to members of the public, and cuts down the capacity of a Member of Parliament to do his job properly.
      I heard the Home Secretary quote from the Committee of Privileges and the Duncan Sandys case about proceedings relating to the Official Secrets Act. I tried to note the words, as 1 have not read them recently. They suggest that Members of Parliament should not be made subject to proceedings under the Official Secrets Act for disclosures of this kind. I was not entirely sure whether the Home Secretary was saying that that is still the case and the Bill does not affect that position. If he was saying that, he has gone some way to reassuring me about my main concern, which led me to table the amendment, but that is only an assertion, and it is not embodied in statute. It would certainly be much more satisfactory on a matter of such importance to have statutory clarity.
      I wholly understand the Home Secretary's concerns about the possible abuse of position by a Member of Parliament, but we are concerned about balancing risks in such cases. The suggestion that Members of Parliament would be more likely to take the wrong decision than Crown servants or members of the public who are denied access by the law to their Members of Parliament is not capable of being sustained. The balance must be in favour of Members of Parliament exercising their judgment responsibly and with careful deliberation in the interests of the country. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this question before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
      Mr. Winnick: The only Back-Bench Member who has so far defended the Government's position is the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind). I shall not criticise him in any way, because he is rather a brave soul. Whether he feels that that is a quick way of getting into the Government, I would not know. However, I congratulate him on expressing what, after all, has been a minority viewpoint in the debate. We know that at 7.15 the troops will be out and the Government will get their way as usual, but in the meantime the minority view has been put by at least one hon. Member.
      I heard rumours, and I did hope, that the Leader of the House would speak during the debate on a matter which involves parliamentary privilege. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is listening. I can well
      538
      understand his reluctance to speak, but at least he has been present. As you may know, Miss Boothroyd, when the Prime Minister was asked at Question Time today about the number of Cabinet Ministers who have been dismissed, she simply replied that none had been dismissed; they had resigned. Since the right hon. Gentleman is widely rumoured to be in the firing line, I can well understand his reluctance to speak.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the amendment.
      Mr. Winnick: In the last resort, it is the right of a private citizen or an official to go to his Member of Parliament. The Home Secretary's argument all along has, in effect, been that, if a person has reason to feel that an abuse has taken place, there are procedures available to him. Clause 7 refers to disclosures from a Crown servant. We know that the Home Secretary has put a great deal of emphasis on the fact that, if someone in the security services feels aggrieved, he can go to the person widely referred to as the ombudsman in the Security Service.
      Mr. Hurd: The staff counsellor.
      Mr. Winnick: Yes. But what worries me, as I am sure it worries a number of other hon. Members, is that, if an official or a private person feels that going to a Crown servant, whether that be the village constable or a much more senior person in officialdom, will not resolve the matter, or, having used those procedures, he does not feel that the matter has been put right, there is no other course left. Surely, at the end of the day, such a person has the right of any other British citizen to go to his or her Member of Parliament.
      The amendment may be technically defective in a number of ways, but that is not relevant. If the principle of an amendment is accepted, the Home Secretary should say so and table another amendment on Report. It is worrying that once again the Home Secretary has completely closed that door.
      I remain convinced that there may be cases—I am sure that they would not be frequent—where at the end of the day, as in the Duncan Sandys or Winston Churchill cases, a Member of Parliament should be seen. Hon. Members know from their postbags that people have more mundane problems and difficulties than the sort that we are debating. Often they have tried to resolve them through the usual channels, but at the end of the day they go to their Member of Parliament. They do not say to themselves that their Member of Parliament has nothing to do with housing or health problems. They believe that their Member of Parliament is there to look after their interests. About 70 or 80 per cent. of our constituency postbags relates to matters which are no concern to us, but obviously we take up those matters because we are expected to do so. The same applies in the event of abuse.
      Mr. Hind: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his constituent can still come to him and make a disclosure, providing that he has not been notified, and the hon. Gentleman can take up the matter? Providing that he does so in such a way that he does no harm to the national interest, he protects the fact that the disclosure has been made to him and he seeks out a remedy. On top of that, the

      539
      has the privilege of the House should he feel that he needs to take the matter further. Should the matter then go to court, his consitituent can argue the defence in the courts.
      Mr. Winnick: But the person who has made the complaint is not protected. A Member of Parliament would do his duty. Regardless of what is in the Bill, if I received a complaint I would not rush to the Home Secretary if I did not consider that to be appropriate. Obviously, if it were appropriate, I would go to the Government, but otherwise I would pursue the matter on the Floor of the House. I do not wish to engage in any form of abuse, but after consulting senior colleagues I would do what I considered to be my duty. I trust that all hon. Members would do precisely that. The person who makes the complaint should not be in the position in which the Bill places him. The principle of the amendment should be accepted.
      Let me conclude with a case that I have brought up before which concerns an official, not a private citizen—that of Cathy Massiter. It arose before there was a staff counsellor. The staff counsellor was appointed following what happened over Cathy Massiter. Whatever else one may say about her disclosures, they have undoubtedly led to some changes for the security services.
      If Miss Massiter had gone to a staff counsellor and had not received satisfaction, as presumably would have happened, and she had then gone to someone higher and at the end of the day the abuse about which she was complaining had continued, she may have gone to her Member of Parliament. Such a course would have been perfectly right. However, the Bill in no way protects a complainant such as Cathy Massiter.
      The Attorney-General indicated assent.
      Mr. Winnick: It is unfortunate that once again the Home Secretary is not willing to accept the broad principle of the amendment. I do not accept that Members of Parliament abuse privilege. I have been here for less time than many other hon. Members, but I can recall few, if any, cases of abuse. We all know that the House has a way of dealing with abuse by taking such matters to the Committee of Privileges, as happens if a Member seeks to use the House for publicity purposes.
      For all those reasons, the principle of the amendment should be accepted, although I am not at all surprised that the Home Secretary has again refused to accept it.
      Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Attorney-General for coming to answer the Scottish point.
      Mr. Hurd: Let me briefly answer some of the later points. I am not clear why the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) thinks that either of his constituents might be prosecuted under the Bill. He will judge that better, but if he is wrong, the problem that he described will not arise. The Bill does not reduce his or her constituents' rights in this matter.
      7 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) pressed me on a point that I did not cover when I spoke earlier. I can say what I think he wants me to say, because it is true. There is no change in the press reporting of our proceedings. It will still be governed by qualified
      540
      privilege—a concept that has been thrashed out over the years. That means, of course, that if an hon. Member disclosed in the course of proceedings in the House a piece of information passed to him by a member of the security or intelligence services, it would be out—not just in the House, but on the news stands and in the television studios.
      I tried to follow the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North about the receiving of anonymous information. He is right to say that there could be a problem, but I do not believe that it is one that would be affected by the Bill.
      The suggestions by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) are matters for the House. I am not sure what the Clerk or the Chairman of the Select Committee would do when he received the piece of paper which the hon. Gentleman postulated. The House would need to think long and deep before going down that path.
      The point of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) appeared to lack his usual logic. It is true that in some cases an hon. Member might not disclose what he had received, but that is not an argument in favour of an amendment which would enable every constituent to communicate, and therefore every hon. Member to disclose, any secrets which came into his hands. That would not be logical. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right in saying that it is a matter of balance.
      We have had a leisurely debate, with between 20 and 25 right hon. and hon. Members present for most of the time, with the usual—but rather reduced—gifted group of convinced critics of the Bill on both sides of the House. Those right hon. and hon. Members have not attracted the support which they obviously hoped for—[Interruption.] They have not persuaded me. It is not necessary to persuade a Minister, but a Minister can actually be made to do something. That means, however, attracting wider support than has been the case on this occasion. That does happen, but, of course, it has not happened on this occasion. That may be because the amendments tabled—especially this one—lack the sort of balance which I believe is better expressed in the Bill.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: How many hon. Members who voted with the right hon. Gentleman throughout the proceedings on this Bill does he really think believe in this Bill? There is no answer.
      Mr. Gorst: Would my right hon. Friend reply to the point about whether there is a change in the position of European Members of Parliament?
      Mr. Hurd: There is no change in the Bill with regard to whatever privileges there are for Members of the European Parliament. In reply to a question from the hon. Member for Perry Barr last night, I promised to look into the subject of the European Parliament, official secrets and the clause which we discussed last night. I shall need a little time to investigate that point further.
      Mr. Maclennan: I thank the Home Secretary for his remarks, which were, of course, unpersuasive. I shall simply comment on what the right hon. Gentleman said about the interest of the House in this matter.
      The right hon. Gentleman signalled at an early stage in our proceedings that the Bill would not be amended by the Committee, except in one respect by a Government

      541
      amendment. He indicated that he had no intention of accepting any amendments tabled by right hon. or hon. Members on either side of the Committee, however eloquent or forceful their arguments were. It is not surprising, therefore, that many right hon. and hon. Members regard the proceedings through which he has been putting us as something of a charade. The reality is that we are not shaping the legislation in any meaningful sense. The Bill will leave the House as it entered it.
      The right hon. Gentleman has participated in a procedure which, I believe, has brought the legislative process into disrepute. None the less, I regard this as an important matter, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, while recognising the technical deficiencies of the drafting, will support the principle.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 274.

      Division No. 98]

      [7.4 pm

      AYES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Hoyle, Doug

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Illsley, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      Janner, Greville

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Barron, Kevin

      Kennedy, Charles

      Battle, John

      Leighton, Ron

      Beckett, Margaret

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Beith, A. J.

      Livsey, Richard

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bermingham, Gerald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Boyes, Roland

      McCartney, Ian

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      McFall, John

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Buchan, Norman

      McWilliam, John

      Buckley, George J.

      Madden, Max

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Marek, Dr John

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Martlew, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, D. N.

      Maxton, John

      Cartwright, John

      Meacher, Michael

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Meale, Alan

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Michael, Alun

      Cohen, Harry

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

      Corbett, Robin

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Murphy, Paul

      Crowther, Stan

      Nellist, Dave

      Cummings, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Dalyell, Tam

      Pike, Peter L.

      Darling, Alistair

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Prescott, John

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

      Radice, Giles

      Dewar, Donald

      Randall, Stuart

      Dixon, Don

      Richardson, Jo

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Rooker, Jeff

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth

      Ruddock, Joan

      Fatchett, Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Flynn, Paul

      Short, Clare

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      George, Bruce

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

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Snape, Peter

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Soley, Clive

      Gordon, Mildred

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Haynes, Frank

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Vaz, Keith

      Henderson, Doug

      Wall, Pat

      Hinchliffe, David

      Walley, Joan

      Hood, Jimmy

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Howells, Geraint

      Winnick, David

      542

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mr. Frank Cook and

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Forth, Eric

      Alexander, Richard

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Amess, David

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Amos, Alan

      Franks, Cecil

      Arbuthnot, James

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      French, Douglas

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Gale, Roger

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Gill, Christopher

      Atkinson, David

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Goodhart, Sir Philip

      Baldry, Tony

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Batiste, Spencer

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Beggs, Roy

      Gorst, John

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Benyon, W.

      Gregory, Conal

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      Grist, Ian

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Bowis, John

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

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Harris, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Bright, Graham

      Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

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

      Hayward, Robert

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Burns, Simon

      Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

      Burt, Alistair

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Butcher, John

      Hind, Kenneth

      Butler, Chris

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Butterfill, John

      Holt, Richard

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Howard, Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cash, William

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Chope, Christopher

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Irvine, Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Janman, Tim

      Cran, James

      Jessel, Toby

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

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

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Key, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Dickens, Geoffrey

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Dicks, Terry

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knapman, Roger

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Evennett, David

      Knox, David

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Lang, Ian

      Fallon, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Favell, Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lightbown, David

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      l.illey, Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      543

      Lord, Michael

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Luce, Rt Hon Richard

      Shelton, Sir William

      McCrindle, Robert

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Sims, Roger

      Maclean, David

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Speller, Tony

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Maples, John

      Squire, Robin

      Marland, Paul

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Marlow, Tony

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Steen, Anthony

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Stevens, Lewis

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stokes, Sir John

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Sumberg, David

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Summerson, Hugo

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mudd, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Nelson, Anthony

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Neubert, Michael

      Thorne, Neil

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Thurnham, Peter

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Tracey, Richard

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Tredinnick, David

      Norris, Steve

      Trippier, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Trotter, Neville

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Page, Richard

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Paice, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Patnick, Irvine

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wakeham, Rt Hon John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Walden, George

      Pawsey, James

      Walker, Bill (T'side North)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Walters, Sir Dennis

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Portillo, Michael

      Watts, John

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wells, Bowen

      Price, Sir David

      Wheeler, John

      Raffan, Keith

      Whitney, Ray

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Redwood, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Wilshire, David

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Rost, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wood, Timothy

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Woodcock, Mike

      Ryder, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Scott, Nicholas

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after a quarter past Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution [15 February] , to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
      Clauses 7 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      INFORMATION RESULTING FROM UNAUTHORISED DISCLOSURES OR ENTRUSTED IN CONFIDENCE
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 5, line 26, at end insert—
      '(2A) A person does not commit an offence under this section in respect of information which before the time of the alleged offence had become available to the public or a section of the public whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 2—Information previously available to the public—
      'It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this Act to prove that before the time of the alleged offence the information was publicly known or published in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.'.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I move the amendment in a spirit of hope, but not in a spirit of great optimism in view of the nature of our proceedings so far in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) got it seriously wrong in his speech on the guillotine motion on Monday. He said that the proceedings on the guillotine motion were purely ritualistic. He was wrong. The proceedings in this Committee are ritualistic. That is so partly because the Committee has been gagged by what I continue to think is a very iniquitous guillotine motion, but also because the occupants of the Government Front Bench are obviously unable to make any significant concessions. We are gagged and they are shackled. That makes the whole of our proceedings fairly pointless.
      When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House moved the guillotine motion he said that he thought that the Government had got their proposals right. Clearly he meant the word "right". However, I do not think that he meant the word "proposals", because they are not being treated as proposals. They are treated as something that is already law.
      When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated with his customary courtesy that the Government were asking Parliament to do this, he did not mean what he said. The Government are telling Parliament what is going to happen. Therefore, I am not moving the amendment with great optimism. However, the other amendments that have been moved so far in Committee were designed to help the subject and the press. My amendment is quite different. It is designed to help the Government, so I hope that it may enjoy a better fate than the other amendments.
      The amendment is designed to stop the Government making fools of themselves. All Conservative Members and possibly some Opposition Members will be in favour of it because of that. However, are the Government in favour of the amendment? We will soon find out.
      As my hon. Friend the Minister of State will remember, there was a partial prior publication defence in the abortive Protection of Official Information Bill 1979. Why is there not one in this Bill? The only real reason must be that to include one would be an admission of error by the Government about what happened in the "Spycatcher" case. Clearly the prior publication defence was the nub of that case, and to include it in this Bill would be saying, "We got it wrong and we do not want to do so again." That is an understandable human reaction, but the "Spycatcher" case is a good reason for including a prior

      545
      publication defence because it would stop Governments ever again making quite such comprehensive fools of themselves. I shall return to the "Spycatcher" case later.
      Another reason why the Government should accept the amendment is sheer common sense. I refer my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the title of the Bill—the Official Secrets Bill. If my hon. Friend the Minister considers carefully, I think he will agree that, once published, a secret is no longer a secret. It is like an egg—if I may use that word nowadays. Once an egg becomes a chicken it is no longer an egg. It is fairly clear that once something has been published there is absolutely no cause for the Government to become exercised about it.
      Let us try to penetrate to some greater rationale for what the Government are doing. We can refer to the highest authority in this matter, namely my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who said on Second Reading:
      "there may he circumstances in which the timing and placing of a fresh publication is bound to cause harm which earlier publication had not. A front-page spread in a daily newspaper, for example, on an item previously carried in a technical journal in another country might cause serious further harm."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) pointed out that that went against what Mr. Justice Caulfield had said in the Sunday Telegraph case. My right hon. Friend went on:
      "It is a question of the harm done to the public interest. I should argue, on the ground of common sense, that it is perfectly possible to have partial, incomplete publication in a distant publication with no particular circulation and then to argue that to pick up that information, put it in a different form and splash it across the news, so causing major circulation would provide a further harm."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 464.]
      My right hon. Friend seems to think that Russian intelligence officers do not read technical journals, confining their attention to the British tabloid press. That seems extremely unlikely. The idea seems to be that our intelligence interests will not be damaged by articles that appear in the technical press. but will be damaged if rather less information—a characteristic of tabloid newspapers—is spread on the front pages.
      We are trying to safeguard this country's secrets. We are not trying to safeguard the Government's face, or the intelligence service's face. Once information has been noted and is in the public domain—I have no knowledge of Russian or other secret services, but I imagine that they comb technical journals extremely carefully—
      Mr. Budgen: I have the misfortune to disagree with my right hon. Friend on this issue. Is he not assuming that all foreign powers who may wish to gain secrets from our state are immensely efficient, wealthy and well informed? I know that he has a high Tory view of human nature and takes the general view that we are all idle, slothful and incompetent, so it seems uncharacteristic for him to believe that every foreign power reads every newspaper. Surely the basis of the libel law, which covers publication in all sorts of spheres and at all sorts of levels. is a much more reliable guide.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I do not regard my hon. Friend as idle or incompetent, and he is probably not slothful. He certainly has not been slothful in the Committee, but has been on his customary good form. I think that he is saying that while it is all right for information to be given to the Russians and the Chinese—he probably thinks that they are fairly competent—we should cash in on the fact that
      546
      some extremely incompetent south American country may not yet know the information, and conceal it from the British people on the off chance that, for example, the Venezuelans may not know either. If he thought more about that proposition, he might not wish to stick to it. The idea that the British people should be kept in ignorance on the off chance that some petty principality or minor republic has not read a technical journal is not one that the House should entertain.
      The only conceivable, serious reason to vote against the amendment is to keep the British people in ignorance. For the sake of their amour proper or that of the intelligence service, the Government say that, although the Russians already know information because it has already been published in some American journal, it is important that it should not be known to the British people because they might object to it. Perhaps the Government might say to their allies, "You can see that it has not been published over here because we control our press better than you." I do not think that that is an emblem of skill.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Is my right hon. Friend saying that he believes that there will never be circumstances in which a second or subsequent disclosure would cause harm? That seems a risky proposition
      Sir Ian Gilmour: It does not seem risky to me. Such circumstances might exist, but there would be a greater risk in keeping the British people in ignorance while nearly all the rest of the world knew the information than in the one in a thousand chance that, once something is known to most of the world, further damage will be done by repeating it.
      We have pretty high authority on prior publication because it was the basic issue in the "Spycatcher" case. Lord Bridge of Harwich, who is a high authority not only as a judge but as a former chairman of the Security Commission—we can hardly get better than him—said:
      "I can see nothing whatever, either in law or on the merits, to be said for the maintenance of a total ban on discussion in the press of this country of matters of undoubted public interest and concern which the rest of the world now knows all about and can discuss freely."
      Lord Oliver of Aylmerton made the same point when he said:
      "To attempt, even temporarily, to create a sort of judicial cordon sanitaire against the infection from abroad of public comment and discussion is not only, as I believe, certain to be ineffective but involves taking the first steps upon a very perilous path."
      Those two quotations sum tip the situation very well. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will break the habit, not of a lifetime, but of this Committee, and accept the amendment.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Robin Corbett: The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir. 1. Gilmour) put the argument in a nutshell with blinding simplicity. Once a secret is known, it is no longer a secret—it is as simple as that. This is a case where second thoughts are not best. Sometimes they are, but not in this case.
      In 1979, the Government's published Bill accepted a partial prior publication defence. In other words, once the horse has bolted, there is little point in locking the stable door. In 1989, the Government say in paragraph 62 of the White Paper:

      547
      "It seems to the Government that this rationale"—
      that is, the argument in favour of prior publication—
      "is flawed."
      It might have been more honest if the Home Secretary had said more plainly and honestly that the Government had changed their mind. There is nothing the matter with that, although I and other hon. Members may object to their new decision.
      The White Paper, in defence of that, goes on to postulate an extraordinary situation. It says:
      "in certain circumstances a second or subsequent disclosure may be more harmful. For example, a newspaper story about a certain matter may carry little weight in the absence of firm evidence of its validity."
      We now come to the astonishing part. The White Paper says:
      "confirmation of that story by, say, a senior official of the relevant Government Department would be very much more damaging."
      Why on earth would even the deputy Prime Minister, Bernard Ingham, be authorised—as even he would have to be—to confirm such a story, touching as it would on vital interests of the United Kingdom? It is totally impossible to conceive of any circumstances in which any Government official would be authorised to make such a confirmatory statement. I do not believe that it would happen. In such circumstances, with information touching properly on our vital national interests, there is every good reason why such a story should not be commented on.
      I can hear the Prime Minister now—either the present Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock)—saying that it was not his or her practice to comment on matters of security and that they did not intend to do so. They would then sit down. However, the question remains. If a senior official is not authorised to confirm a story which, on first publication abroad, was known to be positively inaccurate, what possible harm can repetition do? I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. The bottom line seems to be no more than saving the Government's face and avoiding embarrassment.
      The Government would know whether the story published abroad was true or not. If they chose not to reveal which, as the Home Secretary outlined in the White Paper, an official would be authorised to confirm it. That can be put in the White Paper only to mock. The White Paper becomes positively bizarre when it says:
      "Similarly, the publication of a list of addresses of persons in public life may capture the interest of terrorist groups much more readily than the same information scattered in disparate previous publications."
      Perhaps the Minister will tell me whether it is the concept of a list that is at issue. Is it safe to publish a single name? The Home Secretary introduced the concept of that list. If a list is involved, how long is a list? The implication is that a list is longer than one particular name. How many names have to be on a list to justify the rejection of the prior publication defence?
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I have been thinking about the matter as my hon. Friend has been speaking. Do the Government seriously consider that documents such as "Who's Who" and the telephone directory are capable of becoming the bibles of the terrorist world?
      Mr. Corbett: Not even this Government would consider treating all those listed in "Who's Who" as a group and notifying them under the Bill.
      Is the argument rejecting the prior publication defence concerned with the reprinting of a single specific name—and I shall give some examples in a moment—or with a group of specific names which is sensitive because of the jobs that the people concerned do? Let us consider an example. Suppose that The Baltimore Sun revealed that Mr. Colin McColl was the new head of MI6 and that The Guardian reported that in turn. What possible risk to Mr. McColl or MI6 can either the first or second publication cause? We have, after all, recently debated the Security Service Bill which admits, for the first time in statute, the existence of MI5 and MI6.
      Quite properly, we know the name of the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland—although not yet the name of his successor—and it is published. We know the name of the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland, the name of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the names of judges there. That seems to go against the Government's argument in the White Paper that, because of terrorists, it could be dangerous to publish some of those names. If that is so—and I understand the argument—I must ask the Home Secretary how many more sensitive jobs are carried out on behalf of this Government than the jobs of those senior people in Northern Ireland? If the Home Secretary seeks, through the Bill, to prevent the republication of the names of sensitive office holders, how have those names escaped clause 5? Either the Government are being carefully selective or, as I suspect, they want to be able to pick and choose under the Bill what shall be kept hidden from the British public, although it is known abroad.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: Is there not another aspect? Some information is of value to the press, the media and in terms of writing books. If someone gets hold of information in this country which, if he published it, as the Bill now stands, would mean committing an offence, is that not a great incentive for him to rush off to some other country, publish it there and then come and stand before the media in this country and make a fortune?
      Mr. Corbett: We are still left with the proposition of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and we cannot get away from that. Once a secret is disclosed, it is no longer a secret. There could be an argument about damage—and I understand that—but by definition, such a secret is no longer a secret—[Interruption.] Perhaps I could be allowed to make my own speech.
      Mr. Hurd: This is very helpful. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if damage is proved, the prior publication defence should fall?
      Mr. Corbett: No, I was saying that I understood the argument. I was trying to demonstrate the mess that the Government have got themselves into. I referrred to what is said in the White Paper about the publication of a list that could be useful for terrorist purposes, whereas the Government now do not seem to follow that practice with sensitive posts.
      Mr. Ray Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman does not accept my right hon. Friend's proposition, is he saying that he does not want the harm test? Or is he saying

      549
      that, if harm is done, he is prepared to accept that? He must accept either my right hon. Friend's proposition or that one.
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There should be only one intervention at a time.
      Mr. Corbett: I am trying to demonstrate—perhaps I should have left this on one side—that what the Government seek to achieve in the Bill, in the context of the list quotation that I read from the White Paper, is something novel. It has never been done or attempted before.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd rose—
      Mr. Corbett: I should like to continue for a moment. I shall see if I can demonstrate my point this way.
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Corbett: I must get on.
      We know the names of those who head the CIA and the FBI in the United States and they are listed in the Washington telephone book. Earlier this year, The Daily Telegraph published the name of the new head of the KGB. No action was taken. The Moscow correspondent of The Daily Telegraph rejoices in the name of Ian Smiley, which is most appropriate. He told us—and no harm has been done to relations between this country and the Soviet Union—that the new boss of the KGB is General Vladimir Kryuchkov. Nothing has happened—[Interruption.] Hold on; I was just saying that nothing happened, so presumably we are allowed to know that.
      It follows from what the Home Secretary argued in the White Paper that there are circumstances in which we would not be allowed to know about Mr. McColl being the head of MI6 or that last year the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Patrick Walker as head of MI5. Or perhaps it does not. The Home Secretary wants everyone to be certain of what risks they run, but the confusion remains.
      On 4 January The Guardian published news of the appointment of Mr. Colin McColl as the head of MI6. On 23 January—in column 369 of Hansard—I asked the Attorney-General whether proceedings were to he instituted against Mr. Richard Norton-Taylor, the distinguished journalist on The Guardian and its editor, Mr. Peter Preston, for that publication. I got a one-word answer—"No." I take it that that matter is safe, but will such matters remain safe under the Bill? I assume that The Guardian picked the information up from the Washington Post.
      Paragraph 14 of the White Paper properly refers o the need to ensure that no one is in any doubt as to the circumstances in which he would be liable to prosecution. The Home Secretary will know, of course, that there is immense uncertainty at the offices of The Guardian in Farringdon road as to whether it will be safe to publish such information in future.
      Paragraph 63 of the White Paper says:
      "in cases in which the prosecution would under the Government's proposals have to show that disclosure was likely to result in harm, the offence would not be made out if no further harm was likely to arise from a second disclosure."
      [HON. MEMBERS: "What is harm?"] Let us get this straight. At the start of the process, the Secretary of State for Defence, I suppose, takes advice on whether that second
      550
      publication has caused further harm. I assume that if he concludes that it has not, and if he has that advice confirmed by the Attorney-General, there will be no prosecution. Or are the Government saying that the matter is to be decided, not by the Attorney-General, but by the courts and that it is for the courts to determine whether harm has been caused by a second or subsequent publication and that, to that extent, what is proposed in the clause is a system of automatic prosecution?
      Mr. Hurd:indicated dissent.
      Mr. Corbett: The Home Secretary shakes his head, but I cannot believe that he is saying that he alone will decide whether or not a reprint has caused further harm. I cannot believe that even he will take that upon himself.
      Mr. Hurd: I shall not be deciding anything. The whole point of the Bill is to remove such discretions from Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General explained—and as is normal—it will be for the prosecuting authorities to judge in the ordinary way whether the second disclosure has caused harm. If they believe that it has, a prosecution may result. The prosecution would then have to show that the second disclosure had caused harm under the different tests of harm in the Bill. The defence could then argue that it had not—that the first disclosure did but that the second did not. The hon. Gentleman has totally failed to prove that there are no circumstances whatever in which a second disclosure could do harm.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that explanation. So, in judging whether to prosecute, the test is not whether a little or a middling amount or a lot of harm has resulted but whether any harm has resulted.
      Mr. Gorst: The matter is clearer even than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it. The first occasion when publication takes place and harm is done will be followed by the second occasion when harm may be done and it will be simply for the courts to decide which did the most harm. That must be perfectly clear.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
      My point is that, when a report is seen in an overseas publication, editors and journalists in this country will be incapable of properly assessing whether further harm may or may not be done when they are deciding whether to publish an allegation in the public interest. Let me give an example—
      Mr. Budgen: Does not the hon. Gentleman start from a misunderstanding of what constitutes a secret? A secret is a relationship. If he and I have a piece of information in common, it may be a secret between us. It will not cease to be a secret merely because he tells a third party; it will merely have been disclosed to another. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said that a secret is like an egg—that when one cracks it, it ceases to be a whole egg, but that is a false analogy.
      Mr. Corbett: With respect, I do not accept that.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: A secret is not a relationship at all. According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary, it is something unknown or unrevealed.
      Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation.
      Let me come back to my example. Suppose that the Washington Post ran a story saying that Britain had given secret undertakings to the United States Government not to use nuclear weapons based in Britain without the prior approval of the United States Government. Let us suppose that the report was based on an unauthorised leak by an official at the Ministry of Defence or the Washington embassy. Let us further suppose that a newspaper or television programme here wanted to run a story about it on the basis that it was a matter of public interest, whether true or not—I acknowledge that it would be of much more interest if it were true. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that it is not true and, improbably, that the Government put up a spokesman to deny the story. As I understand it, if the Government decide that even though the story is untrue and even though it has been published for the second time, it could still cause damage, those who published it here could be prosecuted.
      Now let us suppose that the story is true and that the Government deny it. Suppose that, as in the case posited by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), there is a by-election pending and the disclosure is not convenient, so the Government deny that the information is true. That seems to suggest that prosecution could go ahead on the damage test. That must be so.
      Under the Bill, no action can be taken if an unauthorised disclosure of our secret information is made by a foreign national abroad. But suppose that Sky television reported the hypothetical secret undertaking not to use nuclear weapons without prior American approval. What would happen then? The answer seems to be, "It depends." If the Sky satellite broadcast into x thousand British homes came as a report from the New York bureau, I think that no action could be taken, but if the Daily Express reported what it had heard on Sky television, the editor, Nick Lloyd, could be marched straight into Pentonville.
      Mr. Rooker: After a trial.
      Mr. Corbett: Of course, after a trial.
      Let us suppose that Sky broadcast that report, not from its New York office but from London, up to the satellite and back down to the United Kingdom. In that case it would be caught, and so would the editor of any newspaper reporting that item. This is the stupidity of what the Government are proposing: the same information, the same disclosure, but the mere accident of a different office—one in New York, one in London—making all the difference between prosecution and no prosecution.
      In fact, the position would be even more ludicrous, because x thousand people watching Sky television coming out of New York could quite properly have information, whereas millions not watching Sky would not be able to read about it in the Daily Express or see it on ITN later that night. The Home Secretary knows fine well—and this is another aspect of the ludicrousness of the situation—what Sky will do in those circumstances. Where is it going to broadcast that information from? London or New York? The Home Secretary knows fine well that Sky will ensure that such information always comes from New York so that the long arm of the Government cannot reach it.
      552
      There is something else that I hope the Home Secretary will be able to tell us about. I do not know whether this is a case of second publication, but it is close to it. What about all the imported world-class newspapers that come into Britain—Le Figaro, Le Monde, La Stampa, International Herald Tribune? They carry information which, under this Bill, it would be an offence to carry. Some of these publications even come in via one of these new-fangled mangles. What happens in those circumstances? Somebody idly buys La Stampa in a tobacconist's shop in Soho because he happens to enjoy reading that paper. Apparently he is all right, but if a British journalist from the Daily Mail or The Daily Telegraph picks up a copy of La Stampa and says, "Oh, that is an interesting story; I will offer it to my editor," the newspaper will not be able to publish it because that would be genuine republication.
      Does the Home Secretary want to say something?
      Mr. Hurd indicated dissent.
      Mr. Corbett: Fine.
      This is a very serious matter for editors and journalists, and an extremely serious matter for the British people in regard to their right to access to proper information. How on earth are editors and journalists expected to assess the potential harm surrounding a story published elsewhere earlier, upon which no Government official has commented? I will give the Home Secretary the answer to that question. The Guild of British Newspaper Editors put it very succinctly when it said, "This is an impossible task." Unless the Government change their mind about this, it will inhibit publication of information not desperately vital to our national security, information which, in other circumstances, those newspapers might well have published.
      Earlier in the debate, we reached the heights of farce when the Government argued that it might be all right to publish some of this information in a small magazine with limited circulation but not in the Daily Mail. Presumably the argument is that, because of cash limits in the Kremlin, there are restrictions on its ability to take out magazines. That was said earlier in this debate—or something very close to that. Are the Government still going to use that argument? Is the accident of circulation going to be among the measures of damage or potential damage? I say "accident" because, clearly, only a limited number of people are interested in aeroplanes, for example, and subscribe to Flight, against the millions who buy the Daily Mail. So I ask the Home Secretary yet again where in this is the certainty for editors and journalists.
      The Government have not made out their case for changing their view of 10 years ago. They would lose nothing by changing their mind back and, perhaps, getting a little much-needed respect over this Bill. They would not lose anything, because the much-loved damage test would remain in the Bill even though the prior publication defence was admissible. I hope that, when the right hon. Gentleman has listened to the debate on this all-party amendment, he will come to the conclusion that the words used in 1979 were right and that those in this Bill are wrong.
      Mr. Tony Baldry: The speech we have just heard was very revealing. We are now on the fourth day of the Committee stage, having had a Second Reading, yet even now it is quite clear that hon. Members on the

      553
      Opposition Front Bench have completely failed to master the Bill. Even at this stage the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) says that the Home Secretary will make the decision about prosecution. He has not grasped that, under clause 9, prosecution decisions will be a matter for the Attorney-General.
      It is quite clear also—and I will expand on this in a second—that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have not grasped the provisions of clause 6(3). Perhaps the reason the hon. Gentleman was so keen to rush through his speech that he realised at last that he really had not grasped what the Bill was about. Or perhaps it was the realisation that there are now only five other Labour Members in the Chamber, despite his party's much-vaunted complaints about the guillotine.
      I wish to make three points. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) was absolutely right in saying that this is an Official—official—Secrets Bill. It is concerned with official—information—official British information—and information that is not official falls, by definition, outside its parameters. Therefore it is quite untrue that this legislation would in any way prevent the publication, in this country, of information made publicly available by the Government of any other country. So, to start off, we are dealing with a limited amount of information; it is information that is official to this country.
      We should also note that clause 6(3) explicitly states that no offence is committed, even if official information provided by us to another state, and then made available by that state under its own laws, is published. Under the Bill that is not an offence. Let me put it in simple terms: if the British Government make available to the American Government information that is then published under that country's freedom of information legislation, further publication of that information is not, and cannot be, an offence under clause 6(3).
      Secondly, even when we are dealing with official information, in those categories of information where the harm test applies, the defendant can, of course, argue that the fact of any prior publication meant that damage had been caused by the first disclosure and that any subsequent publication of the information did not cause the harm specified in the Bill. That defence—the harm test—is already available to the defendant. It would be for the prosecution to prove damage, and it would be for the jury to decide.
      Thirdly, having regard to the fact that we are dealing with official information and that the defence of the harm test exists already, it would be wrong in principle and in practice to have an absolute offence of prior publication. My right hon. Friend and those who support his amendment are saying that there should be an absolute defence of prior publication, that once the information is seen anywhere, that is a total defence.
      Mr. Aitken: As my hon. Friend is learned in the law, I wonder if he could clarify one point in his argument in regard to the harm test. As I understand the Bill, the harm test does not apply to what might usually be called the absolute offences—those in the categories in clause 1, and some of those in clause 4 to do with interception, communication, and so on. If I am right about that, what is the relevance of the harm test? Surely it does not apply if an absolute offence has been created.
      Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend answers his own question. It has been made clear throughout the proceedings on the Bill, from Second Reading onwards, that there are certain provisions to which the harm test does not apply.
      Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) reads clause 5(3) he will see that there is indeed a damage or a harm test for all offences in clauses 1 to 3. We are not talking now about what the former member of the intelligence or Security Service has done; we are talking about the actual disclosure.
      8 pm
      Mr. Baldry: The thrust of the point is that the harm test applies to most of the Bill. The vast majority of Government information has been taken out of the parameters of the Bill. We went through all that on Second Reading. The harm test applies to most of the information referred to in the Bill and a defendant could pray that in aid. Even where the harm test does not apply—where there is an absolute offence under clause 1—my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) should take into account clause 5(3), as my right hon. Friend said.
      The absolute defence of prior publication does not exist in the law at the moment. It has never existed in the law of this land. If a defendant says, "No harm has been done by my revelation, because the harm was already done," that deals with cases such as "Spycatcher" which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham sought to ridicule. A defendant could pray that in aid before a jury. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) said, to argue for such a general defence one must assume that there could be no circumstances in which a second or subsequent disclosure could cause harm.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham and other hon. Members who support the amendment might be so cavalier as to take that risk, but I—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would give an example of the risk. Information that we give in confidence to foreign Governments may be leaked abroad by being published, for example, in Corriere della Sera. That point has been explored before. Therefore, the information is widely disseminated. Our courts have dealt with that. What example has my hon. Friend in mind of subsequent revelation which will cause as much harm as the original disclosure?
      Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend seeks to assert that there are no circumstances in which a subsequent or second disclosure could cause harm. I, and, I suspect, the vast majority of hon. Members, are not prepared to take that risk. It is an unnecessary risk, given the provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. Whitney: May I offer to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) an example? We now know about Chevaline. The secret of Chevaline was kept from the British public and from the British Parliament by a small group in the Labour Cabinet. They kept it from the rest of the country because they did not wish the main part of the Labour party to know about it. There can be little doubt that the Soviet intelligence services knew about the decision on Chevaline. It would have been possible for the Soviet security services to leak that in a remote newspaper, and the information

      555
      would then have been picked up by a British newspaper. The effect would have been that the Labour Government would have turned tail and cancelled Chevaline, and that would have damaged British defence interests.
      Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not think that those who support the Bill need to give examples. The burden of proof is on those who so cavalierly take the attitude that it is possible to take the risk of subsequent or further disclosure.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is no risk.
      Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend says that there is no risk. He must stand by that. Given the protection within the context of the legislation—the Attorney having to agree a prosecution, the defence of the harm test, the limited amount of information which is covered, and the fact that it has to be official information—there is no need for the nation to take the risk of subsequent disclosure causing harm. If those who support the amendment wish to be so cavalier, that is up to them, but I suspect that, when the Committee has to vote, it will decide that there is no need to be so cavalier with official information.
      We have a fine balance in the Bill between the interests of a community and the proper rights of the citizen within it. The reason why those who support the amendment seek to create examples is that, throughout all the proceedings on the Bill, they have sought to put up artificial coconut shies so that they can try to knock them down. They have to look the people in the eye and say, "We are prepared to take a risk that there could never, in any circumstances, be a situation where the subsequent disclosure of official information could cause harm, and we are prepared to offer any defendant an absolute defence in all circumstances." That defence would be that, the information having been published elsewhere, the defendant could say, "There can be no prosecution in those circumstances because I could not have done any harm." I do not think that the Committee should be led down that lane.
      Ms. Diane Abbott: We have had occasion over the past few days to contemplate the dangers of fundamentalist religion. I am obliged to contemplate the dangers of fundamentalist Government Back Benchers who claim that they have no need to prove their case. One does not need to be an expert on the security services or even on the affairs of the Home Office to know that, once a secret is revealed, it can no longer be a secret. When asked to demonstrate their case by giving examples, even the most loyal of Government Back Benchers were floundering.
      It is common sense that a secret, once revealed, is no longer a secret. Therefore, why are the Government trying to push the defence of no prior publication? However much the Government may wriggle, and whatever byzantine examples they build, if we are to imagine circumstances in which a second publication causes harm when first publication did not, we have to imagine massed ranks of spies, enemy agents, criminals and journalists who are asleep, illiterate or drunk, or who are generally falling down on their duty.
      I must speculate on why the Government are trying in the clause to promote a proposition which is patently
      556
      absurd. I can come up with only two reasons. One hates to go over painful history, but the first reason relates to the "Spycatcher" case, where the Government's case was largely smashed by the defence being able to demonstrate, by much painstaking work, that virtually everything in the disputed book had been published elsewhere by Mr. Chapman Pincher. All the Bill can be understood if we consider the past embarrassments of the Government. That is the whip that is flicking the poor Secretary of State on. That is the impetus to make sure that similar embarrassments do not happen again. It is because of what happened with prior publication in the "Spycatcher" case that the Government are trying to promote a transparent absurdity.
      The second reason why the Government are trying to pass into law the transparent absurdity that a secret that has already been published is somehow still a secret is the notion, not of keeping our secrets from enemies of the public, spies or enemy agents, but of keeping secrets from the people themselves. It is a "them and us" notion. It is the notion that it is all right for insiders to know something, but it would be rather too embarrassing if the public at large knew about it.
      Because the motivation behind the clause is not the public good but past Government embarrassment, and the "them and us" notion that, in some paternalistic sense, there are some things that insiders should know but the general public should not know, and because the attempts of Government Back Benchers to defend that absurdity have been so transparent. I speak in support of the amendments.
      Mr. Hurd: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I gave at this point the Government's reaction to the amendment.
      When we spent a substantial time discussing the public interest defence, I felt that a major clash of well argued principles was involved. In this case, the loophole which has been opened by the amendment has not been justified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour). I shall try to explain why.
      The main principle which we are trying to adhere to in the Bill involves harm and whether disclosure was harmful. That principle runs through all our arguments, even when we argue that there is an absolute offence because all forms of disclosure in that category would be harmful. It is not a matter of great principle whether the information has been published before. The central issue is whether the disclosure was harmful. It may well be that in many cases, perhaps even in most cases, the question whether there has been prior publication is relevant in assessing harm. No one denies that. The question is whether it must always be the governing consideration, whatever other arguments might be produced about harm or likely harm.
      Mr. Gorst: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile what he has just said with the provisions of article 10 of the European convention on human rights? After talking about
      "freedom of expression … regardless of frontiers",
      there is a reservation in paragraph 2 which says:
      "The exercise of these freedoms … may be subject to such … conditions as are prescribed by law and are necessary".

      557
      If there is prior publication abroad, how will it be possible to say that the provision is necessary. Even if there is harm, that provision is not recognised by the article that I have quoted.
      Mr. Hurd: We discussed article 10 yesterday, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland dealt with it. I shall come to the point as to why I believe that harm which could be caused by secondary publication could meet the criteria of harm in the Bill and therefore the criterion in article 10 of the European convention on human rights.
      The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) mentioned the Sky channel. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension, as Sky is within the jurisdiction of this country and therefore within the scope of the Bill because of the uplink from the United Kingdom, although the satellite is Luxembourg-based. Therefore, the worries that he built upon that distinction do not exist.
      I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman said about The Guardian newspaper being in a muddle about that. In the nicest possible way, may I say that no other newspaper has been so consistently muddled and has so muddled its readers about the Bill. I do not understand why newspapers should be in a muddle about this point, because the assessment that they will make is exactly the same for publication or republication. If the criminal law is to apply, newspapers will have to think before publishing something which might fall within the scope of the criminal law. The problem will not be made any more difficult, because the tests of harm remain the same for publication or republication.
      To return to the main point, which is extremely important, in many examples second publication would do no harm because, if there was any harm, it had been caused by the first publication. In the unlikely event that the prosecuting authorities decided to mount a case, the defence would argue precisely that: it would argue that no damage had been done. Moreover, the prosecution would have to prove that the defendant knew or had reasonable cause to know that such damage would be caused. That is a very high hurdle for a prosecution which was trying to show that, although something had been published elsewhere, there had been damage on secondary publication which met the test of harm.
      8.15 pm
      In clause 5, the test of harm is very high in those circumstances. There is no question of there being no prior publication defence. The question is whether that defence should be absolute and should sweep the board in all circumstances, and whether it should trump all other arguments before they are made. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) said, that puts an onus on the supporters of the amendment to justify so absolute a defence. We are saying that it should not be absolute and that it should be for the jury to decide in such cases.
      I am sorry that I missed the first few minutes of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, but I listened to him carefully. He and the hon. Member for Erdington were deeply and delightfully out of date. My right hon. Friend was thinking solely in terms of the Soviet Union. That may have been realistic in the old days, and I do not wish to discuss whether the Soviet Union monitors or wishes to monitor every
      558
      publication so thoroughly and so immediately that no second publication could possibly cause harm. I shall not go into that, because it is not relevant to this argument.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) left the Chamber after making an extremely relevant point. We are not talking only of the Soviet Union and other super-powers; we are talking emphatically about a number of other Governments which, in one way or another, support state terrorism. There is no reason to suppose that they are equipped to read every publication and that they would automatically pick up anything useful to them from a first publication. Nor are we talking only about Governments. Here I drop the banter to stress a crucial point.
      During the debate on the Security Service Bill, I mentioned the increasing effort of the security services devoted to counter-terrorist work. There are quite a few organisations—two or three in Northern Ireland and others in the middle east—which are quite sophisticated and probably attempt to piece together, bit by bit, disclosure by disclosure, how we counter their efforts in relation to techniques, equipment or personnel. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Erdington casts scorn on that, but it is not a comical matter. If there were a leak or a disclosure in some relatively obscure publication of something which was secret or important to counter-terrorism—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will take my point—there is no reason to suppose that the people who are trying to keep ahead of us and piece together how we deal with their activities would necessarily pick up that publication the first time.
      Therefore, it should be open to the prosecution not to make any assumptions but to argue before a jury that the second publication had caused the harm. As I said, it will be a high hurdle that it will have to pass. It will have to prove not only that harm had been done but that those who published it knew that harm was likely to be done. They are two high hurdles. To say that that is wholly and on every occasion totally absurd, that that risk can be easily run and that there are no circumstances in which the fact of the first publication should not be an absolute and total defence seems to be a risky business.
      Mr. Gorst: Surely the problem and, perhaps, the fallacy in my right hon. Friend's argument is that the prosecution will also have to prove that, on the first occasion, publication was not known to the people to whom it might have been damaging were it to be known by them.
      Mr. Hurd: The onus will be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the second publication did harm of the kind defined in the Bill. As I said, that will be a difficult business. I am not saying that the prosecution will have an easy task. I am saying that it must be given the opportunity in such circumstances to deploy that case. It should not, regardless of any conceivable circumstances, be ruled out as a line of argument.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is clearly a most important point. There is a corresponding case. My right hon. Friend is effectively and reasonably putting an anxiety about some circumstances—not all—of a subsequent publication. Will he give hon. Members just one instance, so that we can see what is identified, of a subsequent publication that has been damaging or has been held up in the courts or anywhere? I just want one instance.
      Mr. Hurd: I am giving instances not of past cases but of present dilemmas—[Interruption] I am not talking about hypotheses; I am giving a series of facts.
      Mr. Shepherd: Not of past cases.
      Mr. Hurd: I am speaking not of past cases, I agree, but of what is happening today. What has happened in the past four or five years, and what has certainly happened in the work of the Security Service, is a major concentration of effort on countering terrorists and the supporters of terrorists. My hon. Friend is right to take the matter seriously.
      This example is important—other people may think of other examples—and it is a real example in the work of Government. I would not be happy if there were this loophole which, in all circumstances, would enable the prior publication defence to be absent. I do not think that would be safe. I refer to the point which my right hon. Friend made at the beginning of his remarks and which the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) developed in exaggerated terms.
      It is not possible to regard the absence of an absolute prior publication defence as the result of an effort to avoid embarrassment or to keep British people in ignorance of something that other people know. We must consider the harm tests and the hurdle that the prosecution would have to surmount when faced by first publication. We should also consider the point in the Bill about which I reminded my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and which covers all the offences listed in clauses 1 to 3. It is not plausible to argue that this is an attempt to keep people in the dark.
      Mr. Shepherd: Part of what my right hon. Friend has been contending for has been recent history. I refer to the "Spycatcher" case and the investment of huge sums by the British Government to pursue right up to the House of Lords something that was previously published and available all around the world. One pressure is the sheer cost of the state prosecuting a newspaper for publishing something that had been published and previously available. Will the Home Secretary give me an instance of such a cost to society at large on the hypothesis that a subsequent revelation might be harmful? I can understand a first revelation being harmful, but I should like an instance of a second revelation being harmful.
      Mr. Hurd: If this amendment were passed, that kind of instance would be more likely. The Committee must consider whether it is worth taking that risk. My hon. Friend mentioned the "Spycatcher" case. That involved the civil law—the search for injunctions. I think that my hon. Friend was satisfied by the ultimate judgment, but there was a great deal of speculation that we were proposing to put into the Bill matter that would alter the civil law on confidentiality. Contary to expectations, we did not do that. We, too, believe that we can live with the judgment in the civil case.
      This is a matter of criminal law. It is a matter of deterring within the narrow field that we are talking about. It is a matter in which criminal sanctions might lie if deterrence failed. In the great majority of cases in which prosecutions might be tempted to prosecute, the presence of a first publication would create difficulties for them, which they would see that they were unlikely to surmount.
      560
      In cases in which they unwisely proceeded to prosecution on a second disclosure, the jury would simply be unconvinced that the second disclosure had caused harm.
      There could be—it is right that the Committee should understand this point—a relatively small number of cases in which the prosecution should be able to argue that the second disclosure had done one or more of the harms specified in the Bill and that the person disclosing for the second time knew that that was likely to be the result. There might be few cases, but they could be serious and dangerous.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary is clearly floundering. He has failed to answer a question by several Conservative Members about whether there were any real circumstances in which the repetition of what is not any longer secret could be harmful. By his failure to address that question, he has made it abundantly plain that there is not any serious, or indeed any, risk.
      Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman lashes out at me. Having spent a bit of time on this matter now, does he say that no harm could be produced by the relevation in a major national newspaper of techniques in counter-terrorism which had previously been disclosed in a technical journal? Does he say that there is no possibility of serious harm resulting from that second disclosure?
      Mr. Maclennan: By his riposte to my attack, the Home Secretary has demonstrated that he is trying to move the burden of proof from himself. He has been asked by several Conservative Members to give any instance he cares to choose of a situation in which the repetition of what is already public—that is, what is already not secret—could be damaging. Despite the fact that he has until 10 pm, and all hon. Members are ready to give way to him, he has not been able to show that the repetition of what is already in the public domain could be harmful.
      Mr. Rooker: There is a difficulty. I accept some of the thoughts behind the Home Secretary's position. If he gave an example to satisfy hon. Members' questions, the immediate response would be for hon. Members to ask "Why did you not prosecute?" Only that kind of example would be meaningful, but, clearly, it will not come from the Home Secretary.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Home Secretary's unwillingness or inability to give an example is a reflection of what is plain common sense—that what is already public cannot be secret. It is not only a matter of common sense but a matter of the meaning of language.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: I will give way in due course, but I hope that hon. Members will allow me to develop my argument.
      The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) put the case which has not yet been answered. When official information has been published, it is no longer secret and therefore it cannot in any real sense of the word need to be covered by the law.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Maclennan: I have not yet had an opportunity to develop my argument. I shall be willing to give way later.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The hon. Gentleman is making a bad case very slowly.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am making it slowly because of the number of interventions.
      I take seriously the Home Secretary's assertion that we must address the issue whether publication has caused harm. But this prior publication defence is intended to deal with issues where there is an absolute offence—for example, concerning information about the interception of communications or actions done under a warrant or by members of the intelligence or security services. These are absolute offences where there is no harm test.
      Mr. Jeremy Hanley rose—
      Mr. Maclennan: No, I must be allowed to finish at least a few sentences.
      There being no harm test involved, it seems clear that it is unreasonable not to recognise that if information of that kind—it is the "Spycatcher" situation—has been published, it should be open to journalists to repeat it.
      Mr. Hanley: Would the hon. Gentleman seek to defend a person in a situation where it was impossible to prove that he had put information in an obscure journal merely so that he could subsequently publish in a broader arena, and in a situation where it was impossible to prove that he had leaked the information to the first obscure journal?
      Mr. Maclennan: That point was ably dealt with by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, when he pointed out that, on the whole, spies are more inclined to read the technical journals than the columns of the Sun to get their information, and the damage will have been done by the first revelations.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Sloppy thinking.
      Mr. Maclennan: The Under-Secretary has come into the Committee late and has not heard any of the discussion on the amendment. If it is sloppy thinking, it is thinking that was espoused by the Conservative Government of which he was a member when they published the earlier measure. At no point during the debate has the Home Secretary attempted to explain why he has stood on his head, for that is what he has done. Although he has said, "We got it entirely wrong," he has not been prepared to give the reasoning why he has changed his mind.
      Mr. Hurd: I have not changed my mind.
      Mr. Maclennan: The right hon. Gentleman may not have changed his mind, but the Government have. The measure published in 1979 had a prior publication defence, as he knows.
      A telling point was made in an intervention by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) about the virtual certainty that what is proposed runs foul of article 2.2 of the European convention on human rights. The refusal to allow prior publication to be regarded as a proper defence is plainly disproportionate. There can be no question but that if the matter came before the European Court—as it definitely would if it ever got before a British court in the first place—we should again be dragged back and have the Government's position struck down.
      The Home Secretary said yesterday when I was dealing with the relevance of article 10 and the freedom of information guaranteed by the European convention that
      562
      he was prepared to consider the issue again and return to the matter at a later stage, having taken further advice. I hope that that is his intention, for if there is any part of the Bill which needs reconsideration, it is that applying to the republication of what is no longer secret. It must be ridiculous to make it a criminal offence to republish what is in the public domain.
      Mr. Whitney: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), like all other critics of the Bill, resolutely refuses to take on board the basic point that harm must be created. I do not know how often we need to repeat that. Unless additional harm can be proved, there can be no point in bringing a prosecution and one would not be brought.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, we are not living in a simple world of John Le Carré, of spying, of the Soviet Union and of dead letter boxes. It is a much more complicated world, one in which many other countries are potential enemies and involved in state terrorism. Indeed, the techniques used against the national interest go wide, into the sphere of political warfare and disinformation. It is against that much more complicated background that we must consider this legislation.
      I offer the Committee a case history so that we may understand what we must legislate for in relation to disinformation techniques and the like. My example is manufactured in the sense that it was a manufactured piece of intelligence from the Soviet intelligence service. That much seems to be well documented. It could have been a piece of real hard intelligence, although I am sure it was not.
      In mid-1983 the Soviet intelligence service started to create a story that AIDS was a phenomenon which had emerged from United States genetic engineering experiments in Fort Detrick in Maryland. It then sought to use the prior publication technique to sell that information around the world, and originally the Soviet magazine Liturnaya Gazeta quoted allegedly the Indian magazine Patriot as the original source of the story. Subsequently, Patriot denied that it was, but by that time the disinformation was on its way.
      It ran around the world, so that by 26 October 1986 it was a front page story in the Sunday Express, a major coup for that paper here. A certain Professor Jacob Segal was billed as a French professor—he was in fact an East German—and the same story was retailed. It went a month later to a Spanish magazine and then to an Argentine magazine, and each time it was quoted as being an original source.
      I offer that story to the Committee as a demonstration of a bogus piece of information, but a technique against which we must frame our legislation. It might have been a piece of real intelligence from British official sources.
      Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am not only most grateful to my hon. Friend but astonished by the example that he gives, which disproves his own argument. Is he postulating that because a rubbish newspaper with a big circulation chooses to run a daft story based on disinformation or lies generated by the Soviet intelligence service, that story should be subject to the test of harm or of prior publication?
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Besides, what does that have to do with the Bill?
      Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asks what it has to do with the Bill, which is an even more relevant question.
      Mr. Whitney: The example that I gave relates to a spurious item of intelligence, but the Committee should consider the techniques that are used in the world of disinformation and prior publication.
      For an example nearer home, I revert to the hypothetical case that I used when I intervened in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), which seemed to create some amusement among my hon. and right hon. Friends.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I want to be helpful to my hon. Friend, but he is travelling over terrain that is not to his advantage. Yesterday, we had the benefit of the background to the Chevaline case, but it bore no relationship to the example that my hon. Friend gives. It does not serve the purpose that he has construed that it will serve, but serves that identified by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in his exposition of that story, as to the nature of maintaining a vital defence secret from society. The right hon. Gentleman made the point that classification was broken under authorisation by our then Secretary of State for Defence, Francis Pym.
      Mr. Whitney: I am entirely aware of the point to which my hon. Friend refers. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), who obviously cannot be with the Committee tonight, put a certain gloss on those events. It may be that he had a certain interest, given that he was so closely involved in them.
      I ask my hon. Friend and the Committee to extend their imagination further. I well understand the role played by my noble Friend Lord Pym, but the situation then was different. The Conservative party and the British people as a whole understood—and still understand—the need to keep our Polaris submarines and nuclear missiles effective. The problem with the Labour Government's responsible leadership at that time was that they had grave doubts about the Labour party. I hope that my hon. Friend now better understands the example that I hypothesised.
      In 1975 or 1976, the Soviet network was, one must assume, effective enough to understand the work on Chevaline that had been put in hand. That is not the issue. But how easy it would have been to use the Indian Patriot or some other external newspaper as the medium of primary publication, and then to run in Britain the great story that the Labour Government were embarking on the Chevaline programme. Would the Labour Government have had the courage to admit to that decision, or would they have caved in? None of us shall ever know. My assumption is that the Labour Government would have turned tail and fled from Chevaline, and that British defence interests would then have been harmed.
      Ms. Abbott: I have listened carefully as the hon. Gentleman has given the Committee that example not once, but twice. I am clear that the second publication would have embarrassed the then Labour Government, but I am not clear why it would have materially affected British defence interests. Embarrassment is one thing, but matters of defence and national interest are another.
      Mr. Whitney: It is safe to assume that the information in question would have been well in the hands of hostile intelligence services, and had it appeared in an obscure
      564
      magazine published in some remote African town, no harm would have been done. But if that report had been picked up by the British press, it would have argued, under the test of prior publication, that as the "Tanganyika Echo" had carried that story, it could do so. If it had done so, it is 99 to 100 per cent. certain that the then Labour Government would have turned tail on their decision to develop Chevaline. Consequently, British defence interests would have been harmed.
      8.45 pm
      Sir Ian Gilmour: My hon. Friend's contention is that, had the provisions of the Bill been law at that time, the then Labour Government would have brought a prosecution against any newspaper that published such a report. Is he seriously suggesting that that example is relevant? My right hon. Friend's Bill may be illiberal, but I do not believe that it is as illiberal as that. Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that if a newspaper republished information that a Labour Government was spending money on updating nuclear weapons, they would have brought a prosecution?
      Mr. Whitney: I was seriously suggesting that, in the circumstances that I hypothesised, the then Labour Government would have given their eye teeth for the protection given by the Bill, because then such a report could not have appeared in the British press. I refer to the deterrent effect of such a provision. I do not know what a former Labour Government might have done, but does my right hon. Friend agree that British defence interests could have been harmed? We are all citing hypothetical cases, and by definition are stretching to know what might happen in certain circumstances.
      I offer the Committee another example.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend's first example seems risible to me. Is he suggesting that a defence of second publication is unnecessary on the basis that a Government might stop what they were doing, and that that of itself must be against the national interest? That is a ludicrous line of argument.
      Mr. Whitney: This is a more serious subject than my hon. Friend seems to allow. The record of a very few people in the last Labour Government keeping the Chevaline decision very secret is well known. The chances of that secret being known at the time would have been much greater without the defence of prior publication. I do not know what kind of secrets we might be talking about today, but it requires little imagination to bring the argument into the present and into the future, and to understand the defence of the national interest as opposed to a harm test that would have to be accepted by a court.
      Mr. Edward Heath: Is my hon. Friend saying that if information of the kind he described was published in a technical journal overseas and then republished in this country by newspapers, and that as a result, CND supporters in the Opposition brought down a Labour Government, that would be treated as a case of harm?
      Mr. Whitney: My right hon. Friend takes a more sanguine view than that to which his normal state of pessimism has accustomed us. He assumes that the Labour Government would have fallen. I hope that he is right. I agree that their chances of falling at the next general

      565
      election would have been high, but that might have been some time away, and we would have suffered four more years of harm under a Labour Government that had written off a sensible defence policy that my right hon. Friend had launched.
      I give the Committee another example, which concerns publication of the name of a former head of MI6. These days, we are accustomed to such names being published, but in days before, that was not the case. Once that name was published in a German magazine in 1976, a British newspaper carried a photograph of the head of MI6 on its front page. That is dangerous. It exposed that individual to terrorist risk. That is another example of prior publication. Admittedly, and sadly, in that area, we have moved on.
      This is the real world. This is not the simple world in which my right hon. Friends are able to make fun of these propositions. The serious proposition is that the harm must be proved. It is very difficult; it must be perfectly clear to a court. Therefore it is extraordinary, as has been said many times this evening, that those who criticise the Bill seem to think that there can be no case at all in which harm can be created. The reality, of course, is that it can be created.
      Mr. Dalyell: Unlike the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), I do not think that the Home Secretary was floundering or bantering on this issue. If the House of Commons is to be responsible about this we have to take what the Home Secretary says about Governments extremely seriously. In fact, it is frivolous not to.
      I say to the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) that the Chevaline issue was very complicated. When I tried to rebuke Jim Callaghan when the first bombshell of Chevaline came, he replied very sweetly, as only a former Prime Minister can, "You didn't have the wit to ask me." Nor, indeed, did any of us. Secondly, technically, I am told, Chevaline was a very complex upgrading issue. It was not a new project and there was not an element of deceit. I am not at all sure that it was a good example, but I do not want to stray.
      I want to put two questions to the Home Secretary. He intervened to respond to a point that was made much earlier by the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) about the repetition of information conveyed and covered by so-called absolute offences. The right hon. Gentleman referred, in replying to his hon. Friend, to clause 5(3). Could I ask him to confirm that clause 5(3) has nothing to do with absolute offences? It refers to offences under clauses 1 to 3, which contain harm tests. The absolute offences that we are talking about are in clause 4(3). Any and every repetition of this information is a fresh offence regardless of whether it causes harm and even if it is clear that no harm is done. The 20th or 30th repetition of information covered by clause 4(3)—that is, unauthorised phone tapping—is still an offence. Is this not a ludicrous situation?
      Mr. Hurd: The absolute offence to which the Committee has given most attention—quite naturally, it took up most of our first day—is created under clause 1: that is, the offence for a member or former member of the security or intelligence services to make a disclosure which relates or purports to relate to security or intelligence. That offence, commonly called an absolute offence, is covered, as the hon. Gentleman will see, by clause 5(3),
      566
      which he quoted. He is perfectly correct to say that the other so-called absolute offence, which has to do with warrants legally issued, comes under clause 4 and is therefore not caught by clause 5(3). But the first one, revelations by members or former members of the security or intelligence services, is covered in the cases we are talking about.
      Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy.
      On the question of Wright, which I think a lot of this is about, my opinion—I say nothing that I did not say on behalf of the national executive when I was asked at the Bournemouth conference—is that Wright was a fantasist. He was plain wrong on a whole list of things, for instance about Alistair Watson. I believed the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he said that it was quite untrue that Victor Rothschild introduced Wright to him when he was Prime Minister. That appears in the book, and there are all sorts of other inaccuracies. Everything that one has first-hand knowledge of seems to have been rather wide of the mark.
      My question is this: in these circumstances why did the Government not shrug their collective shoulders, smile gently and let it sail by? What was the purpose of drawing such attention to this? One has one's suspicions, but they may not be for this debate, that it was to make a political point, which was very different from the ostensible reason.
      I shall be supporting, I suppose—with all the reservations I have mentioned, because we take the Home Secretary's point very seriously—the spirit of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), because of the sort of case that occurred in the Zircon affair. It may be within the recollection of the House that Zircon got great publicity, although when one looked at the film it was perhaps all a bit tame.
      The serious point for the Committee is that in a magazine called Interspace there were far more useful technical details of the elevation of Skynet IV than appeared either in the film that Duncan Campbell made or in any sections of the press. In that technical magazine, edited by Roger Stanyard, there was information that was far more useful; and the February 1985 Newsletter, like every other Interspace publication, was on the mailing list of Intersputnik, the technical headquarters in Moscow. It really seems a bit absurd to make such a fuss about Zircon when the technical details were on the Soviet mailing list.
      Mr. Corbett: Does my hon. Friend share my memory of the Zircon affair, that the Government's major objection was that the name of that project had become public and this would send yet another signal to the United States that the Government were unable to keep secrets?
      Mr. Dalyell: I think that it was partly about the Americans and partly about another film in the series, which was politically embarrassing, called "Cabinet". In a sense it just proves that what is politically embarrassing is far more serious than national security.
      I sit down with the reflection of Sir Frank Cooper, the former permanent secretary to the Ministry of Defence, who said that all this information was well known to every schoolchild in Milton Keynes.
      In these circumstances I think we ought to take on board the general principles.
      Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. During the Zircon affair, am I not right in my recollection that the Leader of the Opposition was invited to the Ministry of Defence on Privy Council terms and given a full briefing and came out acknowledging that a security breach had been committed?
      Mr. Dalyell: I just leave it that I was not present at that meeting.
      9 pm
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I do not know why so many Members from all corners of the House—the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is an exception—are treating this very important issue of national security in quite such a cavalier fashion. I am not sure that it will do much for the regard with which this place is held in the country when people hear these debates.
      I object to the amendments on two grounds. First, they might do harm to the future security of the state, and secondly, they would make it more difficult for an innocent person accused of an official secrets offence to be acquitted. I do not understand why Opposition Members think that either of those results is worth arguing for.
      I also do not understand why the fact that a damaging disclosure has been made somewhere before should be a complete defence to a second publication, if that second publication is itself harmful. Of course, I have heard both Conservative and Labour Members say that once a secret is out it is no longer a secret, ha ha. But we are not playing with words; we are talking about harm to the national interest. I do not understand why my hon. Friends are arguing that if some damaging revelation reaches two people it might just as well reach 2 million people. There may be many circumstances where some things are damaging and they become more damaging the more people know about them.
      I have heard some of my hon. Friends asking other hon. Members for examples. I can give some examples. If the news that some gold bullion is walled up in the Hammersmith flyover appears in the sort of publication that virtually nobody reads and then wide coverage is given in a national newspaper, so that all the criminals in London start hacking away at Hammersmith flyover to get the bullion out, surely the fact that more people know about that official secret—as it may be under clause 4, which covers crime—is more harmful?
      Suppose that a nuclear aeroplane crashed somewhere in the Channel and somebody somewhere says "Well, I think it is just four miles off Calais and five miles down from a rock," and that is published in a publication. Perhaps it is just speculation, but then somebody else decides to publish it because it is a fascinating secret that would generate a lot of newspaper sales. An enormous amount of harm might be done to something, which it was vital should not be published in the national interest.
      Perhaps somebody will give the name of a villain who is kept in custody at Winson Green prison. Perhaps at some time it would be easier to spring him from there than from some other prison. The more people who know that fact, the more likely it is that serious criminal offences will be committed.
      One could go on. The point is that the more people who know something that is damaging and harmful, the more harm may be done. We are talking nonsense if we say that,
      568
      just because a fact has got out in one place, it can never cause more harm, however many times it is repeated to other people. That just goes against common sense.
      Mr. Corbett: I must defend the integrity of the staff and governor of Winson Green prison, although that is by the by. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman really saying that those responsible for the management and conduct of our national press are all as irresponsible as he is making them out to be?
      Mr. Lawrence: Sometimes—and that "sometimes" might do a lot of harm to the security of the nation. All I am saying is that it is wholly reasonable for prior publication to be an argument for not convicting someone where no harm is done by a second or subsequent publication, but it is wholly unreasonable to say that harm will never ever be done by a further publication. Those who have been advancing that argument are—I hope they will forgive me for being impertinent—talking nonsense.
      What of the man who wanted to sell his official secrets to a publisher? It would make a mockery of the Bill if such a person could get round it by going to the United States, Australia, the Solomon Islands—I hope that no one will say that that is a terrible defamation of the Solomon Islands—or anywhere in the world and publishing, if, as a result of that publication, he could argue that, because the secret had been published elsewhere, that was a defence. He would be able not only to drive a coach and horses through the legislation, but completely to ignore it. I cannot believe that hon. Members want no Official Secrets Act. I simply do not understand why they seem to be agitating for the amendment.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: If an individual, whether a Crown servant or otherwise, publishes abroad in contravention of his duties under the Act, he commits an offence. No defence of prior publication protects him against that. If he comes back to Britain and is therefore in the jurisdiction, he will be prosecuted, and rightly so.
      Mr. Lawrence: But we may not be able to prosecute him for an offence that he has committed abroad, if he stays outside the jurisdiction and there is no way of bringing him back to Britain for trial. That is precisely what happened with Peter Wright. Although he might have committed a criminal offence if what he had done had been committed in Britain, he could not be prosecuted for that criminal offence because he was outside the jurisdiction and there was no way to get him back into Britain to be prosecuted.
      I have the greatest respect for my hon. Friend and for the courage and tenacity with which he has proceeded, but if he thinks that the point that he has just made is a good one, some may wonder whether all the points he has been making by way of intervention have been as good as he thinks they are.
      Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with almost everything that my hon. and learned Friend has said, but I hope that he will do justice to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has said. He appears to be saying that if the person who had committed an offence by publishing abroad came back to Britain he could be prosecuted, but not otherwise. Surely the same is true if he remained abroad and published here, so I do not think that that is a particularly good argument either.
      Mr. Lawrence: The suggestion in the amendment is that there should be a defence if there is prior publication in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. If the prior publication had been in another country where there was no extradition, then, even though that prior publication was a criminal offence, the claim that prior publication is no protection when a criminal offence has been committed simply would not apply. A man who had released that publication in breach of our Official Secrets Act could not, in fact, be convicted if he was in a country from which there was no extradition. Therefore, no criminal offence would have been committed. As a result, the prior publication defence would be perfectly usable if we gave one.
      I am saying that a coach and horses would be driven through the Bill, or it could be completely sidestepped, by somebody going abroad, committing a criminal offence by publishing something that is harmful to the state and then somebody here saying that there was prior publication. If the second publication causes no harm because all the world knows what was published in some other country, there will be no prosecution.
      That brings me to the second heading. We talked about the same kind of thing when we dealt with the public interest defence. I do not understand why those who want to protect the honest whistleblower want to make it more difficult for him to be acquitted. Perhaps they do not follow the legal process. If the burden is on the prosecution to prove that harm has been caused and it is obvious that there has been no harm because there has been some prior publication, no prosecution may be initiated.
      Let us suppose that the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, or whoever makes these decisions, decides that he wants to prosecute because he believes that there is a chance that somebody will be convicted—which is not a good way of initiating prosecutions. If the prosecution is unable to discharge its burden of proving that harm is being caused because of the release of that information, the case will be stopped by the judge. Whether there is no prosecution in the first place or whether the case is stopped by the judge, those things will occur before the onus moves to the defendant to initiate a defence. By that time, he has been through the expensive process of having lawyers spending more time in court and he is running the risk that his defence might go wrong and a jury might disbelieve him.
      I was howled down this afternoon because I dared to defend the independent Bar. However, in this case right hon. and hon. Members want to give more money to lawyers, want more prosecutions to be initiated, want longer trials and want to put more innocent people at risk. I do not understand that.
      We have never had a defence of prior publication, because of the harm that it might do to the security of the state. It is not that it will certainly do so on tens of thousands of occasions, but that it might do so on some occasions. It is a sensible preventive device not to allow any more chance of harm to the national interest than is necessary.
      I have heard no good reason why we should start now with the defence of prior publication, especially if it might mean more innocent people being placed at risk.
      Mr. Heath: I wish to make three points. First, I say to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that the reason why there has been considerable hilarity over some of the speeches this evening is that the
      570
      examples which have been cited of a possible offence have been ridiculous. My hon. and learned Friend, in his opening remarks, gave no examples which one could in any way relate to the serious matter of national security. That is why we were amused.
      Secondly, a few years ago the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) intervened in a debate—he spoke as a former Secretary of State for Defence and Chancellor of the Exchequer—to tell the House that the Chevaline question was decided by the 1970–74 Government. I have never disputed that. That makes the discussion tonight all the more irrelevant.
      Mr. Whitney rose—
      Mr. Heath: Of course I shall give way. I know that my hon. Friend has a bee in his bonnet.
      Mr. Whitney: I recognise that it was my right hon. Friend and his Government who took the first decision, and he very much deserves to be congratulated on it. Had the example that I suggested transpired and if, in the first 18 months of a Labour Government, they had faced the attack which would have been launched and they had cancelled Chevaline at that stage, does not my right hon. Friend feel that the national interest would have been harmed?
      Mr. Heath: No. I do not accept either the proposition put forward by my hon. Friend or the one put forward by myself.
      What happened was that Lord Wilson, as he now is, in 1964 fought the election on the abolition of nuclear weapons in this country, and was kept in power until 1970 by maintaining them. As he was Prime Minister at the time that my hon. Friend mentioned, he would have done exactly the same if anybody had put forward the sort of propositions which my hon. Friend has just mentioned. I have none of the anxieties of my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if they keep him awake at night.
      The third question was the one raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton and one or two hon. Members previously. Why do we say that this amendment is desirable? I shall explain it as briefly as I can.
      9.15 pm
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has gone to considerable lengths to show us how difficult it would be for the prosecution ever to bring a successful case in this matter. He has not been able to give any examples in which such a case could be brought, and he is an imaginative man. He writes excellent novels, but he cannot produce any convincing novel tonight. I accept that he has gone to great lengths to show that the hurdles which any prosecution would have to jump, to have any chance of success, are very high.
      I accept that, so why am I worried about it? If the Bill remains as it is, the use of the threat of prosecution against the media in every form is not only undesirable; it is disastrous. The Government have only themselves to blame for these thoughts being in people's minds after 1 he lengths to which they were prepared to go over "Spycatcher", and after the events surrounding the BBC incident in Glasgow.
      We have heard examples of the way in which news and information have been suppressed and we are forced to recognise that a Minister, the Attorney-General, the Home

      571
      Secretary or someone acting in the name of the Prime Minister may go to an editor, or to the chairman of the BBC or ITN, and say, "Look, this is in the Bill. We've heard that you've got hold of something which was published in a small column in a technical journal in Singapore, and you are now proposing to publish it. If you do, the prosecution will wade in. Think of what it's going to cost you to try to fight this off." That is the real danger, and it should not be allowed to exist in a parliamentary democracy.
      We are now the most secretive country in the world, and that is not healthy. We have heard far too many examples of that technique being used against the media. It may well now be used against Members of Parliament and others who have information because they travel widely and read journals.
      When I am asked why I believe that the amendment should be accepted and why, even though there is a slight risk of it happening, I am prepared to take that risk, the answer is that I believe that the greater danger comes from the use of the threat against the media and those who have the responsibility to keep the public informed and against the right that the British public has to be informed. That simply is the justification for dealing with the matter through the amendment.
      Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ladies of the Burton Conservative Association hang upon his every word in this place? They were greatly disturbed when he quoted what I said in a debate on this Bill. He said:
      "No, let us get it away and let us get to bed. The only thing that concerns him"—
      that is, me—

      "is how early he can get to bed."—[Official Report, 13 February 1989; Vol. 147, C. 86.]
      I hope that my right hon. Friend will be good enough to retract that quite scurrilous allegation or, more interestingly, give examples—or is he saying that what he said was in the public interest?
      Mr. Heath: My hon. and learned Friend had better consult Hansard and he will see how he ended his address. I am sorry that the ladies in his constituency are worried about him. I should have thought that, using such phraseology, some of them might have been rather flattered. Perhaps he can explain why the gentlemen of Burton are not in the least worried about that.
      Mr. Foot: It is a great delight to follow the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who is in such excellent form, and getting his troops off to bed as he used to when he was Chief Whip. He is doing so a little earlier tonight. It is dangerous for any Conservative Members to interrupt him, because they will be sent off 'without any chance of returning with a sufficient retort for quite a long time. They should be more cautious about the way they interrupt the right hon. Gentleman.
      In one sense I differ from the right hon. Gentleman: I have more sympathy for the Home Secretary than he displayed. I shall return later to the more general points that he made.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that it is absurd for any hon. Member to say that the case that the Home Secretary made to us tonight
      572
      was not serious. Of course it was. He argued it seriously, and although he could not give any specific examples when asked to do so, he described the modern circumstances in which such republication could be severely damaging.
      It is no good any hon. Member contributing to this debate without admitting that the Home Secretary presented a serious argument to the House and the country. In some debates it is much more important to go for the strong parts of an opponent's argument than the weak ones—there are usually plenty of those. When I hear some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, I am reconverted 100 per cent. to the case against him. If we can only isolate the Home Secretary and his case from that embroidered by some of his supporters, we should try to answer it.
      Although unable to give actual illustrations, the right hon. Gentleman was able to show that dangers could exist—particularly in the growth of terrorist affairs throughout the world. Nobody would dispute that those dangers are increasing year by year—almost month by month. I understand that there are circumstances in which it could be said that republication could place in the hands of terrorists in some countries information that they might not have received from the original publication. That part of the right hon. Gentleman's argument at any rate should be accepted, perhaps not as conclusive, but as one part of the general argument with which we must deal.
      When we agree with the Home Secretary and admit that such cases exist and that he is trying to guard us and the rest of the country against peril, surely, in fairness—and particularly in the light of the previous discussions—the right hon. Gentleman should try to understand the other side of the argument. He has not really attempted to do so.
      I speak as a journalist who, for quite a number of years, was the editor of a newspaper. It is a difficult job; people have to make up their minds on many matters in a short space of time. They have to make judgments, not necessarily in the same way as politicians, who may have a little longer. With newspapers going to press every day, journalists have to make up their minds quickly. I believe that the Home Secretary and the Government have a duty to consider the kind of problems that journalists face.
      I am talking about only the most reputable newspapers. I do not care about the Sun and other such newspapers, which I do not regard as newspapers at all. Nobody needs to worry about them—although they are the newspapers that are fed through the corrupt machine to which the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup sometimes refers. I do not wish to disregard what he has said on that subject. Of course he is perfectly right to describe the relationship between the Government and the press generally—which is of serious consequence to the country—as corrupt, particularly in the way that information about terrorism is fed to newspapers.
      What happened in the Gibraltar case was outrageous. The Home Secretary told us to look at terrorist examples. Yet a few days after the shooting in Gibraltar, what was fed out to the press by the Bernard Ingham machine and taken up by papers such as The Sunday Times was lies, for which they had to pay thousands of pounds in damages to people who had been maligned. Some of those libel actions were fed out from No. 10 Downing street—[Interruption.]—and it is no good for the Home Secretary to laugh.
      We want to clean up these matters. It makes it more difficult for the House to deal with this question, with the terrorist question and with its dangers in the proper way

      573
      while we have that corrupt relationship between No. 10 Downing street and a great section of the press. The Government have come near to proving the case on that, because they have not had a word to say in answer to that charge. But in the light of the new terrorist dangers, in the light of the way in which those matters are now dealt with by No. 10 Downing street and elsewhere, and especially in the light of the way in which the best newspapers in the country—I leave out all the Murdoch lot—had to deal with the problem all through the "Spycatcher" affair, it is not satisfactory that the Home Secretary should take no account of the problems that they had to face.
      Mr. Hurd rose—
      Mr. Foot: I shall give way in a moment.
      The Independent, The Guardian and The Observer, three reputable newspapers, had to choose whether to risk prosecution. Newspapers do not like to be prosecuted because they are considered to be guilty of injuring the defence of the nation. All those newspapers had to take the decision whether to reprint matters that were widely published in other parts of the world. They were told that they would be committing an offence if they did so and would have to spend tens of thousands of pounds if they went ahead.
      Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the fair-minded comment at the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I wonder whether we can strike a bargain. Can we agree that we do not have to choose between saying that prior publication can never be a defence and saying that it must always be an absolute defence? Can we meet in the middle and leave it to the jury?
      Mr. Foot: I am grateful for the Home Secretary's intervention. I was going to come to my bargain, although I do not have the permission of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) who moved amendment No. 37, so I would have made it my own proposition. The Home Secretary has come to a proposed bargain before, but this is not a satisfactory bargain. The House must decide such matters. It is no good to say, "Leave it to the jury." What will be put to the jury? We know what judges have said. We do not always have to listen to them, but the judges said at the end of the "Spycatcher" affair, "We had better have some greater clarity about the law. The only people who can do that are the House of Commons and Parliament." That is what the judges should say when they find themselves in a hopeless mess and tangle, as they were at the end of the "Spycatcher" affair, and that is what they did say.
      It is no good for the Home Secretary to say that we do not need to change the law, but should leave it to the jury to sort out afterwards. That is not satisfactory and does not meet the criticisms about prior publication that were made by the judges. At the end of the "Spycatcher" affair, the implication of most of the judgment was that there should be some changes in the law to prevent the British Government from going ahead with an appeal when they had a case that could not survive. The Government failed hopelessly. We must sort the matter out. It is no good to say that we should leave it to the jury. We must have a change in the law which makes the matter clearer.
      If the Home Secretary really wants a bargain, he should consider amendment No. 37, which the right hon. Member
      574
      for Chesham and Amersham moved so excellently. Nobody who has listened to the debate can deny that there is a powerful case for the amendment.
      9.30 pm
      I do not think that the Home Secretary was putting up a fake case. I think that he was speaking from the point of view of what he considered to be necessity as a person who is partly in charge of dealing with the appalling problems of terrorism that we face in modern society. If the Government had the good will to do so, they could modify the amendment to satisfy both objectives and to give proper guidance to the jury. We could add the word "substantially" so that the provision read, "information which … had substantially become available". That would guard against the danger of the abstruse single matter which it was claimed would give the defence for the larger newspapers back here.
      I am sure that the Government could come up with an amendment which would be satisfactory for their purpose but help the decent editors in this country—those who are trying to serve the public by providing them with news which, in the "Spycatcher" case, was available all over the world. What happened in that case was an absurdity of the first order, and I do not imagine that the Home Secretary would dream of defending it. The principal decent newspapers—I am excluding all the Murdoch lot—could not report, for the benefit of the people of this country, what was being read about all over the world. That is not tolerable, and it is not tolerable for the Home Secretary to come along and say, "I am very sorry. I cannot do anything about that. Compared with the other problems with which I have to deal, it is not very important." It is not good enough, after all this muddle, to say yet again that we must leave the jury to sort it out.
      I plead with the Home Secretary yet again—as hon. Members have on other clauses of the Bill—to take the provision away and see whether he cannot find an alternative wording to ensure that, even if prepublication were not a defence in 100 per cent. of cases, it would be a defence in most cases. That would relieve decent editors, who have faced problems over the past year or so, of their difficulty. That would be good not only for the editors and their peace of mind, but for the health of free debate in this democracy of ours. If the Home Secretary believes in that free democracy—and I think he does—I hope that he will be prepared to reconsider the amendment, which is one of the most important that has been proposed in Committee.
      Mr. Dykes: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will respond to that invitation. There are those among us who have sympathy with the Home Secretary and appreciate the underlying importance of the clause. We have a natural preoccupation with the genuine security interests of the nation, the British public and our armed forces. I freely acknowledge that I am tempted in that direction. I was disappointed, therefore, when the Home Secretary intervened to give his reaction. With respect, I do not think that he dealt with the points of anxiety raised by hon. Members, especially Conservative Members who support my right hon. Friend's amendment.
      I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) will not mind my saying this, as he knows that I have great respect for him and for his experience in these matters, but I think that his examples

      575
      added enormously to the Committee's confusion and that they were ill chosen. I was struck by the enigma that arises from his allusion to the mention in a German magazine of the MI5 chief. I believe that 70,000 people fly across the Atlantic every day. That sounds like an enormous number—something like 140 planes, each with 500 people on board. I imagine that about 5,000 people, mostly business people, come back from Germany to Britain each day. I could postulate that perhaps half of them, one way or another—either by speaking German or by having it drawn to their attention by somebody who spoke English, as a lot of people in Germany do—could come by this information. Half would be 2,500 people, and those people would then come back with the name of the head of MI5 and pass it on to friends at dinner parties. What would my right hon. Friend say in those circumstances? Would he say that too few people in Britain knew about this secret once they got back to Heathrow, or too many?
      Mr. Whitney: My hon. Friend has given a figure of 2,500. I do not know the total readership of the Evening Standard—perhaps 1 million or 2 million—but what we are talking about is a risk growth of 2,500 to perhaps 1 or 2 million, and out of that number there might well be some crazy person who would say "If that man is the head of MI5 I will go and assassinate him." That is the danger. That is the public harm that is created.
      Mr. Dykes: One always comes back to the conclusion that these things are being postulated—I refer to this clause without amendment—for the convenience of any given Administration, or its security branch, or the service chiefs, to prevent embarrassing things from being revealed, rather than for genuine, intrinsic national security. That is the conclusion one keeps coming to.
      Mr. Hurd: That exchange between my two hon. Friends is interesting, because it is precisely the kind of exchange which, under the Bill, might take place between the prosecution and the defence. Is my hon. Friend so unhappy about his chances of success with that argument that he believes that he must win automatically without the case being heard at all? Why could the matter not be left to a jury?
      Mr. Dykes: We are not dealing with espionage and the true breaches of security that are dealt with in part 1 of the Official Secrets Act. This is the ultimate absurdity of the "Spycatcher" example. I suppose that one could say there is a complete range, from the tiny little technical journal. I hope that my right hon. Friend was not suggesting that Literaturnaya Gazyeta was in that category, because, as it is a wide circulation newspaper in the Soviet Union, its editor would be most offended. I will not mention by name the tiny technical journals of the kind that I have in mind, because I might offend some trade association or other, but a tiny technical journal might publish something, and a newspaper with a large circulation might be the next publication to carry it.
      Then at the other end of this range of absurdities—and most of the real-world examples will, of course, be within the range, is "Spycatcher". That is what most induces hon. Members in all parts of the House to insist on this amendment. At least I hope they will, unless we can get a further explanation or reaction from the Home Secretary
      576
      to the offer that has been made by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). However, I do not think that that will be forthcoming tonight.
      Inevitably we come back to the conclusion that the Government—and this is an anxiety that journalists have expressed already—would rather threaten the press with something that would be embarrassing than provide for something that is a genuine aspect of national security. I do not think that the case for not amending this clause can be based on vague suppositions about the efficiency or inefficiency of foreign intelligence services. It is all far too conjectural.
      Let me give another theoretical example—and I hope that no one will misunderstand me. Hon. Members in all parts of the House condemn the growth in world terrorism and, indeed, in state or quasi-state terrorism. I will not mention any real-world examples, because I do not want to offend hon. Members, but what if we were imbued with the idea of a just cause for terrorist acts? At the moment, I do not myself particularly see them, although one can sometimes go back to historical acts or mistakes in particular countries, producing a terrorist reaction. We condemn the act itself, even if not the underlying causes.
      What if there were manifestly an overwhelming conviction that the cause was a just one and either a foreign Government or the British Government—in this case, we are considering only a British Government—decided that they had to suppress all information because it was embarrassing in the context of their own policies and had nothing to do with state security? I wonder also whether we are grappling with the notion of a high hurdle or with the notion of a low hurdle. Was "Spycatcher" a high hurdle for the Government because of the absurd result, or was it originally deemed to be a low hurdle, and is that why hundreds of thousands of pounds were expended—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Millions.
      Mr. Dykes: Yes, millions.
      —and in the end we had a laughable result? Is that the reason for the endless farce so far as the true arguments about state security and the true protection of the public are concerned?
      We have had absurd examples from the past of the security services rampaging round London making fools of themselves. I am sad to say that, by definition, those people are not always stable in character and behaviour; they are often fanatical and strange. The nature of the activity attracts people like that. Covering up such activity in the past does not protect the present security of the country.
      The Americans and the French also have a reputation for secrecy, but it is now much less than ours. The obsession with secrecy has grown extraordinarily in recent years in this country. No theoretical examples were available to those defending the existing text of the Bill, nor could my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary produce a conjectural reason why the existing clause should be supported. I can understand why. I am not criticising him, because I can see the dilemma that he was in.
      Because the public interest debate was turned down by the Government—a great opportunity lost—we have a tragic result. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) might accept

      577
      textual adjustments to the wording which he has felicitously presented to the Committee. Without the public interest defence, the amendment is even more necessary. I hope that that is the conclusion of the Committee.
      Mr. Rooker: There has been a presumption throughout the debate that the first disclosure is a minor disclosure. There have been constant references to the small circulation of technical magazines. One can think of many examples. The first disclosure may not be minor but if there is not a prosecution, the disclosure may be repeated and there may then be an attempted prosecution. Does the person who publishes the story the second time know that all the harm that could have been done was done the first time? Because there was no prosecution the first time, even though there was a small circulation, the person might think that he could repeat the story.
      We were told in the White Paper that by and large people should know whether they would be liable to prosecution. A publication with a big circulation is not necessarily wrong in repeating a story that first appeared in a small paper. Action might not have been taken the first time but might be taken the second time because someone decides that harm is done the second time. Some people may wonder why there was not a prosecution the first time. That point should be addressed by the Home Secretary.
      If these proceedings were not being guillotined, and if we were conducting the sort of scrutiny which we would in Standing Committee, and which it is the duty of the Chair to see that we do, I would ask a question which arises from an intervention by the Home Secretary. In response to the Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) said that the MI5 person would not be covered because he would be dealt with by clause 1. Why is clause 5(6) in the Bill? I do not know. I should like an explanation. lf there is time for an explanation before the guillotine drops, we will be grateful, even though in asking the question I realise that I am out of order.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Aitken: The Committee has had a very good and reflective debate. Although I was not entirely convinced, the Home Secretary's speech deployed a case which needs a serious answer. Ultimately, the clause involves a very fine balance which must have been recognised by the Government, as in 1979, under Lord Whitelaw, their Official Secrets Bill contained a prior publication defence. Although Lord Whitelaw is no great softy when it comes to freedom of the press and libertarian instincts, he put in the prior publication defence and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary took it out. That demonstrates the fine distinction as to what is the right course.
      It comes down to one question: in what sort of society do we want to live and have our freedom? My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) hit the nail on the head when he said that he felt that Britain today is the most secretive country in the free world. It has become so secret as a result of a large number of new pressures of which "Spycatcher" was perhaps the most spectacular example.
      Of course my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is right to deploy the thesis that there could be some risk from second publication. I should have been more convinced had he been able to give a single example from his imagination or his knowledge; nevertheless, the
      578
      Committee should accept that possibility. However, one has to balance that risk against not whether we are prepared to take a risk, but whether we are prepared to have a law that will be an ass and ultimately will make the Government look silly. That is the area of choice.
      Two different mentalities are involved. The Home Secretary, who sounded so reasonable, so sensible and so civilised, represents the Whitehall mentality. My right hon. Friend sprang from Whitehall and he still has more than a touch of the mandarin's mind in his politician's garments. That mandarin's mind really wants to keep the lid on as tight as possible. One can give numerous examples about how that mandarin's mind works. I remember vividly how Whitehall clamped D notices on British newspapers when George Blake was coming to trial. George Blake was a famous double agent. There was no question of anything being revealed by the British press which the Soviets did not already know. The Government were trying to suppress the truth from the people of Britain, not keep the lid on something that was a genuine security matter in respect of the Soviet Union.
      I remember one moment during my own trial at the Old Bailey. A deputy secretary at the Foreign Office had some difficulty in explaining how the report on which the whole case turned could possibly be secret when every single fact had already been published. Perhaps the most embarrassing fact was that a Foreign Office official had actually written the report. In a rather memorable moment of cross-examination, the defence counsel asked the Foreign Office official if, when he gave a briefing on the report, he had to pretend that he was the hall porter or to wear a mask, since the only problem was that his identity had been revealed. The Foreign Office official paused for a long time before saying, "Well, it was very embarrassing, and embarrassment and security are not really two different things." That is the Whitehall mentality when it comes to suppressing information.
      Let us suppose that we were in the United States and our debates were being televised. How staggered and stunned the American public would be to see a great democracy such as Great Britain solemnly arguing about imposing major suppressing devices and shackling the press and saying that if a secret has already been published it should be an offence for a second publication to take place. It would be totally against the United States Constitution, the Freedom of Information Act and the whole tradition of investigative journalism where reporters are not mere messenger boys, the lickspittles of the lobby, or the Ingham hallelujah chorus but real detectives of democracy. The whole ethos of American society is an open society.
      Mr. Whitney: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of origins—he has referred to our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and his Whitehall origins—does he agree that his own distinguished journalistic origins might have coloured his attitudes? As we look at this difficult issue, which, as my hon. Friend has said, is extremely finely balanced, his instincts stem from a journalistic approach, just as my right hon. Friend's instincts stem from the interests of the state. We accept that there is a difference, but there is nothing wrong with that. If there is an allegation of bias, there may also be motes in other people's eyes.
      Mr. Aitken: I cheerfully plead guilty to the mote in my eye and to believing in openness and in the freedom of the press. I am not ashamed of that, any more than my hon. Friend should be ashamed of some of his origins which are cloaked in mystery.
      The amendment comes down to the kind of society that we want to live in. There is nothing wrong with the concept that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) wants to personalize—perhaps I do, too. On the one hand, we have the openness and journalists' mentality—let us not forget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) was a most distinguished editor and newspaper owner in his day—and on the other hand we have the Whitehall mentality of the Treasury Bench.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the Whitehall mentality has become gravely tarnished in the past few years as a result of excessively authoritarian behaviour by the Government of the day. Let us look at the "Spycatcher" affair and the way in which the Gibraltar press matters were handled. I am talking not about security matters but about the briefings that were put out about the Gibraltar affair. The Government have unclean hands when it comes to freedom versus authoritarianism. The ghost of Peter Wright stalks through the pages of the Bill. There is the absurdity of going after another Peter Wright, and being able to clobber him and, above all, letting the threat of prosecution dangle like an unpleasant sword of Damocles over the head of every editor, so that they will face enormous costs if they dare to take a risk on a second publication.
      It is nonsense to spend vast sums of public money trying to chase after a horse that has already bolted and to slam a stable door that cannot be sensibly closed, unless one is in the vindictive and authoritarian frame of mind that the Government got into in the "Spycatcher" affair.
      I remind hon. Members of Jefferson's famous phrase. He said that if he had to choose between a Government without newspapers or newspapers without a Government, he would choose the latter. I would choose the Bill without this clause, because it is a threat to newspapers which are still a healthy influence in our society.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is a rare privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on a theme that is central to the issue. We are concerned—I willingly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and observe the points made by the former leader of my party—because the Bill is constructed in such a way as to reject any of the balances and contentions that a free society needs. It is allied to the Security Service Bill, which created several absolute offences. Even the construction of this Bill, with its absolute offences and low damage tests, creates a new offence in connection with publication.
      Clause 6 prevents the repetition in the United Kingdom press of information leaked abroad by someone not subject to the Bill—for example, a foreign civil servant or an EEC official. We have pursued this matter, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accepted it as far back as the White Paper. It was a narrow addition to the limitations on the press to publish, but it was a limitation. It is now graver and more serious. We have a portrayal of
      580
      the Government's increasingly authoritarian attitude to the press. It is a genuine worry, and it is why we support the contention behind the amendment.
      By the Home Secretary's hypothesis, they are matters which concern us, and we appreciate the fineness of the judgment in this area, but it is clear that he has constructed a Bill which does not provide the balance that our democracy needs. The prime purpose of a free press is to preserve public control over the men and measures of Government, to use a well-known expression.
      The Home Secretary did not give an example where the second publication could cause harm. This is the creation of a new publishing offence. A newspaper may not publish, without the possibility of prosecution, information that has been leaked in Belgium or in Italy or information given by the British Government to one of those Governments. If it is published in one of those countries and is then published again in this country—currently, that is not an offence—it may be an offence under the Bill. The Home Secretary has acknowledged that, yet it remains in the Bill. That must mean that he is creating a new offence, and I still do not understand the necessity to create a new offence against the press.
      This is the Wright trial all over again. One of our judges said in that instance:
      "The Crown is only entitled to restrain the publication of intelligence information if such publication would be against the public interest"—
      we agree with that—
      "as it normally will be if theretofore undisclosed. But if the matter sought to be published is no longer secret, there is unlikely to be any damage to the public interest."
      I quote that from Lord Brightman. I will not speak at length because I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham wishes to address the Committee. The amendment is worthy of consideration.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I am surprised that the Home
      Secretary did not use the most obvious example of damage that could be done the second time round, which was the action in the "Spycatcher" trial. That caused damage because it spread a great deal of knowledge—I do not know how much of it was right; clearly a great deal of it was wrong—around the world. That was perhaps the best example that could have been given, but it was not employed.
      I was not joking when I was said to be cavalier by some of my hon. Friends, who are perhaps themselves in danger of being pompous. I said that the amendment was designed to help the Government rather than the people of the nation because it would prevent cases such as "Spycatcher", a case which did great damage to the Government and the intelligence service. That is a serious point because if damage is to be done—which is extremely unlikely, apart from in that case—it will be done by bringing the case.
      It has been said that none of my hon. Friends has been able to produce a serious example of how damage could be done the second time round. The Home Secretary did not do that either, although after being interrupted by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) he made an effort to do so.
      Mr. Hurd: I spent some time explaining—as the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) acknowledged—how there was, in my view, quite a serious risk that,

      581
      from a second disclosure, states which supported state terrorism or terrorist organisations might learn information which they badly needed about techniques, equipment or personnel involved in the counter-terrorist effort. It is true that I could not produce an actual past case, but it is not true to say, as has been said repeatedly, that I did not adduce dangers that could happen, because I did.
      Sir Ian Gilmour: I thought my right hon. Friend's explanation on that came after the interruption by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, but I accept that it came earlier. I still do not see how that could happen. I cannot see how any newspaper in this country could behave in that way or how, if it did, it would be affected by the clause. To that extent, it is unreal.
      However, we are aware that there are risks to the freedom of the press. It used to be thought that taking risks with the freedom of the press was just as bad as, or even worse than, taking risks with security. I do not believe that there is a risk, but if there is, it can be easily met by an amendment incorporating a provision dealing with counter-terrorism, which would stop the terroristic use of clause 5. It is clear that it could be used to intimidate the press, and that if left unamended clause 5 will intimidate and stop many things being published. It will mean the British press not learning things that the press of every other country will know.
      If, on reflection, my right hon. Friend seriously believes that any newspaper would behave in the way that he described—
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution [15 February], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 97, Noes 247.

      Division No. 99]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Fisher, Mark

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Flynn, Paul

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Battle, John

      Foster, Derek

      Beith, A. J.

      Galloway, George

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      George, Bruce

      Benyon, W.

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Boateng, Paul

      Gordon, Mildred

      Boyes, Roland

      Gorst, John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Haynes, Frank

      Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Buchan, Norman

      Henderson, Doug

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hinchliffe, David

      Buckley, George J.

      Holland, Stuart

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

      Howells, Geraint

      Cartwright, John

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Cohen, Harry

      Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Corbett, Robin

      Leighton, Ron

      Crowther, Stan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Livsey, Richard

      Darling, Alistair

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McFall, John

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

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Dewar, Donald

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dixon, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Madden, Max

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Marek, Dr John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Martlew, Eric

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Meale, Alan

      582

      Michael, Alun

      Soley, Clive

      Murphy, Paul

      Spearing, Nigel

      Nellist, Dave

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Pike, Peter L.

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Prescott, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, Stuart

      Wall, Pat

      Richardson, Jo

      Walley, Joan

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)

      Rost, Peter

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wray, Jimmy

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Frank Cook and

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

      Mr. Robert N. Wareing.

      Snape, Peter

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

      Amess, David

      Evennett, David

      Amos, Alan

      Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

      Arbuthnot, James

      Fallon, Michael

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Favell, Tony

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, David

      Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Baldry, Tony

      Fookes, Dame Janet

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Beggs, Roy

      Forth, Eric

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Franks, Cecil

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Freeman, Roger

      Blackburn, Dr John G.

      French, Douglas

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gale, Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gill, Christopher

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Boswell, Tim

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gow, Ian

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

      Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

      Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Bowis, John

      Gregory, Conal

      Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Brandon-Bravo, Martin

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Brazier, Julian

      Ground, Patrick

      Bright, Graham

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

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

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Burns, Simon

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

      Burt, Alistair

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Butcher, John

      Harris, David

      Butler, Chris

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Butterfill, John

      Hayward, Robert

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Cash, William

      Hind, Kenneth

      Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Chope, Christopher

      Holt, Richard

      Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Colvin, Michael

      Howard, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

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

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Day, Stephen

      Irvine, Michael

      Devlin, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Jackson, Robert

      Eggar, Tim

      Janman, Tim

      583

      Jessel, Toby

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Key, Robert

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Moore, Rt Hon John

      Knapman, Roger

      Moss, Malcolm

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Mudd, David

      Knox, David

      Nelson, Anthony

      Lang, Ian

      Neubert, Michael

      Latham, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Lilley, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Lord, Michael

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      McCrindle, Robert

      Paice, James

      Macfarlane, Sir Neil

      Patnick, Irvine

      MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Maclean, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Pawsey, James

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Portillo, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Maples, John

      Price, Sir David

      Marland, Paul

      Raffan, Keith

      Marlow, Tony

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Rathbone, Tim

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Redwood, John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Riddick, Graham

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      584

      Rowe, Andrew

      Thurnham, Peter

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ryder, Richard

      Tracey, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Tredinnick, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Trippier, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Trotter, Neville

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Shelton, Sir William

      Waller, Gary

      Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Sims, Roger

      Watts, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wheeler, John

      Soames, Hon Nicholas

      Whitney, Ray

      Speller, Tony

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Wilshire, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann

      Stevens, Lewis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Stokes, Sir John

      Wood, Timothy

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Woodcock, Mike

      Summerson, Hugo

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mr. David Lightbown.

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Cause 6

      INFORMATION ENTRUSTED IN CONFIDENCE TO OTHER STATES OR INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
      Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 6, line 4, leave out 'defence or international relations' and insert 'or defence'.in page 6, line 4, leave out 'defence or international relations' and insert 'or defence'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 76, in page 6, line 39, leave out 'defence and international relations' and insert 'and defence'.
      Mr. Maclennan: The context of the amendments is the extraordinary provision of clause 6 whose purpose seems to be to make it a criminal offence to disclose British information relating to
      "security or intelligence, defence or international relations,"
      if that information has been leaked in another country; for that is what I think is meant by the phrase in the Bill
      "disclosed … without the authority of that State".
      It is highly anomalous because the existence of the offence in British law does not result from a criminal act of leaking having occurred in another country. The disclosure may not have been criminal in that other country where it took place.
      The effect of the clause is that a British citizen could be imprisoned in Britain for up to two years for repeating information that has been leaked abroad without infringing the local law in, for example, Brussels or Strasbourg. On the other hand, because the law is different in the United States, Canada or Australia, where there is a legal right to obtain information through a Freedom of Information Act so that disclosure is achieved not through leaking but by applying for the information, the British citizen is at liberty to repeat it.
      10.15 pm
      It is astonishing that a criminal offence in Britain should depend upon the state of the law in the country in which the information becomes available. It is bizarre that it should be a criminal offence to publish information leaked in Brussels but not if it has been obtained under the Freedom of Information Act in the United States. That is the highly anomalous effect of clause 6.
      Whatever may be the virtues or follies of that, it is unacceptable that the categories of information leaked which lead to the imposition of a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment should yet again include that extremely vague reference to international relations.
      Under clause 6(2) it is an offence to repeat information which has been supplied by Britain to another Government or an international body which has been improperly disclosed by someone who does not commit an offence under the Bill in so doing.
      My purpose is to reduce the impact of that by deleting the words "international relations". The new offence applies to information specified as I have described, but the reference to international relations amounts to an extraordinary extension of the law because it applies to the repetition of information which may have been widely available abroad. However, I do not want to run the risk of repeating the arguments that we have just had on prior publication.
      Whether that provision is justified is arguable. The Government have previously argued that it is necessary primarily to protect increasing international co-operation
      586
      in recent years on defence and international problems such as terrorism. But by including international relations the Bill has gone substantially beyond what the Government earlier sought to cover. It covers disclosures on any subject if they have been discussed by the Government, Government Departments or international bodies or their organs. The purpose of my amendment is reduce the ambit of this sweeping clause, which is anomalous and indefensible.
      Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I intervene briefly. It is always difficult under a guillotine motion to know precisely where to raise some points, but this seems to be an appropriate point to raise a matter that is giving me some cause for concern.
      It has been an underlying theme of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's arguments in support of the Bill that it is in many ways a liberalising measure in as much as much information that was previously caught by the old legislation will no longer be caught, even, it is sometimes stressed, the United Kingdom Budget.
      There may be those who have some doubts about it, because, if a Budget leak takes place, it is possible that the Revenue could suffer substantial loss as a result, for example, of the change in the rate of excise duty on petrol, wine or cigarettes being known in advance. I accept, however, that it is the Home Secretary's general intention to widen the exemptions from the effect of secrets legislation as much as possible.
      Having said that, I then begin to wonder whether the extent of this liberalisation is as great as we suppose. Let us suppose that there is some information within the economic management sector that is given in confidence to the OECD, which I presume must be an international organisation within the definition in the Bill. If that is then leaked in some way, or subsequently disclosed unlawfully, that would appear to give rise to the full impact of the criminal law falling upon the individual who publishes that information. If it was obtained directly and published, it would not be subject to criminal law, but if it was given to some other international body or other state and subsequently published, it would still be caught as it is under existing legislation. That appears to be rather strange and curious and I hope, therefore, that the Minister in his reply will be able to put my mind at rest.
      The clause widens the matter considerably. I shall cite another matter which concerns me. A journalist from this country, who covers events in Europe, could obtain information from some international body—not necessarily the OECD, but perhaps the European Commission—and in good faith believe that that is something which is generally known in Strasbourg or Brussels and is, therefore, something that he could report back to a newspaper in this country for publication. It may turn out, however, to be something that was authorised either by the state or by the organisation concerned. It would then seem that the individual or the newspaper who had published that information in this country would be subject under criminal law to the sanctions imposed in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify that point.
      The final point that I would like to make at this stage—perhaps some others will emerge during the discussions, as they have previously—is that we are taking stringent measures, in many ways of an extraordinary kind, to protect the information which we give to international organisations or other states. I speak not only of whether

      587
      that information should be released, but of the argument that the mere disclosure may be harmful to our international relations, although the information itself turns out not to be so.
      I ask the Minister how many other countries have such reciprocal legislation? Is it the case, for example, that the United States is equally concerned that, perhaps, if it gave us information in confidence, which was then subsequently published, that would damage its international relations? Does it have such legislation? If it does, we can take the matter from there. If it does not, one is bound to ask why we have to be much more sensitive than the United States on such issues. I would be grateful if the Minister could at least tell us the position of the United States and the main European Common Market countries in that regard. I hope that he can enlighten us on those points because the clause gives considerable cause for concern.
      Mr. Dalyell: I want to ask one question. Most of the offences under this clause would presumably be committed by people in the Civil Service. If that is so, is there any truth in the suggestion that the Government are thinking of using the Civil Service discipline regulations to have some authority over civil servants in this respect with a view to cutting or curtailing pensions? Is there a threat to remove the pensions rights of a Civil Service leaker? I would of course like a categoric denial.
      Mr. John Patten: I can deal with that now. Of course, the hon. Gentleman raises a very important point which is of concern to civil servants and to the Committee. Pension forfeiture provisions cannot be used as a disciplinary measure. They can apply only to people who are convicted of a criminal offence. The hon. Gentleman asked me to give a binding undertaking or a clear statement of the Government's position. We have no proposals at the moment to bring forward legislation to alter the existing public service pension forfeiture arrangements. I hope that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is satisfied with that undertaking.
      Mr. Dalyell: That is a completely reasonable reply to my question.
      Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Walker. You are aware that on Monday there was much comment in the House from Opposition Members about the fact that the Government were being unreasonable in the allocation of time for discussing the clauses in the Bill. However, Conservative Members have noticed that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has not been present in the Chamber since 7.15 this evening. Have we been allocated too much time and—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: Order. Let us not waste any more time.
      Mr. Buchan: It might be out of order for me to mention the fact that the absence of any Conservative Members who support the Bill has been the most notable feature of our proceedings this week. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) must be the first Conservative Member to support the Bill. The problem facing the Government is not the absence of Opposition Members, but the fact that they are desperately trying to find Conservative Members to support the Bill.
      588
      I asked the Home Secretary only a few moments ago how many Conservative Members who voted for the Bill actually supported it. He did not reply. The answer was probably none. Anyone who has listened to five or 10 minutes of our debates on the Bill must have been convinced that it would be an utter tragedy for this country if it were passed. The Bill and the proceeding have been a travesty. For the hon. Member for Derby, North to appear suddenly with this kind of nonsense—
      Mr. Greg Knight: I have been here all week.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman certainly has not been here all week. I have been here all week apart from the past. three hours when I was discussing the city of Glasgow in 1990. If I had not been doing that, I would have been here discussing the position in Britain in 1989.
      I am very concerned about this clause because we are not being given an opportunity, probably for the best of reasons I suspect, to debate amendment No. 60 which would leave out "be damaging" and change the wording to "would cause serious injury to the interests of the nation." I understand why we are not going to discuss amendment No 60. We have discussed that wording before and presumably it would be repetitive to discuss it in this part of the Bill. However, in many ways I would be less worried if that caveat were inserted. As it is, we are left with the situation where "international relations" is left unqualified and without significance and what is damaging to international relations becomes a crime.
      Some of the most notable services to humanity have been performed by investigative journalists who have leaked information. For example, it might have reflected more honour on this country if, before the invasion of Suez, we had known a bit more about the international relationships then prevailing between Britain and France and the events in Egypt and Israel. This clause puts a blanket prevention or a cloud of anxiety on the good, intelligent and honest journalist whose job it is to find out what the hell is going on in "international relations".
      Mr. Higgins: I note that the part of clause 6(4) that the amendment seeks to leave out refers to "international relations", which term is said to have
      "the same meaning as in section 1, 2 and 3 above",
      which the hon. Gentleman mentioned a moment ago. That is very strange: we would have expected to find the definition of international relations not by reference to earlier clauses but in the definitions that appear in clause 13—which, of course, we shall not be able to discuss. Is this not an extraordinary piece of drafting? Perhaps the Minister will pick it up in his reply.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Buchan: I am sorry. I have been so absorbed in the lack of caveat in the "damage" provision that I did not notice that. It is indeed very strange—and dangerous too—that "international relations" should be inserted in such a form when clauses I and 2 deal with the "formation" of the Bill: security and intelligence, and then defence. Is this intended? It seems extraordinary that the term should have been left raw and unqualified if, in fact, it means "defence and security". I do not think that the Minister himself knows the answer, but it would be useful to hear an answer.
      If "international relations" means "defence and security", we are in a different ball game, and it is time that

      589
      we were aware of it. I would not mind giving way now so that the Minister can tell us whether this was intended. Are we dealing with defence and security, or what? Until now we have assumed that we were dealing with the simple, straightforward issue of international relations.
      Mr. Maclennan: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. We are considering two amendments. The first reference to "international relations" is in clause 6(1)(a)(i), which deals with
      "security or intelligence, defence or international relations"
      and to which amendment No. 75 relates. The second appears in subsection (4). The hon. Gentleman is quite right to have raised those questions.
      Mr. Buchan: That forces us back to the terrible drafting of the Bill. Let us look at the word "or", for example. Subsection (4) refers to "security or intelligence" and "defence", but subsection 1(a)(i)—it sounds like a football pool, does it not?—refers to
      "security or intelligence, defence or international relations",
      which has an entirely different significance. That, surely, means that "international relations" does not refer to intelligence, security or defence. We come back to the grammar of the Bill. Quite apart from its dangers, it has not even been drafted well.
      I will sit down if the Minister can give me an answer. Does "international relations" mean "intelligence, defence and security", or does it mean what we normally mean by it—relationships between countries?
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Buchan: If Conservative Members cannot solve their problems, we shall have to do it for them. It is their bloody Bill.
      Mr. Maclennan: I hesitate to do the Minister's work for him—
      Mr. Buchan: It looks as if the hon. Gentleman will have to.
      Mr. Maclennan: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the definition in clause 3(5)? That describes
      international relations as including
      "any matter relating to a State other than the United Kingdom…which is capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State".
      That is an all-embracing definition.
      Mr. Buchan: Absolutely. Is the Minister going to try to be helpful, or not? I pause for a reply.
      Mr. John Patten: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was taking us through bits of the Bill that he had read and other bits that he had not. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is quite right: international relations are described on the face of the Bill, in lines 1 to 6 of clause 3(5). Clause 6(4) refers to the damage tests that are attracted to the offence, and the offence is described in clause 6(2).
      Mr. Buchan: But, with respect, it does not say that. Clause 6(4) says:
      "For the purposes of this section"—
      that is, the whole of clause 6—
      "'security or intelligence', 'defence' and 'international relations' have the same meaning as in section 1, 2 and 3 above".
      590
      The Minister is now pushing us on to sections 1, 2 and 3, which refer to security, defence and international relations, which is defined as being
      "between international organisations or between one or more States and one or more such organisations and includes any matter relating to a state".
      In other words, the question of security or intelligence has nothing to do, in that case, with international relations. We are back to the simplistic definition after all.
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked clause 6(1)(a):
      "any information, document or other article which—

      (i) relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations".

      Mr. Buchan: On the contrary, I was making a specific point about clause 6(1)(a)(i) when I pointed out that the "or" could not by definition—if it meant anything at all—subsume international relations with security intelligence or defence. We now know that we are not dealing with security or defence—or at least I think that that is what the Minister is saying. We are dealing with it only as defined in clause 3(5):
      "the relations between Stares, between international organisations or between one or more States".
      We are not, therefore, dealing with the matters with which the Official Secrets Bill purports to deal—that is, defence and security leaks. We are dealing with the investigation, commentary and publication of attitudes, relationships, manners and matters happening between states.
      I gave an example—
      Mr. Patten: Clause 6 applies, where:

      "(a) any information, document or other article…

      (i) relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations".

      If the hon. Gentleman reads through clause 6, he will see that it all flows.
      Mr. Buchan: For the purpose of the debate, we are proceeding on the assumption the Minister is making that "international relations" means the definition in clause 3(5). That is right. I am merely pointing out the difficulties we then have in clause 6(4).
      We are saying, therefore, that we are not dealing with the relationship of international relations, security aspects, defence and intelligence, but are giving the full meaning of the word to "or" and, therefore, isolating "international relations". [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I cannot conduct any more English lessons. We are dealing with international relations as such and
      "the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person".
      The problem that the Minister and the Committee face is that the purpose of decent, good journalism is precisely to expose secret negotiations where it can. If there is any problem that has bedevilled relations throughout the 20th century, it has been secret diplomacy. I gave one obvious example, which acted as the death knell for the future of the British empire. The Suez affair was a climacteric which could not have occurred if the people of this country had known in advance the deal that had been made between Britain, France and Israel. If any journalist had discovered that, far from being punished, he should have been made a national hero because he would have prevented us from committing one of our worst crimes and disasters. Such actions are prevented by clause 6.
      It is the function of the good journalist to ferret out secrecy in diplomacy. One has only to think of the

      591
      apparatus of the Common Market. I see that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is present; he pricks up his ears as soon as someone mentions the Common Market. It is perfectly proper that secret agreements within the Common Market purporting to be on behalf of the people of this country are ferreted out and published. Clause 6 is a further attack on the freedom of the word in this country. It has moved into a wider area than the area we have been discussing until now and it does not even have the caveat of the more serious definition of harm, which we attempted to put in. We wanted to replace the word "damage" with "serious harm" or "serious damage". For that reason, I support amendment No. 75.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: In the spirit of inquiry, I should like to ask a hypothetical question to find out how the clause might apply. As my hon. Friend the Minister rightly said, the clause states:
      "This section applies where…any information, document or other article which relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations"
      comes into a person's possession.
      Mr. John Patten: So my hon. Friend agrees that the interpretation that I gave the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) was correct?
      Mr. Shepherd: I do not propose to play games with the Minister at this late hour—and under sentence of the guillotine at that.
      Suppose that the Foreign Office is in communication with the Foreign Ministry in Madrid, and that it is its purpose to dispose of a peripheral problem—Gibraltar. In confidential talks that have not been the subject of discussion in the House, the Foreign Office makes it known to the Spanish Foreign Ministry that its objective is to accommodate Spanish interests in Gibraltar.
      Through the indiscretion of a Spanish Foreign Ministry official, the information comes into the possession of the major newspaper of Spain. That newspaper wants to play down the embarrassment to Britain but nevertheless wants to send a signal to the Spanish people that, despite all the huffing and puffing of the British Foreign Office, the matter is settled: Britain is to dispose of its interests in Gibraltar and its support for the Gibraltese people, in whatever way is easiest. That is Britain's policy objective.
      As I understand the clause, it would make it an offence to publish that information here, because it would trigger the damage described in clause 3(2), about which there is some concern in the Committee. I believe that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertook to reconsider clause 3(3), which says that an offence has been committed by virtue of the fact that the information is confidential and the damage proven.
      If the words "international relations" remain, the clause may inhibit the ability of the British public to make a real contribution, through the House, to the formulation of British foreign policy—something for which the House is responsible and for which it is held responsible by the electorate. The Bill as drafted could diminish seriously our ability freely to discuss information which, of its nature, becomes available from abroad.
      Mr. Maclennan: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed the anomaly that the clause encapsulates? If the information that he describes were passed directly to the Pentagon,
      592
      having been obtained as a result of the exercise by a United States citizen of his rights under the Freedom of Information Act and published in the United States, as opposed to Spain, it would not be a criminal offence under the Bill to repeat it in this country. In this case the nature of the crime would be dictated not by our domestic requirements but by the domestic law of Spain or the United States.
      Mr. Shepherd: It is altogether a curious clause, and that is why it is worth exploring. I know that the United States has something called "sovereign Government immunity", which enables the United States Government to remove from the public record information that is sensitive to foreign Governments. I understand that, and I would not criticise it.
      Let me push the Gibraltese scenario a little further. We know that the position that I have outlined is not the Government's declared position. We know, too, that Britain has a number of peripheral problems. Belize, the Falklands, Gibraltar and Hong Kong are the four well known ones. The declared aim of Britain was the declared aim of Britain, but somehow, at the end of the day, we seem to accommodate something different from that which Foreign Office Ministers have told the House of Commons.
      It was not my intention to go all the way down that road. I wanted to say merely that if this provision is allowed to stand as it is, it will be very difficult for a British paper to publish information that has become available. I am not sure why that new offence should be created in the Bill. Therefore, I look forward to clarification from my hon. Friend. Why do the Government want blanket control over information whose publication is not at present an offence?
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Stuart Randall: Clause 6 deals with the disclosure of information that has been entrusted in confidence to other states or international organisations. The amendment with which we are dealing concerns subsection (1), which provides that where any information relating to security, intelligence, defence or international relations, which has been given in confidence by the United Kingdom to another state, has come into a person's possession without the authority of that state, that person is guilty of an offence if he makes a damaging disclosure.
      We are lacking a real Committee stage. The impression I have from other hon. Members is that they agree with me that we have been unable to grasp the dimension of the matters with which this clause deals. It seems to expand the scope of the Bill very considerably. We have had no notes on the clauses, and I cannot understand why the Government feel it necessary to include any information that embraces international relations. I imagine that few hon. Members can envisage the real nature of any information that is referred to here relating to international relations. I imagine that quite a lot of it is trivial stuff—specifications, drafts, and so on. Nevertheless, I am disturbed, and quite alarmed, that the Bill should make provision for this catch-all facility.
      On many occasions concern has been expressed in the House of Commons about the old Act having this catch-all effect. We seem to be going down that path—certainly so far as all the information associated with international

      593
      relations is concerned. I thought that we were supposed to be liberalising the 1911 Act. Instead, we seem to be going in the other direction.
      I should like to understand the Government's motive behind clause 6(1)(a)(i), which refers to
      "any information, document or other article which—relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations".
      Let me put a few questions to the Minister so that I may understand why this provision has been included. First, what consideration is given to this question of the prevention of damaging disclosure by other Governments? Is it a two-way process? Do we have a deal within the EEC to ensure that there is coherence, if that is required?
      Secondly, have there been disclosures which have prompted the Government to introduce the provision on international relations? I do not want the detail; I just want to know whether there is a serious problem. Are there difficulties with other countries that prevent us protecting our interests? I should like the Minister to answer that.
      Mr. Gorst: I may help the hon. Gentleman who is thinking aloud about the Government's motives. The same may apply to other clauses which we have already discussed. I think the answer is that, like the nuclear deterrent, the provision will have failed if it has to be used. Exactly the same applies to all the new aspects that we have been discussing. If they lead to a prosecution, they will have failed. Unless the offences are monumentally obvious—by their very nature they will not be—the provisions will never have to be used. In parliamentary terms they are the equivalent of the nuclear deterrent. They are unlikely to be utilised.
      Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I find that depressing. It suggests that the legislation that we are creating is largely irrelevant.
      Mr. Buchan: The purpose is not to use them but to put an apparatus of repression over the whole area. The same deterrence argument is made in support of the bomb. The real point is to prevent expression. It is part of the suppressing of the freedom of the word.
      Mr. Randall: I will put forward a hypothetical case which I thought up in the Library just now, having read through the Bill. If we consider all the information referred to, I can imagine such a case emerging. Let us see the implications in the context of the Bill.
      Let us suppose that a motor manufacturer, in conjunction with the Government, has produced a performance specification for a motor car. Let us assume that the document is sent by Her Majesty's Government to Brussels and is incorporated into a draft directive which would have confidential status. I hope that the Minister will listen; I should like him to comment on this because in a way it tests the comments of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan).
      Let us assume that a British chap in the Commission allows, perhaps wrongly, the trade association for the relevant part of the industry to have access to the information. So a disclosure takes place without authority. The person in the trade association in turn consults individual member companies to find out what they think about the performance specification. Would that be an illegal act and could there be a prosecution? If so, we are creating legislation which would be unfair to British manufacturers.
      594
      If France and other countries do not have such legislation, will some manufacturers within the European Community have advantages over others? Will the legislation put British suppliers at a disadvantage? That is an example of the way in which classes of confidential information pass through the authorisation procedure. How does that process stand up to the legislation? If it does not, the consequences could be quite serious.
      In earlier debates we heard that disclosure of international information can have two effects. First, it can damage confidence in our diplomatic service through the breach of confidentiality, and, secondly, the disclosure of confidential information can cause direct harm. Where do the Government stand? Were they encountering difficulties? We need to know whether direct disclosure is causing difficulties for the Government and for European Community countries. How often does it happen? In order to achieve some understanding of the matter—if we were in Standing Committee we would do so through amendments—it would be interesting to know the manifestation of such disclosure. Are press stories diplomatically embarrassing or are we concerned with the exploitation of contracts and commercial information?
      Another matter about which I am uncertain, and, since we are in Committee, it should be clarified, is whether there are pressures from the EEC. Is the integration of the European Community a factor? If it is, is there a need for disclosure to be included in the Official Secrets Bill because there is growing confidentiality and more secrecy between the nations of the European Community? Like my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), I am worried about the tightening tip of information and the prevention of journalistic leaks.
      I shall not go into detail, but we heard about corruption in the EEC involving £6 billion a year. When such a fraud is taking place—which I understand involves agriculture, shipping, imports, exports and pharmaceuticals—the prevention of disclosures of information raises certain questions.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how any fraud that involves farming is related
      "to security or intelligence, defence or international relations"?
      Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is consulting the Bill, but I am referring to the amendment which relates to international relations.
      Finally, what are the shortcomings of the existing arrangements and why have the Government made changes in that way? I have tried to show the Minister that we need a far better understanding of the Bill, which we would have achieved by thrashing it out in Standing Committee. My impression from reading the Bill and gleaning what information I could—of course there is very little to read and few people to talk to on these matters—is that the Bill represents a step in a worrying direction and it appears that section 2 of the Official Secrets Act will not die for a long time.
      11 pm
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I shall take only a short time to raise a serious issue. I fully appreciate the Minister's problem. Often, clauses in legislation on official secrets or, say, child care must be drawn so widely that we create an impossible situation to justify a certain position.

      595
      I can appreciate how a wide proposal can often be misinterpreted as stating that a ridiculous thing can happen in a certain context.
      However, we are entitled to ask the Minister to state the Government's future intentions and policy in broad terms. There is only one matter on which I should like an assurance. Will the Minister assure me that, by and large, and subject to all kinds of matters, it is not the Government's intention to use this clause as a means of trying to suppress reports about frauds, launderings and illegalities? The definition of an international organisation in clause 3(5) is so wide that it can include anything. It covers
      "any matter relating to a State other than the United Kingdom or to an international organisation which is capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State or with an international organisation."
      That can cover anything—any report on any subject—the disclosure of which could result in damaging relations.
      We all know that there are massive, costly frauds in the EEC. There have been all kinds of ridiculous reports. For example, the other day we heard about how an enormous amount of EEC money is being spent on financing the Mafia for delivering non-existent fruit juice to NATO headquarters in Palermo. That is damaging and embarrassing. Relations between Britain and the EEC could be embarrassed if a report from one Government Department to another in the United Kingdom were revealed. People in the EEC would be upset. We know that there is a massive fraud in exporting so-called food, and exporting offal and calling it pure beef.
      It is not because of some journalists that we know that such things are happening. We have had confirmation from the Court of Auditors that there is a mass, widespread fraud, which is costing every taxpayer in Great Britain a great deal, and is causing great damage. We know that the Government are interested in the matter. The Prime Minister said that she will raise it at the next meeting of the European Council and find out what on earth we can do to stop agricultural fraud.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Subsection (1)(a) is about communications in confidence. Our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is not making such communications in confidence.
      Mr. Taylor: I cannot understand what my hon. Friend is trying to get at. Of course my right hon. Friend makes public speeches. But Government Departments write papers for her. Details about further frauds involving the Mafia or the IRA—we know that they are both involved—are not the type of thing that the Prime Minister would make a public speech about. There might be a report from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at No. 10. That would be a confidential matter. If revealed, it could damage relations between the United Kingdom and the EEC. My hon. Friend must surely accept that that can happen.
      The Government are interested in the matter, and we hope that something can be done about frauds, irregularities and wrongdoings. However, there are other kinds of wrongdoings. Hon. Members may remember that, after giving lots of money at Fontainebleau, the Prime Minister came back with a wonderful piece of paper
      596
      that said that we would have strict budgetary control. We know now what happened. We did not know what happened the other time. By using accountancy frauds, the Commission was able to put the matter out the window. There were ridiculous accountancy devices, such as a 10-month year in 1987.
      I can appreciate that the Government do not want to cause trouble between Britain and the EEC, between Britain and France, or between Britain and Germany by having confidential matters revealed. I can appreciate their point of view, and I am sure that they can appreciate ours and that of the people who want to find out about those matters.
      On the other hand, if things are being done which cost people money because laws are being broken—because frauds are being committed and money is being siphoned off to help the IRA and the Mafia—we would surely never use this type of clause to prosecute people because they have revealed an illegality.
      We are not gunning for the Minister in any way. We appreciate the difficulty of drafting a suitable clause; if it is too wide, people will say that the Government could do ridiculous things. I hope that we can be assured that the Government have no intention of using the clause to prosecute somebody for disclosing the truth about a fraud, an illegality or a wrongdoing. If my hon. Friend could say yes to that, it would give a clear idea of what the Government have in mind.
      Mr. John Patten: I begin by saying yes to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—yes in a policy sense, because no Government supports fraud. I can answer yes to his question about the clause—he asked whether we would use clause 6—because it deals only with our official information which goes out of this country, provided in confidence, about international relations to another state or to an international organisation.
      My hon. Friend will no doubt know, because he took part in the debates on the provision, that clause 3 deals with confidential information provided to this country. I hope that my hon. Friend is content with that reassurance.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Yes, I am. But information can often be transmitted by the Government to an international organisation about frauds and illegalities taking place elsewhere. In other words, this is United Kingdom information provided by United Kingdom Departments about activities elsewhere. I am grateful for what the Minister said. His answer was clear and precise, and I hope he will accept that, while this is United Kingdom information going out, it could be concerned with frauds happening elsewhere.
      Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister—
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We should have one intervention at a time. Mr. Patten.
      Mr. Patten: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman, Sir Paul.
      Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister feel able to give the assurance that he has given to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)? We had a long debate earlier today in which the Attorney-General made it clear that issues of prosecution—about fraud or anything else

      597
      —were determined not by Government policy but by him in a judicial capacity. He was at great pains to make that point, and I think that the Minister was present when he made it.
      Mr. Patten: I was answering two specific questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East. One was a policy question. He asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to undertake cover-ups about frauds, and the answer is no. I expressed the answer as yes because that was how he asked me to express it.
      His second question—the answer to which he no doubt knew, but he was probing the Treasury Bench—was about clause 6. I said that it deals only with our official information relating to international relations which we provide in confidence to another state or to an international organisation.
      Matters for prosecution under clause 3—under which some prosecutions might be brought—would be for the Attorney-General using his powers under clause 9, and those were the points to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred when he addressed the Committee this afternoon.
      I will explain why the Government think this provision is important and then I will answer each of the detailed questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins); the important example about the Spanish newspaper, the El Pais, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd); and the hypothetical example posed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall).
      It is clear that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) agrees that it is right to protect information relating to security, intelligence or defence that this country provides in confidence.
      Mr. Maclennan indicated dissent.
      Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman does not agree with that proposition, and I am deeply disappointed. We should be prepared to protect information relating to defence when its disclosure would jeopardise our interests abroad. Equally, information concerning matters of the greatest sensitivity about relations between states whose disclosure would have the same effect should also be protected.
      Let me give the Committee examples illustrating the validity of that argument. Even if the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland does not want such information to be protected—I repeat that I was disappointed to see him indicate dissent from a sedentary position—I am sure he accepts that international co-operation is one of the best ways of pursuing measures to curb and to combat international terrorism. Surely there cannot be anything between the hon. Gentleman and myself in that respect.
      Mr. Maclennan: Of course I accept that intelligence and security information must be protected. My objection is that the creation of an offence under clause 6 will depend on whether the disclosure that occurred in another country was legal. It is information that is to be protected, but the clause ties the offence to the manner in which the information was made public.
      Mr. Patten: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman entirely understands the clause. I shall develop my first example and then give another.
      598
      Under the Bill, most forms of co-operation at Government level will fall not under the security, intelligence or defence heads, but under information relating to international relations. If such information is not protected by the clause, the effectiveness of the co-operation could be threatened.
      I give a harder example—my first was rather a burst of generality—of how sensitive information could go unprotected should the Committee decide to accept the amendment. Suppose we were debating with another country, or with a number of countries, the possibility of taking measures against a state in response to its violation of human rights. That is something that we discuss from time to time in international forums—and something we are pressed to do all the time in relation to some countries. Suppose also that in the course of those discussions we provided confidential information as to how our country would enforce the measures.
      If that information was leaked by an official of one of the countries with which we were co-ordinating our actions against the state with the bad human rights record, and if the journalist to whom that leak was given published it in this country, the state against which we were contemplating taking action might immediately take retaliatory action against any British citizens resident there. As we know from certain things that have been said in some states this week, such a situation could have harmful consequences.
      Under the amendment, the journalist would be free to publish—though any prosecution would be subject to the damage tests. Under the Bill, the person making the disclosure could be prosecuted—but how could he be convicted? He or she could not be convicted unless the prosecution proved that they knew the information had originally been provided by our country to other countries, that it had been provided in confidence, that its disclosure by the journalist, for example, endangered the safety of Britons abroad, and that the journalist knew what he was doing.
      11.15 pm
      We have had some examples put to the Committee. The example of the EC trade association was an interesting one, but the information that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West mentioned, even if it were official information, would not fall within the definition in clause 3(5). Therefore, it would not be caught by clause 6. In other words, it would not fall within the definition of international relations as set out in the Bill.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills gave a specific Spanish example. I prefer not to talk about the Gibraltar question, which is a policy issue, but I think it was as good an example as any put to the Committee. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend. He was perhaps a bit grumpy with me when I intervened in his speech. I hope he did not think that I was in any sense trying to divide him from the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan). I was simply trying to get to the facts. If he thinks I was making a cheap political point, I apologise. If he reads Hansard, he will not find me making a cheap political point at any stage.
      As regards the example my hon. Friend gave of a report in a Spanish newspaper, there would be no offence under clause 6 if a newspaper in this country published what was leaked to and appeared in a Spanish newspaper following a disclosure without authority by a Spanish civil servant

      599
      unless publication had caused further damage here. In my hon. Friend's case, that would come under clause 3(2) and the jeopardising of our interests abroad—it would be the jeopardising test. It is extremely difficult to imagine circumstances in which any jury would be prepared to convict.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I know that the Government rely very much on the test of harm as described in clause 3(2), and the anxiety has been about the test of harm being met by clause 3(3)—information of its nature confidential. Although the Government's legal adviser says that it is absolutely certain that that is not so, the Government are to meet the anxiety by redrafting the provision. Is my hon. Friend giving us an undertaking that the Government's amendments will be moved on Report so that the House will have an opportunity to look at how the scheme of things works?
      Mr. Patten: I think my hon. Friend was in the Committee yesterday when my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking to reconsider the issue. But I should like to press my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills a little further. Is he satisfied with the explanation about the position concerning the supposed publication in a Spanish newspaper, in the context of the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend yesterday?
      Mr. Shepherd: This is nonsense. Without seeing something, I cannot say whether I am satisfied. I was here yesterday when my right hon. Friend spoke on this matter. He gave an undertaking to redraft the clause. I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State whether it will be done by Report. He then asks me—this is the usual circumlocutory route—whether I was present yesterday when the Secretary of State said that he would amend the Bill. The question to which I return is, "Will it be done for the Report stage?"
      Mr. Patten: I can only repeat the undertaking that was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend. I hope that my hon. Friend will listen to what I say. On the face of the Bill, as drafted, and not as amended, on the example of the Spanish newspaper that was given by my hon. Friend, under clause 3(2) there would be the possibility of prosecution only if it could be demonstrated that we were jeopardising our interests abroad.
      Mr. Shepherd: This is maddening. My right hon. Friend conceded yesterday that there could be a misunderstanding, as the Bill is drafted, and that clause 3(3) triggers off or satisfies the damage test. That is the reason why my right hon. Friend is to amend it. So for my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say that it does not raise the anxiety, as the Bill is drafted, seems to be contradicting the Secretary of State. I do not know why my hon. Friend is getting into a fluff over this; I was merely asking a very simple question.
      Mr. Patten: I never quite know what "getting into a fluff" means, but, with the permission of the Committee, I shall read the words of my right hon. Friend from yesterday's Official Report. He said:
      "On behalf of the Government, I am happy that the matter should be aired again, if that is the view of my right hon. Friend"—
      600
      and there he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour)—
      "when it is procedurally in order to do so. If that is on Report, as you have suggested, Mr. Walker, we will fall in with whatever arrangemens suit the Committee."—[Official Report, 15 February 1989; Vol. 147, c. 337.]
      My right hon. Friend had to add that conditional "if that is on Report" because that is a matter for selection. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] No, I am simply repeating for the avoidance of doubt the undertaking that my right hon. Friend gave to the Committee yesterday.
      If I were to express a hope, certainly in the light of the strong feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, which I respect, it would be that we can dispose of this matter on Report.
      May I deal next with the three important points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing? On the OECD point, my right hon. Friend seemed to be saying—I see that he indicates assent—that the effect of clause 6 is that the disclosure of information provided to another state could be an offence, but if disclosed here before being provided it would not be an offence.
      I think that that would not be the case, because information about economic matters alone does not become information relating to international relations simply because it is provided to another country or to another organisation.
      Mr. Higgins: My understanding from the Bill is that it clearly does. Anything is "international relations" if it is translated from one country to another, as I understand the clause. Therefore, we are in the rather absurd position where something that is not subject to criminal law if it is discovered here and published becomes subject to the criminal law if it is given to another country and then published. The moment that one gives some information on, say, zero-rating of VAT to another country, that is in the sphere of international relations.
      Mr. Patten: With great respect to my right hon. Friend, I must say that just because a piece of information is supplied to an international organisation or to another State does not mean that it automatically falls within the ambit of international relations. A lot of information flows from one country to another which does not remotely affect international relations. That is certainly not the effect of clause 3(5).
      Mr. Buchan rose—
      Mr. Maclennan rose—
      Mr. Patten: I shall deal with my right hon. Friend's second point, referring to information coming back from Brussels.
      Mr. Higgins: May we stay with the first point for a moment, because it is not clear? Clause 3(1) refers to
      "any information, document or other article relating to international relations".
      The example that I have given of a change in the rate of value added tax in the context of an approximation of indirect taxation within the EEC is clearly a matter of discussion in international relations. As I understand it, if the information is obtained here and is published, it is not subject to criminal law. But, more importantly, we have no way of telling which way it has been arrived at and which penalty is to be imposed.
      Mr. Patten: The penalty, if any were attracted to the OECD example—I do not believe that one would be—is there for all to see in clause 3(2), which says:
      "For the purposes of subsection (1) above a disclosure is damaging if…it jeopardises the interests of the United Kingdom abroad, seriously obstructs the promotion or protection by the United Kingdom of those interests or endangers the safety of British citizens abroad".
      Mr. Higgins: But it is not just a question whether the information is damaging. We know that it is said to be damaging if it is leaked at all because that shows that we cannot keep things confidential.
      Mr. Patten: All that is subject to the damage test that I have just read.
      My right hon. Friend referred to material coming back from Brussels. If I understood his point correctly, a prosecution could succeed only if damage can be proved.
      I cannot supply my right hon. Friend with the practices and procedures of the EC countries and the United States for dealing with such information, nor do I think that it is necessary. Here I refer to a point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. We have no need for any kind of reciprocal information because we are protecting our interests, not those of any other countries. The Bill has been drafted in the light of United Kingdom experience and the protection of United Kingdom experience here.
      The amendment would inhibit the Government from pursuing the most effective means of protecting and promoting Britain's interests, and I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland will not try to weaken the Bill so radically by pushing the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Randall: Let me refer the Minister to clause 3(5) which says:
      "'international relations' means the relations between States".
      I was referring to relations between states. At the end of that subsection it says:
      "which is capable of affecting the relations of the United Kingdom with another State".
      The case that I gave of a motor manufacturer in Europe which involved communications of information between Her Majesty's Government and the Commission would qualify. The various countries involved in motor manufacture would be the ones that would be affected.
      We shall not thrash this matter out tonight, but I hope that the Minister will write to me about it before Report.
      Mr. Patten: Of course I shall.
      Mr. Higgins: Since we are in Committee, may I seek to persuade my hon. Friend that mine is a point that he should look at before Report? Clause 6(1)(a) applies to anything which
      "has been communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the United Kingdom to another State or to an international organisation".
      Even if we take it that narrowly, it would seem that any information that is communicated to another organisation or state comes within the ambit of the clause. As I was arguing at the beginning, such information may not be of a kind which attracts a criminal penalty within the context of the rest of the Bill, but would seem to do so if it is then communicated abroad.
      Mr. Patten: I entirely see the point that my right hon. Friend is making, but I suggest to him that he needs to look closely at subsection (1)(a) which provides for
      "any information, document or other article which—

      (i) relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations".

      A set of economic statistics does not necessarily relate to international relations.
      11.30 pm
      Mr. Higgins: The approximation of value added tax clearly does. We are much involved in international negotiations about the approximation of value added tax. It is within the scope of the clause and, therefore, it appears to attract a criminal sanction if the information is leaked and then published in this country. There is no dispute that the approximation of value added tax is a matter of international relations. If I have understood it correctly—indeed my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said as much—if there were a leak from the Treasury about the approximation of value added tax, that is not something which would be subject to criminal sanctions.
      My hon. Friend must study this and consider my specific example, which is a clear-cut one.
      Mr. Maclennan: I share the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) about this point. Indeed, it was such concerns that led me to table the amendment in the first place. What I should like to press the Minister on, however, is what he has not dealt with—the fact that this offence depends on the domestic law of the country in which the leak occurred.
      As I have said, if a leak about the harmonisation of taxes occurs in a country where it is improper, it appears that that would create an offence in this country under the clause. However, if the information is obtained in a country such as the United States under the Freedom of Information Act, there would be no criminal offence as a result of the publication of that information. I ask the Minister whether it is tolerable that the existence of the criminal penalty should turn on the state of the domestic law of foreign countries. That is monstrous, and I do not know why the Minister did not answer the point earlier. I presume that it was because he had not thought of it and had not been advised. The least that the Minister can do is take this matter away. He should not give us an arrogant reply that suggests that he has actually thought about these matters, when he has not even had the courtesy to reply to the points that have been made.
      It is extremely arrogant to reply to the debate in the way in which the Minister has. He has not answered the points which have been made and he has treated the amendment as though it were a frivolous one. It is an extremely serious provision which creates a criminal offence which could result in people being sent to prison for two years. It is about time that the Minister stopped treating the House in this de haut en bas manner. Frequently, in earlier stages of the debate, he has had to come to the House to apologise for getting it wrong. The right hon. Member for Worthing has made an extremely important point. The Minister would know that it is an extremely important point, and he should give an explanation.
      Earlier the Home Secretary admitted that the definition under clause 3(5) was unsatisfactory. In answer to an

      603
      intervention from the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), the Home Secretary accepted that
      "In this section 'international relations' means the relations between States"
      was not of itself an adequate definition. He undertook to consider how that definition could be tightened up. The passage that the Minister quoted had nothing to do with the undertaking given by the Home Secretary. The Minister must reconsider this matter in the light of the points made in the debate.
      Furthermore, the Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) was wrong. He was wrong to say that the matter was not covered by clause 3(5). The question of specifications of cars presented by this country to the Commission in Brussels to become the subject matter of a European Community directive is plainly an international matter as defined in the clause. By sweeping such propositions aside in a cavalier manner, the Minister again showed his contempt for the proceedings of the Committee which has characterised his whole approach to the Bill from the outset. It is about time that he treated the Committee with some seriousness. Obviously he expects us to let the whole thing go through without any more question just because he said it.
      Mr. Corbett: In response to a question from the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) the Minister gave an assurance that it was not the Government's intention to use the provisions in clause 6 to inhibit the publication of evidence in relation to fraud which originates in this country which is to be sent to Brussels for action to be taken. He gave the hon. Member for Southend, East a specific undertaking that the clause would not be used in that way. However, clause 4(2)(a)(iii) relates to information which
      "impedes the prevention or detection of offences".
      Quite properly, as fraud is involved, the police could argue, "For heaven's sake, if that gets out it will inhibit us in properly dealing with the detection of the suspected offence." There is at least the possibility that the police might use that argument when they are undertaking this kind of special investigation. That should at least cause the Minister to question the blanket assurance that he gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8

      SAFEGUARDING OF INFORMATION
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 8, line 8, leave out 'fails to comply with' and insert 'retains it after receiving'.
      This amendment is more by way of inquiry and to provide more background. The amendment is intended to meet the possibility of someone who improperly receives information and destroys it and therefore is not able to return it. We are all mindful that there have been several newspaper instances and I will not base my arguments on them. However, what happens if the information has been
      604
      destroyed and cannot be returned and the person cannot confirm to the satisfaction of the authorities that it has been destroyed? I want clarification on that.
      Mr. Foot: Although the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has introduced his amendment as if it were a minor amendment, it has many implications and it touches on other clauses which we should have the opportunity to discuss.
      I accept that problems arise with the guillotine and I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The Minister's difficulties arise through the operation of the guillotine. I am sure that if it had not been for the operation of the guillotine, the Minister would not have given such a clumsy answer to one of his colleagues who was seeking a reassurance about the concession made by the Home Secretary. We have all sat through two consecutive days' debates on the Bill and if it had not been so late at night I am sure that the Minister would have leapt to his feet and accepted the need for an amendment which the Home Secretary agreed and there would have been no trouble on that score.
      The right hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) also put forward very serious arguments, and in a proper Committee stage without a guillotine the Minister would have had a chance to consider what had been said before the debate on clause stand part. But the possibility of any debate on clause stand part has been removed, which makes consideration of the Bill much more difficult.
      Thanks to the way in which the guillotine has fallen, and thanks to its crude operation, we have not discussed clause 7 at all. Clause 7, however, touches on amendment No. 40, which tries to remedy the position, although whether it could do so is very doubtful. Although clauses 7 and 8, like clause 6, have wider aims—wider, indeed, than some of us had previously understood the Bill to comprise—they try in part to deal with those who have authority to use information that they obtained as Ministers, specifying how they must gain the authorisation. They would have to comply not only with clause 8 and the appropriate amendments, but with clause 7 as well.
      It is clear from even a rough reading of the two clauses that if they had been in operation over the past 30 or 40 years far and away the worst offender against them would have been Sir Winston Churchill. No one has ever carted away documents from No. 10 Downing street—or wherever else he had been—on such a huge scale. That was very much to the benefit of the reading public, and, I would think, to the national interest as well. It certainly benefited the gaiety of nations for Sir Winston to be able to take away such huge quantities of documents and to use them as he did between 1945 and 1951. I was in the House at the time, and I may say that Sir Winston was much better employed in writing his memoirs than he was in conducting the opposition here—although he managed to perform the two tasks at the same time.
      Let us suppose that Sir Winston had had to go through the details of each of those documents and to obtain authorisation in each case. Let us suppose that he had been told that if he did not do it properly he would be had up. I assure the House that I am not exaggerating. Winston Churchill thought that the state belonged to him, in a sense—that the state owed him a living. To some extent it did, because his services had been so great. Incidentally, this

      605
      characteristic ran in the family: it dates back to the days of the Duke of Marlborough, who also did some services to the country and who carted away huge quantities of state documents, long before such nonsense as this was laid before the House of Commons.
      It is a question of some interest and importance how the legislation will apply to, for instance, Ministers writing their memoirs. There has been quite a lot of controversy in the newspapers about that recently. Until a few years ago there was an absolute provision that if Ministers did not go to the head of the Cabinet—whoever that might be—in the proper way and obtain permission, they would be infringing the rules laid down by the Cabinet Office.
      Of course, it was never exactly clear how the Official Secrets Act applied to such operations. In a sense, the matter was covered by authorisation of some form being given. I suppose that what would be claimed about clause 7—which we are not allowed to discuss under the guillotine—is that the form of authorisation is stated and touched upon in clause 8. Here again, the Committee should look at these matters properly, have the chance to examine them and the chance to put up amendments to the Government, on which the Government could make their replies. That is how legislation of this kind should be carried through. But it is the Government's decision that we are not allowed to discuss clause 7 in detail—or in any sense. Perhaps people would like to read it all. I do not know if I would be in order to read it out now—I should think that I would be. Anybody who reads it will see that it is trying to deal with this subject, although it has been excluded from our discussions. It is partly governed by clause 8.
      The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has sought to have an amendment accepted that could be some protection, but it is not sufficient protection. That emphasises how wrong it is for the Committee to be forced to discuss such matters with no possibility for further amendments at such a late stage.
      11.45 pm
      Mr. Gorst: Listening to the right hon. Gentleman has made me reflect. I wonder whether he is able to answer my rhetorical question. We have about 15 minutes, in which the Minister may also be able to reply, before we finish the Committee stage. Has the right hon. Gentleman wondered whether it would be appropriate, in view of all the uncertainty about what might be regarded as classified information that could be used without damage, and the reverse, for there to be machinery available so that newspapers could ring someone up and say, "Can we use this information? Is it classified?"? Perhaps we should have a whole Ministry to deal with the subject.
      Mr. Foot: That might be one way of dealing with the matter. There was a question raised when somebody was arguing about the operation of the Official Secrets Act 1911 only a few months ago. An editor asked a Minister, "How should we deal with such a question?" The reply was, "Ring up No. 10 and see whether you can publish". Some of the other journalists did not think that that was the most sensible or liberal way to deal with the question.
      I do not intend any mockery of the Minister when I say that on this, as on previous occasions, he has stood up to the blast of argument as well as he is able in the circumstances. But he should agree that it is a bad way to conduct legislation of this nature in the House of that
      606
      Commons. If we consider the debate on the amendment or the debate on clause 6 and the position of journalists, what should have happened is what would have happened in the case of any other interests outside the House. There was a chance for the Minister to go to the editors, the Newspaper Publishers Association or even the National Union of Journalists. Of course, it is terrible to suggest to the Government that they should ever have discussions with the people who do the work. That is an outrageous proposition, which the Minister would throw out of the window immediately.
      But let us consider the Newspaper Publishers Association, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors or the people who have professional qualifications in these matters. We are introducing a maze of new regulations through which they will have to steer if they are to do what they see as their duty to publish what they are entitled to publish and what the British people should be able to read. Why were the people who will have to operate the legislation not consulted? If it had been the farmers, there would have been plenty of consultation. If other people had been involved, there would have been consultation. But I do not think that there has been any consultation with the people in the newspaper business, who will have to operate these rules. If there was any such consultation, the results of it have not been translated into the Bill.
      We have not much time left on the Bill and it is a great pity that such a Bill should be put through the House of Commons in such a way. That is not an attack on the Minister, or the Home Secretary, alone. As I said in a previous debate, I have listened carefully to what he and others have had to say on specific clauses. They have made a much better case on some clauses than on others, but on some they have hardly made a case at all.
      Mr. Bermingham: Has my right hon. Friend considered the problems that might arise in respect of a communication that is purely oral? How does one comply with a request for the return of an oral communication or prove that one has disposed of a piece of information conveyed orally?
      Mr. Foot: The Government have not even caught up with the telephone, let alone with the other modern inventions, which are beyond me. They do not seem to know that journalists use that extraordinary modern instrument.
      The clauses need to be properly examined, and that is what a proper Committee stage would have achieved. Instead, we have had an absolute travesty of a Committee stage. These clauses are not as important as the preceding clauses, but they are just as badly drafted and are just as likely to give rise to future difficulties. Hon. Members say, "The House of Lords had better come to our rescue." I have never been very much in favour of the House of Lords coming to our rescue. I think that the House of Commons should do its duty, but as the Government have denied us the right to do our duty, I hope that others will look very carefully at clauses 6, 7 and 8, which we have had not the slightest chance of examining in any proper detail.
      Mr. Randall: I shall be very brief, as we have only a few minutes left because of this awful guillotine.
      I should like to make a suggestion about amendment No. 40, which refers to a person's being guilty of an offence if he fails to comply with an official direction for the return or disposal of documentation. I believe that the direction

      607
      says that a person must not retain a document after receiving the official direction. Essentially the official direction will be a piece of paper saying, "Mr. Smith. Reference XYZ. Please return or destroy the information by 10 o'clock on such and such a date." It would be a very simple thing. I am appealing for simplification.
      I think that the amendment would make matters clearer. We are constantly told that legal language is too difficult for people to understand and that we should create laws that people can comprehend. The amendment would be an improvement. It would be better to link the guilt with a person's retaining information after receiving an official direction rather than his failure to comply with an official direction. I shall leave it to the Minister to see what we can do about that.
      The proposal is a good one, which would improve the Bill, and we can use this opportunity to see whether the Minister is his own man. I am referring not only to the hon. Gentleman but to the Home Secretary when I say that very little has been given away during our proceedings. The Bill has hardly been changed at all. We have just about squeaked a Report stage. This is a sad occasion. As a result of the Bill, the Government have got themselves a bad reputation even among their own supporters. I refer the House to the article in The Guardian today which said that the Bill is highly restrictive.
      Mr. Bermingham: Even allowing for the amendment in its current terms if the information is oral, as leaked information very often is, can my hon. Friend perhaps give the Minister some advice, if the Minister is prepared to listen, as to how one disposes of it? How could one prove that one had got rid of it or that one had forgotten it? [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) wants to make a pertinent comment it would be awfully nice if he had the good manners and courtesy to get to his feet and say so. But let us leave that aside.
      The fact is that the information is not just in documentary form. It does not come that way; it very often comes in oral form. How does this clause deal with oral information? It is nonsensical that the Minister has failed to address this point, and it is nonsensical that the Bill does not deal with it.
      Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend has raised a very interesting question. I refer him to clause 8(4), which refers to any person who
      "has in his possession or under his control any document or article".
      On the question of what happens after oral disclosure takes place, I still say that, instead of reading "Resist, resist, resist" from the briefs provided by the Department, the Minister ought to concede this point. That would make this a very special occasion, bearing mind the fact that we are in the last few minutes of the Committee stage. The Minister would be improving the legislation and making it easier to read. It would be a worthwhile thing to do. Indeed, it would enhance the Minister's political virility. He would be his own man. He would actually be making a decision at the Dispatch Box, and that would enhance his position. We are giving him a great chance to end the Committee stage with a big bang by actually accepting an amendment.
      Mr. John Patten: What an extraordinary set of statements from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who just wandered into the Committee, for the first time, towards the end of the day and picked up the brief, presumably because his hon. and right hon. Friends had exhausted themselves by their exertions.
      Mr. Whitney: Where is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)?
      Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) asks, "Where is the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook?" I am afraid I have not set eyes on him since 7.15 pm.
      The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that it was extremely important that when we looked at issues that could affect the media and journalism in this country, we should consult. In fact, we did have a number of consultations. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. Well, respresentatives of that organisation came to see me on more than one occasion to discuss a number of these issues. Indeed, some of the changes that were made between the White Paper stage and the Bill stage—I refer to the crime category, with which clause 4 deals—reflect, to a certain extent, arguments that were put forward by those people, and my right hon. Friend and I have told them so on a number of occasions.
      Mr. Greg Knight: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Patten: I must finish this reply in the two minutes that I have left.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) put forward an innocent-sounding argument. He asked what would happen to an unfortunate person who had been given a bit of confidential information. Of course, under the Bill it is not an offence to receive information, as is also the case under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act. My hon. Friend talked about such a person, rather than giving the information back, shoving it in the fire or mincing it up. Presumably such a person would have no difficulty at all in proving to the authorities what he had done. The unfortunate side effect of my hon. Friend's amendment—and I am sure he did not intend this—is that it would allow people to destroy information, to destroy documents, to destroy articles, not belonging to them, and to prevent those who had committed a criminal offence from being identified.
      What we are dealing with are not trivial papers but articles that could put lives in danger or threaten the security of the country. We could be talking about papers that refer to the design of a weapon or about a computer disk, which is an article, containing the names of security and intelligence service personnel. Are we really to say that once such a document or article is out of official hands it can never be recovered? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills did not intend that to be the case—
      It being Twelve o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution [15 February], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Amendment negatived.
      THE CHAIRMAN then proceeded, pursuant to the order [13 February] and the resolution [15 February], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.
      Clauses 8 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedule 1 agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      REPEALS AND REVOCATION
      Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the second schedule to the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 178, Noes 33.

      Division No. 100]

      [12.01 am

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Forth, Eric

      Amess, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Amos, Alan

      Fox, Sir Marcus

      Arbuthnot, James

      Franks, Cecil

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

      French, Douglas

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Gale, Roger

      Atkinson, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bellingham, Henry

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gow, Ian

      Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Gregory, Conal

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

      Boswell, Tim

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Ground, Patrick

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Bowis, John

      Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

      Brazier, Julian

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Bright, Graham

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Browne, John (Winchester)

      Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

      Buck, Sir Antony

      Hayward, Robert

      Burns, Simon

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

      Hind, Kenneth

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Holt, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Cash, William

      Howard, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

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

      Chope, Christopher

      Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cope, Rt Hon John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Irvine, Michael

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

      Jack, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jackson, Robert

      Day, Stephen

      Janman, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Emery, Sir Peter

      King. Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

      Fallon, Michael

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Favell, Tony

      Knapman, Roger

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Knight, Greg (Derby North)

      Fishburn, John Dudley

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Forman, Nigel

      Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

      610

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Lightbown, David

      Shelton, Sir William

      Lilley, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

      Stevens, Lewis

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Stradling Thomas, Sir John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Summerson, Hugo

      Marland, Paul

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Maude, Hon Francis

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Miller, Sir Hal

      Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thorne, Neil

      Moss, Malcolm

      Thurnham, Peter

      Moynihan, Hon Colin

      Tracey, Richard

      Nelson, Anthony

      Tredinnick, David

      Neubert, Michael

      Trippler, David

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Trotter, Neville

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Norris, Steve

      Waddington, Rt Hon David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

      Waller, Gary

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Paice, James

      Watts, John

      Patten, John (Oxford W)

      Wells, Bowen

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Wheeler, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Whitney, Ray

      Portillo, Michael

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rattan, Keith

      Wilshire, David

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Redwood, John

      Wood, Timothy

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Yeo, Tim

      Rumbold, Mrs Angela

      Young, Sir George (Acton)

      Ryder, Richard

      Sackville, Hon Tom

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mr. Tony Durant and

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. David Maclean.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

      Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Battle, John

      McWilliam, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Martlew, Eric

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Michael, Alun

      Buchan, Norman

      Pike, Peter L.

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Prescott, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Randall, Stuart

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Derek

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Godman, Dr Norman A.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hinchliffe, David

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

      Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Livsey, Richard

      Mr. Frank Haynes and

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

      McFall, John

      Questions accordingly agreed to.
      Schedule 2 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendment; as amended, to be considered this day.

  Rate Support Grant (Derbyshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]
  12.13 am
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The reason for this debate is partly to try to redress much of the imbalance that has occurred in the Tory press in Derbyshire and nationally about rates and rate support grants—
  Mr. Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Skinner: I thought that this might happen.
  Mr. Knight: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) obviously has clairvoyant powers.
  I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to today's Order Paper and in particular to page 1891, of the remaining Orders of the Day and Notice of Motions. No. 36, tabled in my name and the name of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Mr. Rost) and for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), refers to the services of Derbyshire county council and states that, since 1988, it
  "has wasted public money on political propaganda, including television advertising and publishing a tabloid newspaper."
  I shall not read it all, but it highlights the fact that ratepayers of Derbyshire have had to suffer a 168 per cent. increase since 1982.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. What is the point of order for me?
  Mr. Knight: If you turn to page 1858 of the Order Paper, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will notice that the terms of the Adjournment debate standing in the name of the hon. Member for Bolsover refer to Derbyshire county council services. I refer you to Erskine May, page 372 and the section headed:
  "General restrictions on motions for the adjournment of the House."
  It says in paragraph (a):
  "Members are precluded, under the rule of anticipation…from discussing on an adjournment motion a notice of motion or an order of the day which already stands upon the notice paper or order book."
  I have already on the order book for today a notice of motion dealing with the disgraceful waste of ratepayers' money by Derbyshire county council—[Interruption.]—and I submit to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Member for Bolsover is precluded from raising this matter on the Adjournment under the rule of anticipation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Under Standing Order No. 26 it has to be determined whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation. Regard must be had by the occupant of the Chair
  "to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time."
  I know of no plans for the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) being brought forward for debate, and indeed that was confirmed by the Leader of the House at business questions today. I am not, therefore, prepared to apply the rule of anticipation in this case.
  Mr. Knight: Further to my point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not wish to challenge your ruling and I accept that there is no chance of my motion being called
  612
  today. But I have re-tabled my motion for tomorrow morning and I wondered whether—indeed, it could be the case—it would be reached in tomorrow's business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is hypothetical. We shall have to see how we get on tomorrow. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: I do not think that my hon. Friends and I—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Sit down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I will listen to the point of order from the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin). I must remind him and the House that we are now taking time out of the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. McLoughlin: My point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, relates to the Official Report of 8 March 1988, column 296. I refer to an Adjournment debate which I had about Derbyshire county council. I draw to the attention of the House—and I have previously drawn it to the attention of the Clerks—the fact that the county council responded to my Adjournment debate in its usual hysterical way by accusing me, in having an Adjournment debate, of hiding behind parliamentary privilege. It is—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for the Chair?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I raise an important point with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I have heard tonight from various sources that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his hon. Friends—some of whom I permitted to speak in my debate—intend to speak for the entire time of the Adjournment debate and not allow time for a Minister to reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."]
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We had better get on with the Adjournment debate. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was no plan to take up the whole time of the debate—
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the last half hour of every day is given up as very precious time for an hon. Member to raise a point and for a Minister to reply to it. I remind the House also that the Member whose Adjournment subject is tabled for Thursday night is chosen by Mr. Speaker. I hope that the House will respect that, and that right hon. and hon. Members will not interrupt the Adjournment debate with further points of order.
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree with your comments, but is it right for the House to rehearse tomorrow's tactics?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Richard Holt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I listened carefully to your comments about the selection of Thursday night Adjournment debates. To paraphrase your remarks, you said that Mr. Speaker chooses which debate is to be selected on the basis of the right hon. or hon. Member in whose name it is. I refer you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to "Erskine May", which states that the choice has nothing to do with the right hon. or hon. Member concerned, but is made on the basis of the subject matter. In the light of that, will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, reflect on whether it is the hon. Member who has the Floor of the House or the subject matter? Is it conceivable that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) has the ear of Mr. Speaker, rather than the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, apart from the fact that he makes a lot of noise, carries no special weight in the House?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we may now proceed with the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Skinner: It is clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Adjournment debate that concludes each day is a very special half-hour for the right hon. or hon. Member concerned, who may be from either side of the House. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will respect the Adjournment, knowing that they may on some future occasion have that opportunity themselves.
  Mr. Skinner: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall take no further points of order.
  Mr. Holt rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear that I shall take no further points of order. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: One thing that is certain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that—
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
  Notice being taken that strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
  The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 46.

  Division No. 101]

  [12.23 am

  AYES

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett and

  Mr. Alan Amos.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  NOES

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

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

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Durant, Tony

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Fallon, Michael

  Bottomley, Peter

  Franks, Cecil

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Gregory, Conal

  Bowis, John

  Ground, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Haynes, Frank

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  614

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

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Jack, Michael

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Key, Robert

  Thorne, Neil

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thlield)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  McFall, John

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Maclean, David

  Wells, Bowen

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Wood, Timothy

  Michael, Alun

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Norris, Steve

  Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

  Pike, Peter L.

  Mr. Edward Leigh.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Dennis Skinner.
  Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During the six years that I have been a Member of the House there have been frequent points of order from hon. Members on both sides of the House when they have sought to place matters before the House. I spent a number of hours this afternoon in the Library reading "Erskine May", but nowhere could I find anything about the occupant of the Chair refusing to take further points of order. If you say that points of order will no longer be taken during the debate, that is a new ruling.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What I am saying is that it is most unusual for points of order to be taken during an Adjournment debate, and I hope that the House will respect that. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  One thing is certain. There must be a good story to tell about the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council because of the tremendous efforts that Conservative Members have made to stop the story being told.
  We know only too well—
  Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
  Mr. Skinner: We know that in the course of the past 10 years the rate support grant nationally has been reduced from about 61 per cent. to 46 per cent. But in Derbyshire the picture is much more dramatic. The rate support grant has fallen from 61·9 per cent. to 37·4 per cent. That means that, in contrast with the position when Labour left office in 1979, the ratepayers of Derbyshire in all 10 constituencies have had to find £62·6 for every £100 that has been spent.
  It is important that we get it on the record that rates increased generally, and in Derbyshire, because of the massive cut in the rate support grant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell us about Reg Race."] One reason why the rate support grant has been cut is in order to finance—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the waste?"]—those people—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am finding it difficult to hear whether the hon. Gentleman is in order. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: I was trying to explain that one of the main reasons why rates paid by the ratepayers in the Tory-held constituencies in Derbyshire have increased rapidly is the Goverment's massive cut in rate support grant.
  Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On my calculation, half the time allowed for the Adjournment debate has gone. Surely the Minister should be invited to reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).
  Mr. John Prescott: Silly twit.
  Mr. Skinner: One of the reasons why—[Interruption.]
  Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been called a silly twit by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). In all the time that I have been a Member of the House I have known the hon. Gentleman to speak up for the National Union of Seamen—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are all sorts of remarks passed in this House. I have not heard anything that is out of order.
  Mr. Skinner: I realise the problem that you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have appealed to the House. It is unusual for Adjournment debates to be interrupted by points of order. Many hon. Members will hope to have Adjournment debates and to have an opportunity to put their case. I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover will have the opportunity to put his case. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Skinner: I think that one of the problems you have to face, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that most of the Tory Members have come out of the bar. They have been drinking—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One remark from one side of the House tends to provoke another. Let us get on with the Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Skinner: I was just a little concerned about the fact that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] You are having some difficulty, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is very little time left. I hope that the House will listen to the hon. Gentleman. I want to hear whether he is in order.
  Mr. Skinner: I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are having great difficulty dealing with people this late at night. I was trying to make the point that Tory Members are trying to prevent the Derbyshire county council's Labour-controlled case from being put in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I think it is a very good case.
  Hon. Members will be pleased to know that since 1981 the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council has managed to hold the price of meals on wheels for many thousands of old age pensioners at 35p per head. It has never increased the price in those eight years. It managed to hold the price of school meals down to 45p for the junior schoolchildren and to 55p for the seniors. It is the lowest price in any shire county in Great Britain. It is a story of success against the massive cuts that this Government have carried out against the Derbyshire county council.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Thursday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at seventeen minutes to One o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Buchan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions his officials have held recently regarding the transitional period for the registration of fishing vessels under the terms of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  The transitional period is prescribed in the Merchant Shipping (Registration of Fishing Vessels) Regulations which came into force on 1 December 1988. To date, nearly half the 13,000 transfer applications sent out for the new register have been returned. Officials at the registry of shipping and seamen are dealing with queries as fast as they can. Remaining qualified owners who return their applications in good time should be able to transfer their vessels before the end of the transitional period on 31 March.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total amount of revenue accruing to his Department in the last financial year as a result of the levying of light dues on United Kingdom registered fishing vessels; and what was the original estimate.

  Mr. Portillo
  Responsibility for collecting light dues is vested in the general lighthouse authorities. They have so far received about £120,000 in light dues paid for United Kingdom registered fishing vessels for the financial year 1987–88. Income for the year was originally estimated as about £1 million; the authorities are considering what further action to take to recover the outstanding dues.

  Highway Maintenance (Expenditure)
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the reasons for the underspend on local authority current expenditure on highway maintenance for 1987–88 being revised from £147 million to £91 million in the public expenditure White Paper 1988.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Prior to the 1989 public expenditure survey, expenditure by local authorities on professional and technical services for road maintenance has been included with similar expenditure on public transport under the separate head of professional and technical services. For the 1989 survey it was agreed with the local authority associations that this expenditure should be charged out to the services concerned. The change is referred to in paragraph 83 of Cm. 288. Because expenditure on professional and technical services for 1987–88 was above the planned figure, the effect was to reduce the underspend on the new definition of road maintenance expenditure. The figures in the 1989 survey (Cm. 608) are also based on revised estimates of expenditure which were not available when the 1988 White Paper (Cm. 288) was published.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the average time from the date of the decision to hold a public inquiry to the date when he announces his verdict on the inspector's report.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The length of time between the announcement of a public inquiry and the issuing of the decision letter by the Secretaries of State for Environment and for Transport depends on a number of factors. The main ones are the length and complexity of the scheme, the duration of the inquiry, the length of the inspector's report and the time taken to deliver it, and the implications of the inspector's recommendations.

  Twenty-nine inquiries into trunk road schemes were held in 1987 (the last year for which all inspectors' reports have been received). The Secretaries of State have yet to issue decisions on five major schemes: M3 Bar End-Compton, M40 Waterstock-Wendlebury, A1 Bramham-Wetherby and Wetherby-Dishforth (consecutive inquiries) and A6(M) Stockport North-South bypass. Of the remaining 24, the distribution of times taken between announcement of the inquiry and issuing of the decision letter was as follows:

  Announcement—Decision

  Months

  Number of Schemes

  1–3

  —

  4–6

  4

  7–9

  7

  9–12

  8

  13–18

  4

  over 19

  1

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the number of public inquiries held during the last year into road proposals; what was their average duration; and what was the total cost.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Thirty-two inquiries into trunk road schemes were held in 1988. The following is a breakdown of lengths of inquiry:

  Length

  Number of Inquiries

  1 day

  6

  2–5 days

  8

  1–2 weeks

  5

  2 weeks-1 month

  5

  1–3 months

  6

  3–6 months

  1

  6 months-1 year

  1

  The direct costs of the facilities necessary for these inquiries (accommodation, photocopying etc.) came to £700,000. The figures for individual inquiries range between £285 and £370,000. Including counsel's and inspector's fees, the costs to the Department vary between £1 million and £2 million annually. It is not possible to assess the indirect costs of departmental and consultants' staff.

  Bus Companies (Sale)
  Mr. Higgins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for a deadline by which municipal bus companies should be sold to the private sector.
  283
  Mr. Portillo
  The Government are encouraging local authorities to sell their bus companies and do not rule out the possiblity of seeking powers to require them to do so.

  Viaducts
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is yet ready to publish a further report on the midland links viaducts.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  A 1988 report is published today.

  We welcome this report for the reassuring news that it brings and for the information that it conveys. It is important to keep the wider public informed about these vital elements in our motorway network. Copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The report confirms that the structures are sufficiently strong to carry the traffic which wants to use them.

  The major problem is damage arising from chloride contamination. This is attributable to the original salt-laden water penetrating the structures during the de-icing of the motorways in winters before 1983. We are no longer adding to this problem, as we now use urea. Measures to tackle the consequences of this contamination will be a considerable part of the future programme.

  The strategy for the future maintenance of the viaducts comes down to continuous monitoring, repair and maintenance. The accent will remain on value for money and will include further investigation into improving repair techniques.

  Highway Authorities (Finance)
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report for each highway authority in England (a) its bid for capital allocations and transport supplementary grant for 1989–90, (b) the allocation announced in each case, (c) the allocation as a percentage of the bid in each case and (d) the percentage of each authority's transport supplementary grant allocation attributable to minor works.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The information requested is given in the following tables:

  Capital allocation for local roads 1989–90

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent

  (A)

  (B)

  (C)

  City of London

  1·867

  0·630

  33·7

  Barking and Dagenham

  6·318

  4·580

  72·5

  Barnet

  2·003

  0·790

  39·4

  Bexley

  3·566

  2·780

  78·0

  Brent

  3·200

  1·190

  37·2

  Bromley

  9·998

  8·580

  85·8

  Camden

  3·256

  0·260

  8·0

  Croydon

  6·357

  1·110

  17·5

  Ealing

  12·373

  7·450

  60·2

  Enfield

  24·817

  24·210

  97·6

  Greenwich

  4·698

  2·590

  55·1

  Hackney

  4·349

  1·550

  35·6

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  6·794

  0·410

  6·0

  Haringey

  14·453

  11·880

  82·2

  Harrow

  9·120

  8·980

  98·5

  Havering

  1·063

  0·960

  90·3

  Hillingdon

  20·676

  10·340

  50·0

  Hounslow

  3·463

  1·630

  47·1

  284

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent

  Islington

  2·012

  0·530

  26·3

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2·005

  1·570

  78·3

  Kingston upon Thames

  4·980

  3·870

  77·7

  Lambeth

  0·957

  0·610

  63·7

  Lewisham

  12·492

  11·030

  88·3

  Merton

  13·713

  9·400

  68·5

  Newham

  6·979

  2·420

  34·7

  Redbridge

  3·243

  0·900

  27·8

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·360

  0·610

  44·9

  Southwark

  7·490

  5·610

  74·9

  Sutton

  8·556

  2·330

  27·2

  Tower Hamlets

  0·873

  0·420

  48·1

  Waltham Forest

  2·421

  1·250

  51·6

  Wandsworth

  7·584

  2·690

  35·5

  Westminster

  18·785

  2·020

  10·8

  Bolton

  3·537

  1·770

  50·0

  Bury

  4·238

  3·620

  85·4

  Manchester

  13·078

  4·230

  32·3

  Oldham

  8·355

  2·700

  32·3

  Rochdale

  4·323

  1·160

  26·8

  Salford

  10·007

  5·600

  56·0

  Stockport

  2·536

  0·600

  23·7

  Tameside

  2·916

  1·500

  51·4

  Trafford

  14·706

  4·240

  28·8

  Wigan

  4·399

  3·210

  73·0

  Knowsley

  2·185

  0·750

  34·3

  Liverpool

  6·688

  4·420

  66·1

  St. Helens

  5·903

  4·850

  82·2

  Sefton

  1·425

  0·920

  64·6

  Wirral

  3·930

  2·610

  66·4

  Barnsley

  4·811

  1·730

  36·0

  Doncaster

  3·709

  1·900

  51·2

  Rotherham

  3·742

  2·020

  54·0

  Sheffield

  9·077

  2·330

  25·7

  Gateshead

  7·815

  4·760

  60·9

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  9·297

  6·010

  64·6

  North Tyneside

  2·035

  0·830

  40·8

  South Tyneside

  3·004

  1·290

  42·9

  Sunderland

  5·932

  2·740

  46·2

  Birmingham

  19·980

  11·200

  56·1

  Coventry

  9·202

  6·500

  70·6

  Dudley

  7·848

  1·650

  21·0

  Sandwell

  5·074

  2·550

  50·3

  Solihull

  2·207

  1·270

  57·5

  Walsall

  4·562

  2·550

  55·9

  Wolverhampton

  7·586

  4·300

  56·7

  Bradford

  11·919

  6·240

  52·4

  Calderdale

  3·697

  1·670

  45·2

  Kirklees

  4·599

  1·840

  40·0

  Leeds

  6·568

  4·300

  65·5

  Wakefield

  6·759

  1·300

  19·2

  Avon

  13·910

  10·140

  72·9

  Bedfordshire

  10·701

  9·050

  84·6

  Berkshire

  12·743

  4·880

  38·3

  Buckinghamshire

  7·217

  2·730

  37·8

  Cambridgeshire

  15·309

  5·710

  37·3

  Cheshire

  12·340

  6·310

  51·1

  Cleveland

  13·520

  9·720

  71·9

  Cornwall

  9·210

  4·390

  47·7

  Cumbria

  4·270

  1·630

  38·2

  Derbyshire

  11·000

  4·130

  37·5

  Devon

  15·055

  4·900

  32·5

  Dorset

  14·978

  7·540

  50·3

  Durham

  9·144

  4·640

  50·7

  East Sussex

  16·065

  6·720

  41·8

  Essex

  28·190

  15·430

  54·7

  Gloucestershire

  8·122

  3·930

  48·4

  Hampshire

  19·726

  10·880

  55·2

  Hereford and Worcester

  4·204

  2·300

  54·7

  Hertfordshire

  11·591

  7·950

  68·6

  285

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent

  Humberside

  14·346

  11·920

  83·1

  Isle of Wight

  4·385

  1·470

  33·5

  Kent

  43·654

  25·000

  57·3

  Lancashire

  26·369

  12·820

  48·6

  Leicestershire

  17·300

  8·940

  51·7

  Lincolnshire

  6·540

  3·030

  46·3

  Norfolk

  12·469

  4·160

  33·4

  Northamptonshire

  14·672

  9·340

  63·7

  Northumberland

  5·001

  2·380

  47·6

  North Yorkshire

  11·789

  7·330

  62·2

  Transport Supplementary Grant 1989–90

  Highway authority

  Bid for TSG

  Gross accepted expenditure

  Gross accepted expenditure as percentage of bid

  Accepted expenditure for minor works as percentage of column E

  £ million (D)

  £ million (E)

  per cent. (F)

  per cent. (G)

  City of London

  1·368

  0·388

  28·4

  100·0

  Barking and Dagenham

  4·884

  4·590

  94·0

  9·6

  Barnet

  0·538

  0·582

  108·2

  100·0

  Bexley

  3·136

  2·536

  80·9

  12·8

  Brent

  1·500

  0·900

  60·0

  44·4

  Bromley

  9·033

  7·666

  84·9

  16·4

  Camden

  0·175

  0·172

  98·3

  100·0

  Croydon

  1·275

  0·588

  46·1

  100·0

  Ealing

  7·508

  6·440

  85·8

  16·2

  Enfield

  24·049

  23·916

  99·4

  1·7

  Greenwich

  4·626

  1·596

  34·5

  39·4

  Hackney

  2·515

  0·820

  32·6

  100·0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2·280

  0·284

  12·5

  100·0

  Haringey

  13·361

  11·824

  88·5

  1·9

  Harrow

  7·700

  7·750

  100·6

  8·4

  Havering

  0·353

  0·414

  117·3

  72·0

  Hillingdon

  17·755

  15·260

  85·9

  6·7

  Hounslow

  3·020

  1·578

  52·3

  42·5

  Islington

  0·806

  0·296

  36·7

  100·0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1·802

  1·566

  86·9

  8·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  4·373

  4·022

  92·0

  11·5

  Lambeth

  0·347

  0·364

  104·9

  100·0

  Lewisham

  11·168

  10·628

  95·2

  5·2

  Merton

  12·963

  9·410

  72·6

  3·6

  Newham

  2·300

  2·044

  88·9

  16·8

  Redbridge

  1·851

  0·678

  36·6

  89·1

  Richmond upon Thames

  0·795

  0·326

  41·0

  100·0

  Southwark

  5·806

  5·354

  92·2

  9·0

  Sutton

  2·720

  1·914

  70·4

  23·4

  Tower Hamlets

  0·873

  0·140

  16·0

  100·0

  Waltham Forest

  1·571

  1·102

  70·1

  60·0

  Wandsworth

  4·183

  1·816

  43·4

  54·6

  Westminster

  13·799

  1·800

  13·1

  27·8

  Bolton

  2·227

  1·586

  71·2

  21·8

  Bury

  3·493

  3·396

  97·2

  12·8

  Manchester

  6·865

  3·006

  43·8

  37·8

  Oldham

  4437

  2·394

  54·0

  26·9

  Rochdale

  1·316

  0·526

  40·0

  100·0

  Salford

  9·312

  5·582

  59·9

  5·1

  Stockport

  0·987

  0·186

  18·8

  100·0

  Tameside

  1·263

  1·182

  93·6

  29·7

  Trafford

  11·421

  3·530

  30·9

  14·9

  Wigan

  3·629

  3·296

  90·8

  16·9

  Knowsley

  1·340

  0·596

  44·5

  73·2

  Liverpool

  4·138

  3·574

  86·4

  19·6

  St. Helens

  5·538

  4·608

  83·2

  7·0

  Sefton

  0·944

  0·654

  69·3

  54·4

  Wirral

  3·310

  2·568

  77·6

  13·7

  Barnsley

  3·172

  1·490

  47·0

  30·4

  Doncaster

  2·075

  1·472

  70·9

  14·5

  Rotherham

  2·340

  1·426

  60·9

  29·9

  Sheffield

  6·693

  1·870

  27·9

  39·1

  Gateshead

  6·124

  4·900

  80·0

  7·1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  7·680

  6·026

  78·5

  7·4

  North Tyneside

  1·805

  0·620

  34·3

  100·0

  286

  Highway Authority

  Bid

  Allocation

  Allocation as percentage of bid

  £ million

  £ million

  Per cent

  Nottinghamshire

  15·981

  5·830

  36·5

  Oxfordshire

  11·139

  3·560

  32·0

  Shropshire

  6·729

  3·800

  56·5

  Somerset

  13·548

  8·680

  64·1

  Staffordshire

  13·000

  7·660

  58·9

  Suffolk

  11·798

  4·350

  36·9

  Surrey

  17·675

  11·400

  64·5

  Warwickshire

  11·375

  7·280

  64·0

  West Sussex

  7·662

  3·300

  43·1

  Wiltshire

  3·191

  1·430

  44·8

  287

  Highway authority

  Bid for TSG £ million (D)

  Gross accepted expenditure

  Gross accepted expenditure as percentage of bid

  Accepted expenditure for minor works as percentage of column E

  £ million (D)

  £ million (E)

  per cent. (F)

  per cent. (G)

  South Tyneside

  1·985

  0·830

  41·8

  24·7

  Sunderland

  5·125

  2·380

  46·4

  24·4

  Birmingham

  17·663

  9·658

  84·7

  10·4

  Coventry

  7·817

  6·106

  78·1

  3·3

  Dudley

  6·648

  0·836

  12·6

  77·8

  Sandwell

  4·089

  2·386

  58·4

  16·4

  Solihull

  1·487

  1·052

  70·7

  11·4

  Walsall

  2·339

  2·144

  91·7

  10·8

  Wolverhampton

  4·969

  4·396

  88·5

  7·3

  Bradford

  7·300

  6·306

  86·4

  10·9

  Calderdale

  1·463

  0·168

  11·5

  100·0

  Kirklees

  2·110

  1·250

  59·2

  31·8

  Leeds

  3·816

  3·132

  82·1

  24·5

  Wakefield

  3·013

  0·616

  20·4

  100·0

  Avon

  12·274

  9·892

  80·6

  7·2

  Bedfordshire

  10·392

  8·206

  79·0

  5·4

  Berkshire

  10·749

  4·390

  40·8

  10·9

  Buckinghamshire

  2·994

  2·658

  88·8

  2·0

  Cambridgeshire

  6·770

  5·346

  79·0

  8·6

  Cheshire

  6·821

  5·552

  81·4

  5·1

  Cleveland

  10·622

  9·584

  90·2

  4·4

  Cornwall

  6·690

  3·486

  52·1

  8·8

  Cumbria

  2·346

  1·280

  54·6

  44·1

  Derbyshire

  3·781

  3·080

  81·5

  18·9

  Devon

  11·661

  3·486

  29·9

  17·3

  Dorset

  14·117

  6·204

  43·9

  10·3

  Durham

  8·447

  4·480

  53·0

  15·6

  East Sussex

  11·768

  5·064

  43·0

  10·1

  Essex

  21·850

  15·048

  68·9

  5·2

  Gloucestershire

  6·822

  3·126

  45·8

  8·6

  Hampshire

  11·295

  10·164

  90·0

  5·0

  Hereford and Worcester

  2·385

  1·942

  81·4

  36·0

  Hertfordshire

  8·201

  8·200

  100·0

  0·1

  Humberside

  13·130

  10·442

  79·5

  5·5

  Isle of Wight

  3·513

  1·050

  29·9

  100·0

  Kent

  34·779

  22·862

  65·7

  4·1

  Lancashire

  22·003

  12·370

  56·2

  6·8

  Leicestershire

  11·349

  8·742

  77·0

  7·7

  Lincolnshire

  3·752

  2·378

  63·4

  52·4

  Norfolk

  8·777

  3·682

  42·0

  25·4

  Northamptonshire

  12·792

  8·400

  65·7

  10·0

  Northumberland

  3·518

  1·026

  29·2

  37·3

  North Yorkshire

  8·049

  6·856

  85·2

  10·8

  Nottinghamshire

  6·793

  5·008

  73·7

  13·3

  Oxfordshire

  7·641

  0·896

  11·7

  55·7

  Shropshire

  4·674

  3·358

  71·8

  4·8

  Somerset

  9·919

  8·070

  81·4

  3·1

  Staffordshire

  9·279

  5·984

  64·5

  13·4

  Suffolk

  8·188

  3·920

  47·9

  8·8

  Surrey

  15·727

  11·268

  71·6

  5·6

  Warwickshire

  9·325

  7·418

  79·5

  10·3

  West Sussex

  5·513

  3·052

  55·4

  14·1

  Wiltshire

  1·978

  0·818

  41·4

  73·3

  Notes:

  1 Column F does not take into account any adjustments arising from underspends on accepted expenditure in previous years.

  2 Transport supplementary grant will be paid at a flat rate of 50 per cent. of net accepted expenditure (ie after adjustment).

  3 For London, accepted expenditure for transport supplementary grant includes boroughs' shares of expenditure on urban traffic control managed by the City of London on behalf of the Secretary of State which is excluded from boroughs' bid. Hence the gross accepted expenditure, before adjustments, of some London authorities is greater than their TSG bid.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has now received the report of an efficiency scrutiny into his Department's activities in relation to local authorities' capital expenditure on roads; when he intends to publish the scrutiny and his response to its recommendations; and whether he intends to seek the views of the local authority associations before doing so.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend has received this report and will make a statement about its publication 288
  soon. The local authority associations have already been consulted on a number of the recommendations. Their views on some others which affect local authorities will be sought before final decisions on implementation are taken.

  London Area Computer Model
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will set out the results of the London
  289
  area computer model's evaluation of four transport options for London as developed by the transport and road research laboratory;

  (2) what is his Department's policy regarding the use of the London area computer model developed by the transport and road research laboratory and run by two transport consultancies; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will make available the report by Martin Vorhees Associates and Colin Buchanan and Partners regarding the computer model used to evaluate transport options for London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Lady to my answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) at column 214.

  Personal Injuries
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each police force area in England and Wales the total number of personal injury accidents during the Christmas period 1986 and 1987 and the percentage in each period which were caused as a result of alcohol.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  The following table shows the total number of injury accidents between 20 and 31 December, 1986 and 1987, and the percentage of these accidents in which at least one driver or rider failed a subsequent breath test. Data are not collected on the causes of accidents, so the fact that a driver or rider failed the breath test does not mean that alcohol caused the accident. Some other accidents will have involved drivers or riders who, because of the severity of their injuries, could not be tested.

  Some police forces breath test a large proportion of drivers or riders involved in accidents, while others test only those who are suspected of drink-driving. This can lead to variations between police force areas in the proportions of drivers or riders who were found to be over the limit.

  Because of the small number of accidents involved in some police force areas, differences between two years are not necessarily significant.

  Accidents in England and Wales: percentage of accidents in which at least one driver or rider failed a roadside breath test: between 20 and 31 December 1986 and 1987

  All accidents

  Percentage failed

  Police force

  1986

  1987

  1986

  1987

  Metropolitan

  1,097

  1,075

  3·6

  3·5

  Cumbria

  51

  41

  7·8

  2·4

  Lancashire

  139

  133

  10·1

  6·8

  Merseyside

  178

  154

  6·7

  7·8

  Greater Manchester

  310

  271

  8·1

  5·5

  Cheshire

  103

  98

  5·8

  8·2

  Tyne and Wear

  130

  106

  8·5

  6·6

  Durham

  51

  42

  3·9

  9·5

  North Yorkshire

  68

  65

  2·9

  9·2

  West Yorkshire

  222

  213

  3·6

  7·0

  South Yorkshire

  106

  117

  12·3

  8·5

  Humberside

  86

  104

  8·1

  4·8

  Cleveland

  63

  58

  7·9

  5·2

  West Midlands

  242

  162

  4·5

  9·3

  Staffordshire

  112

  117

  8·0

  6·8

  West Mercia

  89

  102

  5·6

  6·9

  Warwickshire

  54

  57

  3·7

  3·5

  Derbyshire

  87

  87

  9·2

  1·1

  Nottinghamshire

  95

  99

  7·4

  3·0

  Lincolnshire

  58

  70

  12·1

  2·9

  290

  All accidents

  Percentage failed

  Police force

  1986

  1987

  1986

  1987

  Leicestershire

  87

  84

  16·1

  7·1

  Northamptonshire

  60

  60

  13·3

  10·0

  Cambridgeshire

  82

  64

  7·3

  9·4

  Norfolk

  104

  92

  7·7

  1·1

  Suffolk

  72

  68

  4·2

  1·5

  Bedfordshire

  57

  65

  5·3

  3·1

  Hertfordshire

  96

  90

  10·4

  1·1

  Essex

  200

  176

  7·0

  6·3

  Thames Valley

  237

  183

  7·2

  6·0

  Hampshire

  190

  197

  4·2

  7·6

  Surrey

  104

  114

  8·7

  8·8

  Kent

  166

  147

  7·2

  6·8

  Sussex

  140

  139

  2·9

  4·3

  City of London

  7

  5

  0·0

  0·0

  Devon and Cornwall

  164

  165

  5·5

  6·1

  Somerset and Avon

  127

  127

  7·1

  8·7

  Gloucestershire

  62

  53

  8·1

  7·5

  Wiltshire

  66

  68

  9·1

  1·5

  Dorset

  83

  55

  8·4

  12·7

  North Wales

  58

  62

  5·2

  4·8

  Gwent

  37

  29

  0·0

  3·4

  South Wales

  121

  113

  10·7

  6·2

  Dyfed Powys

  44

  49

  9·1

  10·2

  Total

  5,705

  5,376

  6·5

  5·7

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in making unleaded petrol available at motorway service areas.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We are pleased to report that unleaded petrol should be available at all motorway service areas in England and Wales by this spring.

  A1
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list in the Official Report the number of (a) road accidents and (b) fatalities on the A1 between Dishforth and Scotch Corner annually from 1979 to the latest available date.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: The details requested for the section of the A1 between Dishforth and Scotch Corner in North Yorkshire are:

  Year

  Number of Recorded Personal Injury Accidents

  Number of these Accidents which involve Fatality

  1980

  38

  1

  1981

  34

  4

  1982

  36

  3

  1983

  34

  3

  1984

  36

  3

  1985

  51

  1

  1986

  54

  4

  1987

  48

  2

  1988

  57

  0

  Weighbridges
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he is satisfied with the accuracy of all public weighbridges in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.
  291
  Public weighbridges in Great Britain are verified and stamped by local authorities to establish their fitness for use. I am satisfied that these arrangements are adequate to ensure the accuracy of these installations.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many scholarships have been offered in the United Kingdom to citizens of Bangladesh in each of the last 10 years out of United Kingdom public funds.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of new scholarships and awards financed each year is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1979

  214

  1980

  222

  1981

  263

  1982

  283

  1983

  325

  1984

  302

  1985

  265

  1986

  265

  1987

  340

  1988

  n/a

  Most of these awards (322 in 1987) have been provided through the Overseas Development Administration's technical co-operation training programme. Awards have also been provided through the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship scheme, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office scholarships and awards scheme, the Department of Education and Science overseas students research awards scheme and through the British Council. Many awards are for a period of more than one year, so the total number of supported students and trainees in the United Kingdom in any year is much larger (more than 620 in 1987) than the number of new awards.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what levels of aid from multilateral and bilateral sources have been made to Bangladesh in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested in respect of British aid is as follows:

  Year

  British bilateral aid

  British aid through multilateral channels

  £ '000 Total

  1979

  33,826

  n/a

  n/a

  1980

  66,190

  13,340

  79,530

  1981

  33,383

  17,350

  50,733

  1982

  23,537

  23,450

  46,987

  1983

  24,728

  24,710

  49,438

  1984

  35,656

  27,170

  62,826

  1985

  41,173

  17,770

  58,943

  1986

  38,321

  17,820

  56,141

  1987

  34,842

  n/a

  n/a

  Gross multilateral aid for 1979 was not split by recipient. Figures for 1987 (multilateral aid only) and 1988 are not yet available.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid was offered to Bangladesh after the recent flooding.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have committed £25 million in emergency and rehabilitation aid in response to the recent 292
  floods in Bangladesh. This includes 50,000 tonnes of food aid, £5 million through British and local voluntary agencies and a commodity aid grant of £15 million to help meet rehabilitation requirements.

  Soil Erosion
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is given to India, Bangladesh and Nepal in respect of environmental issues to prevent soil erosion and flooding.

  Mr. Eggar
  In India, our forestry projects in Karnataka state promote tree planting which helps to improve degraded land. We are providing technical co-operation to the national bureau of soil survey and land use planning, one of whose roles is to help prevent environmental degradation. In Bangladesh, we have provided immediate flood relief and supported rehabilitation activities; and we are ready to play our part in any international or regional initiatives on flood alleviation which emerge from studies currently being undertaken by the United Nations and the World Bank. In Nepal, we are funding a study on the links between macroeconomic policies and environmental degradation and several projects to promote forest conservation and reafforestation. We have assisted in the production of a forestry master plan for the next 25 years.

  We are keen to do more in these areas and are exploring the options with each Government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  TUA (Entry Clearance)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department received authorisation to issue entry clearance to TUA (reference IMM/90912); and if he will make a statement about steps taken by his Department to action this entry clearance.

  Mr. Eggar
  Her Majesty's embassy in Islamabad received authorisation for the entry clearance from the Home Office on 14 December 1988. On 19 December 1988 a letter was sent to the applicant inviting her to call at the embassy for entry clearance, which was issued on 5 January 1989.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support and aid have been given to the army and police forces in Bangladesh for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom military training assistance scheme funds three instructors at the Bangladesh defence services command and staff college and attendance at military training courses in Britain.

  Assistance to the Bangladesh police has comprised technical, professional and command courses in Britain and basic drugs-related training, as well as provision of communications and drugs-related equipment.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the amount of the largest case of unpaid Customs duty that has come to his attention in the last six years on St. Helena.

  Mr. Eggar
  The largest case, amounting to £200.10, dated back to January 1983.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on whether the senior customs officer and government secretary of St. Helena were at any time in default of paying Customs duties or wharfage charges.

  Mr. Eggar
  The senior customs officer was for a while in default in respect of customs duty and wharfage on a vehicle, confectionery, building materials, groceries and films. He paid in full by April 1987. The government secretary at the time was technically in default, but this apparently arose from incorrect advice given to him.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was lost in uncollected Customs duties and wharfage fees in St. Helena in the last six years.

  Mr. Eggar
  Arrears of Customs duties totalling £124,671 were identified in January 1987. All arrears were collected by April 1987 with no losses.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the Westerdam based at St. Helena and any financial support given in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Eggar
  The MV Westerdam was purchased in 1981 by the St. Helena Fisheries Corporation as an offshore fishing vessel. The original purchase did not involve British Government funds but development aid funds totalling £140,000 were spent in 1985 to repair and refit her in preparation for an offshore fisheries survey, also financed from development aid funds. The vessel was sold at the end of 1988 and it is expected that the proceeds will be used by St. Helena Government on other fisheries-related projects.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many cases of unpaid Customs duties on St. Helena have come to his attention in the last six years; how many were eventually paid in full; and what was the result of any prosecutions.

  Mr. Eggar
  Fourteen cases of unpaid Customs duties were identified. All have been paid in full. No prosecutions were made.

WALES

  Child Care Workers
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. Grist
  Support for social work training is provided as part of the overall support for social services spending through the rate support grant arrangements. Information 294
  on the proportion of rate support grant used for such purposes is not held centrally. However in 1988–89 a direct grant of £62,813 is being made available to assist in training professional and other staff who deal with cases of child abuse. As regards 1989–90 I would refer the hon. Lady to the announcement made by my hon. Friend on 23 November 1988, Official Report, columns 6–7.

  Caravan Sites
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number of caravan sites not licensed by local authorities operated under the auspices of voluntary organisations in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  Approximately 850 sites in Wales have been approved by recreational organisations holding an appropriate certificate of exemption for use by no more than five caravans. In addition exempted organisations have established about 25 sites, on a permanent or seasonal basis, for varying numbers of touring caravans for which they have obtained the informal approval of the local authority. Further sites are used by exempted organisations for temporary holiday meetings and rallies of club members lasting no more than five days. Information on the number of temporary meetings is not hold centrally.

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

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Health Visitors
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified health visitors there were in post in Wales at 31 December 1988, on the most recent date for which the information is available; and, of those, how many were identified by the local health authority as being with a Welsh-speaking ability.

  Mr. Grist
  As at 31 December 1988, 659 (576 whole-time equivalent) health visitors were in post in the National Health Service in Wales. Information on the Welsh-speaking ability of these staff is not available centrally.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children there were in local authority care for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Grist
  The numbers of children in care on 31 March in each year were as follows:

  Numbers

  1979

  4,882

  1980

  4,861

  1981

  4,628

  1982

  4,575

  1983

  4,387

  1984

  4,044

  1985

  3,752

  1986

  3,593

  1987

  3,481

  19881

  3,438

  1 Provisional figure.

  Trunk Roads (Mid-Wales)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the state of trunk roads in mid-Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A considerable number of improvements have been undertaken in recent years. Our plans for further improvements will be set out in the Welsh commentary on the public expenditure White Paper, and in the forthcoming edition of "Roads in Wales".

  Section 4 Grants
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many section 4 grants have been made for each of the past five years in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The section 4 scheme is administered in the Principality by the Wales tourist board. The information is as follows:

  Assistance offered (£ million)

  Offers made

  1984–85 outturn

  2·2

  87

  1985–86 outturn

  3·5

  162

  1986–87 outturn

  3·5

  145

  1987–88 outturn

  2·5

  119

  1988–89 forecast

  3·4

  150

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he will provide detailed information of the locations at which the lead content of air in Cardiff was measured during the past two years; what levels were recorded; and if he will give the dates on which measurements were made and the methods used;

  (2) what evidence he has available of levels of lead pollution in the air in Cardiff over the last 10 years; what trends have been reflected in measurements taken during the period; and what steps he is taking to reduce lead pollution in the atmosphere in Cardiff and elsewhere;

  (3) what information he has on the level of lead in the atmosphere which is considered acceptable in the urban environment and the level which is considered to be detrimental to the health of pedestrians and of the public at large.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to him today by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley).

  Caldy Island
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has as to the local government services provided by(a) South Pembrokeshire district council and (b) Dyfed county council to the residents of Caldy Island, Pembrokeshire; and if he will indicate whether any specific payments are made by the residents for specific local government services.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many operations were postponed at the hospital's request at the Wrexham Maelor hospital in January.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not available centrally.

PRIME MINISTER

  Piper Alpha
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent representations she has received regarding the recovery of the bodies of men trapped in the wreckage of the Piper Alpha oil production platform.

  The Prime Minister
  Some hon. Members as well as two bereaved relatives have written to me recently urging that debris should be removed to search further for the missing victims. I well understand the particular distress of the relatives of the victims whose bodies have not been recovered.

  In addition, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Minister of State, Department of Energy met representatives of the bereaved and survivors on 15 February to hear their concerns personally.

  EC Expenditure
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will invite the next meeting of the European Council to seek a report from the Court of Auditors about the budget and spending of the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Court of Auditors' annual report on the Community budget is formally considered by the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers. I welcome the declared intention of the Spanish Presidency to ensure that concrete decisions are taken on the court's latest report.

  Newton
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to visit Newton, near Rugby.

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

  Documents (Leaks)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if, pursuant to her reply of 31 January,Official Report, column 161, to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) she will set out the criteria she uses in establishing inquiries into (a) the receipt and (b) the origination of leaks of official documents and (c) the stealing of such documents.

  The Prime Minister
  No. It is not my practice to comment on matters of this kind.

  President Gorbachev
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Prime Minister what dates have been fixed for a visit to the United Kingdom by President Gorbachev.

  The Prime Minister
  Mr. Gorbachev will visit the United Kingdom from 5 to 7 April.

  Railways
  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has any plans to improve co-ordination between the Departments of Transport and of the Environment relating to the construction of new railway lines and the relevance of environmental factors related thereto; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The Departments of Transport and the Environment already co-operate on such issues. British Rail will be taking full account of environmental factors in putting forward its proposals for a new line between London and the Channel tunnel.

  Food
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will restructure ministerial responsibilities so that one Department of State is responsible for the food chain from feed for agriculture through supply and distribution to final consumption, embracing both tourism interests and the catering industry; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Medical Treatment (Overseas Citizens)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the European Economic Community rules which require the United Kingdom to offer free medical treatment to residents of certain French overseas territories but not to residents of certain United Kingdom overseas dependencies; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  No. All the United Kingdom dependent territories which so wish have bilateral reciprocal health agreements with the United Kingdom. These provide that immediately necessary treatment is

  Review body reports

  Pay bill increase

  Range of increase

  United Kingdom public expenditure cost

  Per cent.

  Per cent.

  £ million1

  Armed Forces

  6·8

  5–8

  272

  Doctors and dentists

  8·8

  8–14·1

  312

  Professions allied to medicine

  7·7

  7·6–7·8

  43

  Nurses, midwives and health visitors

  6·8

  26·7–6·9

  420

  Top salaries

  6·5

  34·9–10·6

  6

  1 The figures for public expenditure cost differ from those in the review bodies' reports. Their figures do not include some costs which count as public expenditure. The figure for doctors and dentists includes payments for GPs' expenses, not counted as pay. The figure for nurses includes £5 million for the flexible pay experiment and an estimated £3 million for a new grading structure for educational grades, which the review body has not yet costed.

  2 Three chief area nurses grade 4 in Scotland will get increases of 10–13·6 per cent.

  3 This figure does not allow for the recommendation to increase from 25 per cent. to 35 per cent. the quota of civil servants in grades 2 and 3 eligible for discretionary increments. The figure for the pay bill increase does however allow for this. The figure given for the range of increases also excludes restructuring for 13 immigration adjudicators who receive increases of 27·1 per cent.; and for the chief immigration adjudicator and the vice-presidents of the immigration appeal tribunal, who get 28·3 per cent.

  The Government have decided to accept in full the review bodies' recommendations on armed forces, on professions allied to medicine, and on nurses, midwives and health visitors.

  The Government have also decided to accept the recommendation of the review body on doctors and dentists for a basic increase of 8 per cent, for all the groups covered. In the Government's view the creation of 100 additional permanent consultant posts over the next three years, as proposed in the White Paper, "Working for
  298
  available under the NHS for conditions which arise during a temporary visit, on the same basis as to United Kingdom residents. Some of these agreements already also provide that some patients may be referred for treatment of pre-existing conditions free of charge under the NHS. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health will be discussing with some West Indian and Atlantic dependent territories with whom we have reciprocal agreements—Montserrat, Anguilla, Turks and Caicos Islands, British Virgin Islands and St. Helena and its dependencies—the inclusion in their agreements of a similar facility to refer a limited number of patients for pre-existing conditions free of charge.

  The French overseas departments, as an integral part of France, are covered by the EC social security regulations. These allow for the provision of immediately necessary treatment on the same basis as residents of the host country. They also allow referral of patients specifically for treatment but the sending country must meet the full cost of the treatment in such cases.

  Pay Review Bodies
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a statement on the latest reports of the pay review bodies.

  The Prime Minister
  The 1989 reports of the review bodies on the pay of nursing staff, midwives and health visitors, and professions allied to medicine, the doctors and dentists, and the armed forces, and of the Top Salaries Review Body, have been published today. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to members of the review bodies for these reports and for the time and care which they have put into their preparation within the new timetable, enabling decisions to be taken ahead of the new financial year.

  The following table shows the increases in pay rates recommended by the review bodies, and their cost:

  Patients", which was published after the review body report was received will best achieve the objective of improving the long-term career structure for hospital doctors. The creation of these posts will therefore take the place of the increases recommended, in addition to the 8 per cent, basic increase, at the top of the consultants' scale and in the size of consultants' distinction awards. Subject to this, the Government accept the review body's recommendations.
  299
  The Government have decided to accept the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body in full, except that they consider that the pay of 2-star officers should be around 85 per cent. of the normally attainable maximum of grade 2 civil servants (which is also the pay point for 3-star officers) rather than linked to a performance point for grade 3 civil servants. This will give the 2-star officer a salary at the level recommended by the TSRB.

  The full cost of the awards by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and Top Salaries Review Body groups will be met from within existing public expenditure programme totals for this year. In the case of the health services however, the Government recognise that the full costs could not be accommodated without adversely affecting services to patients. The Government have therefore decided to provide an extra £142 million for health authority cash limits from the reserve for next year. Of the remaining cost, £417 million is already fully covered within the allocations made for this year, leaving a balance of £44 million to be covered from cost improvements. The Government have similarly decided to provide an additional £62 million to the family practitioner services from the reserve for this year, bringing the total addition from the reserve to £204 million. Together with the increases in allocation already announced, the increase in provision for the National Health Service in 1989–90 over 1988–89 will therefore be £1,900 million. In total, taking account of lower employers' superannuation contributions, additional receipts and efficiency savings, the resources available for the National Health Service in 1989–90 will be £2,460 million more than in 1988–89.

  The pay rates and scales resulting from the decisions will be promulgated as soon as possible for all the groups concerned.

  Engagements
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.
  300
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 16 February.

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will make a statement on existing legislation and voluntary codes of behaviour which govern the practices of estate agents:

  (2) if he will introduce tighter controls over estate agents to eliminate unethical practices.

  Mr. Forth
  I am currently exploring with estate agency bodies and other interested parties whether and how it might be appropriate to supplement the existing consumer protection provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979, which includes the consideration of a self-regulatory code of practice. I am also considering the review of the Act recently published by the Director-General of Fair Trading. I hope to be in a position to announce the conclusion of my review soon.

  Credit
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to monitor the credit market and in particular, the rates of interest available to personal borrowers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  My Department publishes the statistics of United Kingdom credit business monthly in the "Business Monitor", which is available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. Rates of interest are a matter for commercial decision but the Consumer Credit Act (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 (SI 1980/51) prescribes all of the charges that must be included in the annual percentage rate of charge, so that this can be made known and that prospective borrowers can make fair comparison before entering into a credit agreement.

  Footwear Imports
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what representations he has received on the EEC Commission investigation into the imports of footwear from the far east; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I have received several letters from hon. Members on this issue and also correspondence from members of the footwear industry. The results of the Commission's investigation are expected in the spring. We shall need to see the Commission's findings and recommendations before deciding our own position.

  Companies Act Investigations
  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish the report of the investigation under section 442 of the Companies Act into dealings in Consolidated Gold Fields shares which was commenced in December 1986.
  301
  Mr. Maude
  As my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary said on 24 January it is his intenion to publish this report as soon as possible. However, it would not be appropriate to do so until the issues raised by the report have been full considered.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will publish a table showing for all investigations under the Companies Acts since 1979 the date when the investigation was ordered, the date when the report was given to the Secretary of State, the date when published and the average time between the receipt of such reports and their publication.

  Mr. Maude
  Such a table could be provided only at disproportionate time and cost to my Department. Details of the appointment of inspectors and publication of their reports are contained in the annual report on companies which is presented to Parliament pursuant to section 729 of the Companies Act 1985 and which is published through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. A copy of each published report is also placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Gould
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the report of the inquiry under section 442 of the Companies Act to investigate dealings in the shares of Consolidated Golds Fields ordered in December 1986 was released to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission during its recent consideration of the Minorco bid for Consolidated Golds Fields.

  Mr. Maude
  Yes.

  Scottish and Newcastle Breweries
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if he will require the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in connection with its investigation into the proposed acquisition of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc by Elders IXL, on the structure of the shareholdings in Elders IXL, an examination of the financial standing of Elders IXL and its major shareholders, an assessment of borrowings of Elders IXL, and the structure and financing of the proposed bid for Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will require the Monopolies and Mergers Commission to report to him on the resources to be deployed by Elders IXL in connection with its proposed offer to purchase Scottish and Newcastle Breweries plc; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is an independent body and it is for it to determine the direction of its investigation of a reference subject. Section 84(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 requires the commission to take into account all matters which appear to it in the particular circumstances to be relevant.

  Argentine (UK Imports)
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action he is taking in response to Argentine resolution 3620/88 ANA which formalises discrimination against imports from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  Resolution 3620/88 ANA published on 3 January 1989 in the Official Bulletin publicly 302
  confirmed Argentina's unilateral discrimination against the United Kingdom. Argentina has kept British imports out by a variety of administrative measures since 1982, and still refuses to accept our shipping and air services. The United Kingdom does not discriminate against imports from Argentina; we lifted our embargo in 1985.

  We are committed to seeking more normal relations with Argentina and have proposed a series of initiatives to that end. The Argentine response has so far been disappointing and the publication of resolution 3620/88 ANA will do nothing to promote better relations.

  Our protecting power has already delivered a note of protest. We have drawn the resolution to the attention of the World Bank, since in our view it conflicts with the trade liberalisation policies being supported by a World Bank loan. The European Commission with which we are in close touch on this issue share our concern and have made it clear to the Argentine authorities that there is no scope for developing EC/Argentine relations as long as discrimination against our exports and air and shipping interests continues. Both these organisations have a role to play in persuading Argentina to drop this discrimination.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the British Railways board's Provincial service will be published.

  Mr. Maude
  The report is published today.

  The commission expressed satisfaction with the remarkable improvement in the sector's performance, and made 42 recommendations aimed at bringing about further improvement. It completed its report on 29 September 1988, within the six months allowed by the Secretary of State.

  The commission found that Provincial's initial strategy on formation in 1982 was to give priority to cost-cutting. Efforts to increase traffic came later as its organisation and particularly its marketing developed. The result had been a significant reduction in Provincial's call on Government grant. The commission found this very encouraging and a clear endorsement of the concept of sectoral management of the railway business. However, it saw the need for a closer look at individual services and believed that Provincial should now pay more attention to the quality of service it provided.

  Evidence submitted to the commission by local authorities and other groups showed a strong desire for improvement in Provincial's services both in quantity and quality. The commission said there could be substantial benefit in a closer local involvement in planning and paying for such services. It accordingly recommended that the board should discuss with Government Departments and other relevant bodies the case for transferring financial responsibility for supporting certain urban and rural services to local government.

  The commission was glad to note the action taken by the board to initiate reform of the collective bargaining machinery following the recommendations in the Network SouthEast report. It found that there was scope for significant further productivity gains and made a number of recommendations to this end.

  The commission also found that the board, in responding to competition from bus and coach services, was not abusing any monopoly situation existing in its

  303
  favour. Nor was it in relation to any matter falling within the terms of reference pursuing a course of conduct which operated against the public interest.

  British Rail will be producing a preliminary response to the commission's findings within three to four months, in the light of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will make a statement.

THE ARTS

  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what information he has on the extent to which the redundancy terms offered to staff at the Victoria and Albert museum as a result of restructuring differ from the terms available to all civil servants of those grades.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: I understand that the redundancy terms offered to the staff of the Victoria and Albert museum are those payable under the principal Civil Service pension scheme.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts when the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum were first informed about the proposed restructuring of staff.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: I understand that the trustees of the Victoria and Albert museum were kept fully informed about the proposals.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consultations have taken place and on what dates with staff about the proposed staff restructuring at the Victoria and Albert museum.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: I understand that consultations have taken place throughout the last year with staff about the proposed staff restructuring at the Victoria and Albert museum.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what is the annual salary cost of(a) administrative and (b) curatorial staff at the Victoria and Albert museum.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: I understand that the salary and other staff costs at the Victoria and Albert museum during 1988–89 are expected to total £12·1 million. It is not possible to divide this figure precisely between administrative and curatorial staff.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether the proposed staff restructuring at the Victoria and Albert museum is in accordance with Her Majesty's Treasury's grading guidance.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 15 February 19891]: The recently announced changes in the organisation of some departments of the Victoria and Albert museum folow a review of the museum's overall organisational structure. I understand that Her Majesty's Treasury's grading guidance is taken into account in all gradings at the Victoria and Albert museum.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxation
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures for the percentage increase since(a)
  304
  1978–79 and (b) 1985–86 in (i) mortgage interest tax relief, (ii) of each of the private pension tax reliefs listed in Cm. 621, table 21.1.25, (iii) in the retail price index, (iv) in the index of average earnings and (v) as index of total personal incomes before tax with 1978 = 100.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Provisional estimates of the percentage changes in the items specified are given in the table.

  Percentage change

  1978–79 to 1988–89 percentage

  1986–86 to 1988–89 percentage

  Cost of tax relief for:

  Mortgage interest

  +395

  +16

  Employees' contributions to1 occupational pension schemes

  2

  +12

  Employers' contributions to1 occupational pension schemes

  2

  -21

  Investment income of1 occupational pension schemes

  2

  +13

  Lump sum payments to pensioners1

  2

  +11

  Contributions to personal pensions1 (including retirement annuity premia and FSAVCs)

  2

  3

  Retail prices index

  4+113

  4+13

  Average male earnings, (all occupations, adult rates)

  5+174

  5+28

  1 See footnotes 5 to 8 to table 21.1.25 of Cm. 621.

  2 Estimates of the costs of pension reliefs in 1978–79 are not readily available.

  3 Personal pensions and FSAVCs were not introduced until 1987–88.

  4 The RPI for 1988–89 is not yet available: percentage increases shown are for calendar years 1978 to 1988 and 1985 to 1988 respectively.

  5 Based on actual figures to 1987–88 and a growth rate of 8¾ per cent, for 1988–89, as assumed by the Government Actuary for the purposes of assessing the National Insurance Fund (as in chapter 3 of the 1988 Autumn Statement).

  Figures for total personal income before tax are not available for 1988–89. Percentage changes to 1987–88 are as follows:

  Percentage change

  1978–79 to 1987–88 percentage

  1985–86 to 1987–88 percentage

  +139

  +16

  Public Sector Debt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amount of public sector debt was(a) created and (b) repaid in each of the last five financial years, and if he will give an estimate for 1988–89.

  Mr. Major
  Figures for the creation and the repayment of all public sector debt instruments are not readily available. However, figures for official sales and redemptions of Government marketable securities are given in table 3.5 of "Financial Statistics" (published by the CSO).

  Tax and Price Index
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the tax and price index in the 12 months to December 1988.

  Mr. Lilley
  In the 12 months to December 1988 the tax and price index rose by 4·8 per cent.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of Government income obtained from privatisation since 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Since 1979 the Government have obtained net privatisation proceeds of £23½ billion.

  Credit Cards
  Sir Anthony Grant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information is collected by the Treasury concerning bank credit card holders and their indebtedness; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  The relevant statistics are compiled by the Department of Trade and Industry and are published in its monthly press notice on credit business.

  Economic Policy
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the efficacy of his policy for slowing down the economy.

  Mr. Lilley
  There are clear signs that the recent interest rate rises are having the desired effect.

  Taxation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will accept the recommendation of the Law Society of Scotland in its memorandum of observations on the Inland Revenue consultative document, "Residents in the United Kingdom: The Scope of United Kingdom Taxation for Individuals", that the concept of fiscal connection might be employed to introduce a measure of flexibility to the definition of residents with the aim of avoiding inequitable results.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  We are giving careful consideration to all the representations received on the consultative document, including those put forward by the Law Society of Scotland.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by region and for Scotland and Wales and by Department the number of established Civil Service posts for each of the following categories:(a) administrative officers, (b) executive officers, (c) higher executive officers, (d) senior executive officers, (e) principal grade 7 and (f) assistant secretary grade 5.

  Mr. Brooke
  Figures for staff in post in principal Departments by economic planning region are available in table 3 of "Civil Service Statistics 1988", a copy of which is available in the House of Commons Library. More detailed information about staff numbers by grade, region and Department could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the pay of Civil Service lawyers at grades 2 and 3.

  Mr. Brooke
  As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for 306
  Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 January at column 263, the Government have consulted the TSRB on the proposals affecting the pay of grades 2 and 3 lawyers in Sir Robert Andrew's report on the Government legal services.

  From 1 April 1989, greater use will be made of personal pay points on a selective basis for lawyers at these grades. Awards will be related to lawyers' skills, experience, marketability and value to the Department, taking account of the view of the head of the Government legal service in individual cases. The Government will give further thought, with the TSRB, to the implications for the development of performance pay at grades 2 and 3.

  Lawyers in London at grade 3, in common with other grade 3 civil servants, will benefit from the Government's acceptance of the TSRB's recommendation of a London allowance of £2,000.

  Tax Relief (Education)
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list all tax relief schemes related to the provision of primary and secondary education in the private sector; and if he will give details of the total cost of such schemes to the Treasury for the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind tax reliefs for private educational establishments which have charitable status.

  Charities are generally exempt from income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax, provided that their income and gains are applied for charitable purposes only.

  The provision of education in a registered school is exempt from VAT.

  The detailed cost of these reliefs is not available.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the cost to the Exchequer of tax subsidies on company cars in 1988–89; and what estimate he has made for the next five years.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 10 February 1989]: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the fact that the company car scales do not fully reflect the value to an employee of having the private use of a company car. It is not possible to estimate the precise extent of the undervaluation. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) on 8 February 1989 at column 553.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Staff
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what new initiatives the Civil Service is taking to help recruit and retain staff in the 1990s.

  Mr. Luce
  Working mothers will be an important section of the labour force in the 1990s. The Civil Service recognises the need to offer working conditions and career opportunities that will be attractive to them. We have therefore revised our policy on financing child care schemes to give Departments the freedom to support these within running cost provisions, where this offers good
  307
  value for money. We have also clarified the rules on unpaid special leave to encourage Department to give a career break with a right of return for up to five years to staff with family responsibilities. Together with the existing programme of action to increase equality of opportunity for women at all levels we think these new measures will help to ensure that the service can recruit and retain staff in the labour market of the 1990s.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Small Claims
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General how many small claims were brought in England and Wales during the last 12 months for which records are available; and how many and what percentage of such claims were brough by employees against employers.

  The Attorney-General
  The distribution of the nature and amounts of claims brought in county courts in England and Wales during 1987 is shown in table 4.3 of the 1987 edition of the annual command publication "Judicial Statistics". This was presented to Parliament in July 1988 and is available from the House of Commons Library. No data are collected on claims brought by employees against employers.

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the average time between the grant of a civil legal aid section 1 certificate and the payment for work done under that certificate and that in respect of all such certificates issued in each of the last 10 years.

  The Attorney-General
  The average time between the grant of a full civil legal aid certificate and the payment of the first main bill or notification of a nil claim in each of the last 10 years was as follows1

  Non-matrimonial (months)

  Matrimonial2 (months)

  1978–79

  30·3

  14·0

  1979–80

  29·5

  18·1

  1980–81

  29·1

  19·7

  1981–82

  27·5

  20·8

  1982–83

  28·2

  22·7

  1983–84

  28·7

  23·7

  1984–85

  28·0

  24·3

  1985–86

  27·2

  24·8

  1986–87

  28·4

  25·6

  1987–88

  30·0

  26·9

  1 The figures provided are approximations only, based on the overall volume of certificates issued and bills paid during each year.

  2 The figures produced relate to bills paid in respect of certificates issued after 1 April 1977. Information on certificates issued prior to that date is not available. This has necessarily distorted the true average time for matrimonial cases, particularly in the early years.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been convicted for non-violent offences.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest readily available information is given in the table:308

  Sentenced population in prison service establishments in England and Wales: by offence group 30 June 1988

  Offence group

  Number1

  Violence against the person

  8,660

  Sexual offences

  2,690

  Robbery

  3,900

  Other offences

  20,900

  Not recorded

  1,840

  In default of payment of a fine

  560

  All offences

  38,550

  1 Provisional rounded estimates.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are serving total sentences of six months or less.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  According to the records held centrally, on 31 December 1988 about 2,920 prisoners, excluding fine defaulters and non-criminals, were serving sentences of six months or less.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a copy of his departmental guidelines for the evaluation of local authority civil defence plans submitted to his Department for inspection under the planned programme for implementation.

  Mr. John Patten
  Home Office guidance on the writing of civil defence plans is contained in the emergency planning guidance to local authorities, issued in 1985 and updated in these respects in 1987, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list, naming the local authority concerned, each plan required by schedule 2 to the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 and evaluated under the planned programme for implementation, which is regarded as incomplete;

  (2) if he will list, naming the local authority concerned, each plan required by schedule 2 to the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 and evaluated under the planned programme for implementation, which is regarded as having failed to take account of the Government's planning assumptions;

  (3) if he will list, naming the local authority concerned, each plan required by schedule 2 to the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 and evaluated under the planned programme for implementation, which is regarded as containing little or no operational detail;

  (4) if he will list, naming the local authority concerned, each plan required by schedule 2 to the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983 and evaluated under the planned programme for implementation, which is regarded as amounting to little more than a statement of intent.

  Mr. John Patten
  No. As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) on 31 January columns 94–95, even the best plans require further work. Details are discussed with individual local authorities, but plans are not categorised in the ways suggested.

  Police National Computer
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will allow routine and independent checks of the use of the police national computer to ensure that police procedures are adequate to maintain privacy.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Access to the police national computer is a matter for chief officers of police. Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary check on access procedures in the course of their annual inspections of forces, however, and this is supplemented by regular audits carried out by forces themselves, and by officers based in the Home Office. The Association of Chief Police Officers keep procedures under regular review, and the Home Office participates in this work. The association is in close touch with the Data Protection Registrar. Against this background, I see no need for further measures.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will institute an independent review of procedures surrounding the use of personal data held on the police national computer by the Police Complaints Authority or the Data Protection Registrar; and whether he will make provision for either body to report to Parliament.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police Complaints Authority was established to provide an independent element in the investigation of complaints against individual police officers. The authority has no power other than in relation to complaints against police officers, and a matter of this kind is not for it. The authority reports at least annually to my right hon. Friend, and its reports are laid before Parliament.

  The Data Protection Registrar has a duty under the Data Protection Act 1984 to promote the observance of the data protection principles laid down in that Act, and has power to investigate specific complaints made to him. He is, however, independent of the Government, and reports directly to Parliament. I shall arrange for his attention to be drawn to this question.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the precedents established by the Police Complaints Authority in its report HC425, concerning data held on police computers.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The Police Complaints Authority submitted its report under section 97(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This empowers the authority to make a report to my right hon. Friend on any matters coming to its notice under part IX of the Act to which it considers that his attention should be drawn by reason of their gravity or of other exceptional circumstances. Part IX of the Act deals with the procedures for investigating complaints against police officers.

  Decisions on when to submit a report under section 97(2) of the Act are a matter for the authority.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement concerning his Department's review of the Data Protection Act; and whether he can outline any timetable for reporting, legislative changes, or subsequent White Papers.
  310
  Mr. Renton
  The interdepartmental review committee will report to Ministers as soon as posible but no specific timetable has been set. We shall consider in due course what further action may be necessary in the light of the review committee's recommendations.

  Forensic Pathology
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the reasons for the delay in producing the report of the working party on forensic pathology.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand that the work has presented many difficulties, including the reconciliation of various conflicts of interest. As a result, it has taken time to draw up conclusions on which the various members of the working party could agree.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish in the Official Report the dates when the current director of the forensic service science laboratory at Chepstow had meetings with the chief constables of each of the police forces which the laboratory serves.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the last two years, the director of the Chepstow forensic science laboratory has met chief constables of the forces which the laboratory serves on the following dates:

  1987

  23 March

  7 September

  23 September

  7 December

  17 December

  1988

  13 January

  3 March

  14 March

  24 March

  3 May

  6 July

  12 September

  25 November

  12 December

  15 December

  Most of these meetings were either regional gatherings attended by chief constables from a number of forces, or meetings of the laboratory's user board, which is chaired by a chief constable.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now received the working party report on forensic pathology.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The working party is to meet in April to consider the final draft of the report. It is hoped that the working party will submit its report to my right hon. Friend shortly thereafter.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times since 1984 has the Home Office working party on forensic pathology met.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Since December 1984, the working party has met formally on six occasions.

  Missing Persons
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief
  311
  constable as to how many people were reported missing in Leicestershire during each of the last five years for which records are available; and how many and what percentage were subsequently traced.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Statistics of missing persons are published by the chief constable in his annual reports (P.14 of the issue for 1987), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Illegal Parking
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought by local authorities under section 35 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in each year since its enactment.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those individuals and authorities who have made representations to him about introducing a new range of police riot weapons capable of firing both plastic bullets and CS gas canisters.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Only CS equipment and plastic baton rounds and launchers of a type authorised by the Home Office may be used by police forces in England and Wales in situations of serious public disorder. Use of the equipment is subject to very strict conditions which my right hon. Friend announced in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 19 May 1986 at columns 15–16.

  Equipment for use in situations of serious public disorder is kept under review. The police have made representations about the current plastic baton round system and a number of different plastic baton round systems have been tested. No decision has been taken to replace the existing system.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) why he requires the dates of birth of individuals involved in immigration cases, his reference PO26926/88 and 22975/88, about which the hon. Member for Leyton has made representations;

  (2) why he requires the full name of individuals involved in immigration cases, his reference PO26926/88 and 22975/88, about which the hon. Member for Leyton has made representations when the hon. Member provided the names made known to him;

  (3) whether he has any knowledge of the reason why the hon. Member for Leyton received from his Department on 8 February letters which were dated 30 October 1988 and 22 November 1988 asking for the full names and dates of birth of individuals involved in immigration cases about which the hon. Member has made representations.

  Mr. Renton
  When letters from Members making representations in immigration cases do not supply sufficient information for the papers of the individual concerned to be traced, further details have to be requested in order for the representations to be followed up. This applies to the cases and letters listed above. If hon. Members do not respond to requests for more information within a certain time a reminder letter is sent.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take appropriate action to prevent discriminatory practices against prisoners in United Kingdom prisons who may be HIV positive or have developed symptoms of AIDS.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In England and Wales the management of prisoners identified as HIV antibody positive is a matter for the governor and medical officer, taking account of local circumstances and the needs of the individual prisoner. Central guidelines stress the importance of enabling those who are well to participate as fully as possible in normal prison life. This is also emphasised in staff training and in an educational package which will shortly be available for use with prisoners. Plans for the care and support of prisoners who develop AIDS or AIDS-related illness are modelled on best practice in the general community. Referral to specialised facilities within the National Health Service is arranged when this is clinically indicated.

  Practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  Mr. D. R. Lidington
  Mr. Mullins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the responsibilities of Mr. D. R. Lidington.

  Mr. Hurd
  Mr. Lidlington is a special adviser who provides advice on a wide range of Home Office subjects.

  Police Force Areas
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by each police force area for England and Wales the total population and area in square miles.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The available information can be found at columns (f) and (g) of appendix 7 to the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector of constabulary for 1987, a copy of which is to be found in the Library.

  Petty Officer John Black
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commisioner of Police of the Metropolis as to why the Metropolitan police are not prepared to allow Mr. and Mrs. K. Crane of Melton Mowbray, or their solicitors, to see the report of two Scotland Yard officers who investigated the circumstances relating to the death in Spain of Petty Officer John Black, Royal Navy; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: Access to the report is a matter for the commissioner. It is a general rule that police reports following inquiries remain confidential.

  Probation Services
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many county probation services have framed explicit statements of local objectives.
  313
  Mr. John Patten
  [holding answer 8 February 1989]: Fifty four area probation services have produced statements of local objectives in one form or another. One has produced a statement of local priorities and one a review of local objectives, priorities and tasks.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Food Research
  Dr Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about his plans for the future of the institutes of food research.

  Mr. Jackson
  In line with the intentions first outlined in the Agricultural and Food Research Council corporate plan for 1984–1988, directors of the council's eight institutes have been asked to produce long-term for reorganising their activities on to a smaller number of sites.

  The institute of Food Research will present to the AFRC options for the restructuring of its three laboratories on to two sites. The council will then make a decision based on a detailed analysis and appraisal of these options and taking full account of the scientific programme of the institute.

  Primary Teachers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up a national scheme for one year placements of newly qualified primary teachers in areas of severe shortage of such teachers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Butcher
  No.

  Physical Education (Qualifications)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has on the number of applicants to take(a) GCSE in physical education in 1988 and (b) O-level or GCE in physical education in the five previous years.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In 1987, about 11,700 pupils in schools in England attempted CSE or GCE O-level examinations in physical education. Comparable information is not available in respect of previous years, nor yet centrally in respect of GCSE examinations taken in 1988.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many complaints he has received in respect of the conduct of ballots for grant-maintained schools; and if he will list in respect of each(a) the sender of the complaint, (b) the authority concerned and (c) the nature of the complaint.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  A number of parents, teachers, governors and others have expressed concern to my Department about the conduct of ballots and associated procedures at schools considering seeking grant-maintained status. Such expressions of concern are frequently made in confidence, and it would not be appropriate for me to provide the details requested. The purpose of my Department's letter of 13 February to chief education officers was to draw attention to the need for 314
  ballots and the associated procedures to be conducted fairly and responsibly, and to my powers to consider and determine formal complaints.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he anticipates that orders relating to the introduction of parts of the national curriculum will be laid before Parliament.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I expect to lay orders for mathematics and science next month and for the first key stage in English around the end of April. The timing of further orders will depend on statutory consultations on proposals.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the estimated total cost of the review of the student finance which he established in June 1986; how many staff were engaged upon it; how many representations were received about it; and what overseas trips by Ministers, officials and consultants were undertaken, by whom and at what cost.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The review of student support was conducted within Government, under the supervision of a group of Ministers and officials of which the membership and secretariat numbered seventeen. Since most of the staff engaged in the review were ordinarily involved, to a greater or lesser degree, in matters relating to student support, the significant additional costs arising from the review were essentially those relating to overseas visits; the commissioning of surveys of students' income and expenditure; the hiring of a consultant to advise on student support arrangements in other countries; and the publication of the White Paper. Four trips overseas were undertaken by a Minister, accompanied by one official at a cost of £4,600. The other costs were:

  £

  Surveys

  235,000

  Consultancy

  10,000

  White Paper

  4,500

  The review received written evidence from over 100 organisations, seven petitions signed by a total of 1,300 people, and almost 1,600 letters.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations have been received about the proposals for student loans contained in the White Paper Cm. 520 from(a) organisations and (b) individuals; how many of these are in favour of the proposals and how many are against them.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  About 4,500, including about 140 formal responses from organisations, and expressing a variety of views.

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish a table showing for each year from 1979 to date(a) the number of surplus school places removed, (b) the target number specified for that year in the public expenditure White Paper or elsewhere and (c) (a) expressed as a percentage of (b).
  315
  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The information is given in the table:

  Year

  The number of surplus school places removed 000s

  The Public Expenditure White Paper Target 000s

  per cent. (a)/(b)

  (a)

  (b)

  1979–80

  542

  470

  115

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  158

  160

  99

  1984–85

  155

  160

  97

  1985–86

  132

  168

  79

  1986–87

  118

  167

  71

  1987–88

  124

  139

  89

  1988–89

  n/a

  137

  —

  1989–90

  n/a

  133

  —

  The column (b) figures for 1987–88 to 1989–90 represent revised targets arrived at following discussion with the local authority associations.

  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the total number of surplus school places available for removal represented by decisions made by him or pending in respect of proposals for the closure or reorganisation of schools.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The number of surplus places planned to be taken out of use following my approval of statutory school reorganisation proposals since May 1986 is 103,500. In addition substantial numbers of surplus places have been removed as a result of other action by LEAs, such as removing temporary classrooms, rationalising split sites, and mothballing surplus classroom accommodation. The remainder of the question can be answered only at disproportionate cost.

  School leavers 1986–87 maintained schools only

  1Percentages

  Attempting

  Achieving

  Total leavers (000's)

  CSE

  O-level

  A-level

  2lower grades

  3higher grades

  A-level passes

  London boroughs

  Barking

  2·38

  75·8

  59·7

  9·0

  76·3

  40·8

  7·5

  Barnet

  3·23

  64·5

  76·9

  32·3

  74·3

  66·2

  30·1

  Bexley

  3·25

  72·1

  66·5

  17·9

  81·1

  49·4

  16·2

  Brent

  3·06

  91·3

  70·5

  18·1

  89·4

  57·5

  11·8

  Bromley

  2·74

  81·5

  86·5

  26·0

  85·8

  58·2

  21·7

  Croydon

  4·25

  79·4

  67·5

  14·7

  81·0

  49·8

  14·1

  Ealing

  3·31

  82·4

  63·5

  17·3

  78·6

  46·6

  15·1

  Enfield

  3·31

  79·1

  75·6

  17·1

  81·4

  49·9

  13·9

  Haringey

  2·08

  78·5

  76·2

  12·7

  77·5

  40·2

  11·0

  Harrow

  1·63

  90·3

  89·0

  9·0

  84·0

  65·0

  7·4

  Havering

  3·55

  87·4

  79·4

  14·9

  85·3

  53·4

  12·9

  Hillingdon

  2·79

  87·7

  71·7

  14·4

  89·9

  51·1

  11·8

  Hounslow

  2·46

  78·7

  71·6

  14·4

  81·6

  52·0

  13·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  1·31

  74·3

  80·1

  26·6

  80·3

  60·5

  23·4

  Merton

  2·00

  74·3

  68·4

  15·5

  83·0

  54·1

  15·5

  Newham

  2·88

  78·0

  57·7

  11·5

  77·8

  47·3

  9·9

  Redbridge

  2·68

  75·3

  71·0

  22·6

  75·8

  55·1

  20·4

  Richmond upon Thames

  1·69

  86·7

  81·4

  0·7

  85·9

  65·2

  0·0

  Sutton

  2·00

  60·5

  80·0

  34·3

  78·2

  68·1

  33·7

  Waltham Forest

  2·03

  80·3

  67·4

  8·5

  75·8

  32·0

  6·3

  Inner London

  23·55

  76·1

  55·5

  11·7

  74·6

  43·1

  10·4

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  16·52

  81·7

  66·3

  12·1

  80·5

  43·3

  10·3

  Coventry

  4·61

  87·9

  74·4

  16·7

  84·6

  50·9

  13·9

  Dudley

  4·65

  89·7

  77·1

  8·3

  86·9

  52·6

  8·3

  Sandwell

  4·81

  83·2

  61·1

  9·0

  82·2

  39·1

  7·8

  Solihull

  3·62

  91·5

  83·8

  23·3

  87·2

  60·5

  20·9

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce his decisions in respect of applications for grant-maintained status.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend gave on 24 January at column 476.

  Medical Students (Top-up Loans)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been received concerning the introduction of top-up loans for medical students; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  About 200—mostly from hon. Members, who will receive a full reply.

  Examination Statistics
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Pembroke on 13 February,Official Report, column 5, concerning A-level, O-level and CSE examinations sat and achieved as a percentage of the year group, when the information requested will be available on the same basis as was provided on 11 January 1988, Official Report, columns 42–46.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information given in the table is presented in terms of leavers from maintained schools in England in 1986–87. This is on the same basis as provided to my hon. Friend in the Official Report for 11 January 1988, columns 42–46 for the year 1985–86.
  317

  Attempting

  Achieving

  Total leavers (000's)

  CSE

  O-level

  A-level

  2lower grades

  3higher grades

  A-level passes

  Walsall

  4·81

  79·3

  71·0

  14·6

  79·0

  49·4

  12·4

  Wolverhampton

  4·27

  84·5

  74·4

  12·1

  81·8

  42·2

  9·0

  Merseyside

  Knowsley

  2·49

  79·9

  66·0

  7·1

  76·3

  39·2

  4·1

  Liverpool

  6·80

  77·0

  68·9

  14·4

  74·1

  39·1

  12·3

  St. Helens

  2·75

  84·2

  77·4

  19·6

  78·4

  54·3

  18·0

  Sefton

  5·04

  82·1

  84·4

  18·2

  78·4

  59·1

  16·0

  Wirral

  5·29

  80·2

  79·9

  19·5

  79·3

  51·6

  17·8

  Greater Manchester

  Bolton

  4·56

  87·4

  83·6

  17·2

  83·8

  56·2

  14·7

  Bury

  2·86

  84·4

  90·9

  18·2

  82·1

  63·1

  16·1

  Manchester

  6·89

  73·6

  67·7

  15·3

  72·1

  43·0

  13·7

  Oldham

  3·27

  85·9

  70·2

  10·9

  84·6

  43·3

  8·9

  Rochdale

  3·30

  81·7

  80·0

  15·2

  80·8

  49·4

  11·0

  Salford

  3·34

  83·9

  78·3

  15·7

  81·6

  45·4

  12·9

  Stockport

  4·32

  82·9

  83·9

  19·6

  78·0

  55·1

  17·4

  Tameside

  3·73

  88·4

  80·8

  12·5

  85·6

  51·8

  9·9

  Trafford

  2·72

  84·5

  83·8

  19·4

  85·4

  59·8

  18·7

  Wigan

  5·76

  88·2

  89·3

  15·5

  86·3

  58·7

  14·2

  South Yorkshire

  Barnsley

  3·92

  85·4

  77·8

  10·8

  83·2

  38·3

  10·3

  Doncaster

  4·75

  83·9

  80·4

  16·0

  82·8

  46·9

  13·1

  Rotherham

  4·51

  82·9

  74·8

  13·1

  84·4

  40·7

  11·7

  Sheffield

  8·45

  85·4

  80·8

  13·0

  82·8

  47·7

  11·6

  West Yorkshire

  Bradford

  7·22

  84·9

  79·7

  13·3

  80·0

  45·6

  11·7

  Calderdale

  2·95

  82·9

  80·8

  16·6

  83·4

  48·8

  12·7

  Kirklees

  6·00

  88·2

  84·5

  15·7

  84·3

  47·9

  13·7

  Leeds

  9·99

  87·7

  80·3

  11·6

  82·6

  46·3

  11·2

  Wakefield

  5·09

  88·5

  74·4

  7·9

  84·5

  45·6

  5·4

  Tyne and Wear

  Gateshead

  3·31

  79·4

  58·8

  13·4

  77·8

  40·7

  11·4

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  3·23

  75·4

  63·3

  13·5

  76·4

  39·7

  11·0

  North Tyneside

  2·94

  77·4

  77·5

  20·2

  82·9

  49·9

  17·2

  South Tyneside

  2·15

  91·9

  63·7

  9·3

  91·4

  47·8

  8·3

  Sunder land

  5·02

  87·0

  73·0

  10·2

  86·6

  46·3

  8·2

  Counties

  Avon

  12·32

  84·9

  62·1

  17·0

  86·5

  54·1

  14·9

  Bedfordshire

  7·47

  89·7

  80·9

  18·9

  87·7

  58·1

  16·9

  Berkshire

  9·59

  82·2

  65·7

  20·5

  86·4

  57·5

  18·8

  Buckinghamshire

  8·35

  70·3

  68·1

  22·4

  79·3

  64·3

  21·4

  Cambridgeshire

  8·37

  86·8

  78·6

  15·8

  85·1

  54·3

  14·5

  Cheshire

  15·24

  86·3

  85·4

  17·9

  82·9

  55·8

  15·5

  Cleveland

  9·50

  85·0

  68·8

  16·3

  81·1

  50·3

  14·8

  Cornwall

  7·20

  86·0

  62·8

  16·2

  86·3

  58·1

  14·8

  Cumbria

  6·99

  85·8

  74·8

  16·9

  84·7

  54·8

  16·0

  Derbyshire

  14·41

  87·6

  66·4

  12·3

  86·0

  50·0

  11·0

  Devon

  12·84

  86·7

  63·9

  12·9

  88·9

  53·8

  12·1

  Dorset

  8·23

  80·9

  64·6

  15·0

  86·9

  57·7

  13·4

  Durham

  9·34

  82·5

  67·0

  11·9

  82·6

  51·7

  10·2

  East Sussex

  7·56

  80·2

  68·0

  19·4

  82·4

  51·6

  17·5

  Essex

  21·52

  86·5

  75·3

  14·8

  84·1

  55·5

  13·2

  Gloucestershire

  6·83

  81·2

  64·8

  17·0

  84·7

  56·6

  15·5

  Hampshire

  22·99

  86·7

  62·8

  14·4

  88·6

  57·9

  12·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  9·28

  86·1

  81·6

  16·9

  82·2

  56·5

  15·6

  Hertfordshire

  13·68

  86·3

  80·4

  21·1

  84·9

  61·6

  19·3

  Humberside

  13·78

  85·7

  73·3

  15·4

  82·6

  48·8

  13·5

  Isle of Wight

  1·64

  83·7

  50·3

  14·3

  85·2

  47·7

  13·6

  Kent

  21·87

  74·6

  66·4

  17·9

  84·0

  52·2

  16·4

  Lancashire

  20·59

  84·6

  79·4

  9·2

  82·2

  51·8

  8·3

  Leicestershire

  12·40

  85·0

  70·4

  20·2

  83·4

  49·8

  17·3

  Lincolnshire

  8·52

  78·6

  71·9

  17·3

  81·9

  53·6

  16·2

  Norfolk

  9·91

  81·9

  68·7

  10·5

  79·7

  50·3

  9·7

  North Yorkshire

  10·06

  85·1

  81·1

  19·5

  82·3

  57·7

  17·3

  Northamptonshire

  8·74

  87·8

  70·9

  13·2

  86·5

  47·0

  11·8

  Northumberland

  4·49

  87·4

  77·3

  19·5

  86·1

  60·7

  17·8

  Nottinghamshire

  15·35

  88·0

  71·6

  13·1

  87·4

  46·7

  11·6

  Oxfordshire

  7·67

  84·3

  67·7

  18·7

  86·7

  59·1

  16·1

  Shropshire

  6·84

  88·1

  84·6

  16·3

  88·2

  54·9

  14·3

  Somerset

  6·03

  88·7

  62·1

  9·4

  90·8

  51·1

  8·1

  318 319

  Attempting

  Achieving

  Total leavers (000's)

  CSE

  O-level

  A-level

  2lower grades

  3higher grades

  A-level passes

  Staffordshire

  15·72

  83·5

  77·4

  14·4

  82·4

  51 5

  13·4

  Suffolk

  8·62

  88·7

  77·9

  15·2

  86·4

  50·1

  14·0

  Surrey

  11·78

  79·4

  82·1

  27·4

  85·6

  62·5

  25·6

  Warwickshire

  6·63

  86·6

  77·4

  20·1

  86·9

  56·9

  17·8

  West Sussex

  9·40

  87·3

  71·8

  20·9

  88·6

  62·4

  19·6

  Wiltshire

  7·35

  88·8

  61·7

  11·2

  86·2

  48·8

  9·7

  Total England

  671·20

  83·6

  72·4

  15·6

  83·4

  52·0

  13·9

  Source: School leavers sample survey. Data subject to sampling error.

  1 Excludes examination attainments at tertiary colleges or other further education establishments.

  2 O level grades D, E, CSE grades 2 to 5.

  3 O level grades A to C, CSE grade 1.

  University of Wales Registry
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much recurrent grant was awarded to the University of Wales registry for each of the years of its existence.

  Mr. Jackson
  Recurrent grants made to the Welsh registry on the advice of the University Grants Committee since 1979–80 are listed below. Information about previous years is available from "Statistics of Education—Volume 6" and, for the years before 1966–67, "Returns from Universities and University Colleges".

  Academic years

  £000

  1979–80

  1,325

  1980–81

  1,788

  1981–82

  1,933

  1982–83

  1,940

  1983–84

  1,987

  1984–85

  2,119

  1985–86

  2,199

  1986–87

  2,272

  1987–88

  2,412

  1988–89

  2,421

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

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  It is being published today. Its main recommendations are:

  a 6 per cent. increase in the main pay scale for teachers from 1 April 1989.

  a 7 per cent. increase in the value of the five rates of incentive allowances from 1 April 1989.

  a 7·5 per cent. increase in the salaries of the 55,000 Heads and Deputies from 1 April 1989.

  an extra 9,500 incentive allowances for the 1989–90 academic year, on top of the additional 18,000 already planned.

  a 5·6 per cent. increase in London allowances from 1 July 1988.

  I propose to accept the committee's recommendations in full. I am today initiating the consultation required by section 3(1) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987 by writing to the relevant local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools, setting out my proposals.

  The text of the letter is as follows:

  Teachers pay and conditions of employment

  1. On 14 September 1988 I asked the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions to
  320
  examine and report to me on certain issues. I enclose a copy of the Committee's report which is being published today. The Committee's recommendations are summarised in Chapter 9 of its report. I propose to make an Order giving effect to the recommendations referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 below. But before I take a decision on what provision the Order should make, I invite your views. This letter therefore initiates the consultation required by Section 3(1) of the Teachers' Pay and Conditions Act 1987.

  2. I propose to accept the Committee's recommendations that

  (i) the salaries of all qualified teachers should be raised by a uniform 6 per cent. to the figures set out in paragraph 4.13 of the Committee's report with effect from 1 April 1989;

  (ii) the salaries of unqualified teachers should be raised by the same percentage (paragraph 4.13). The allowance for teachers of the visually impaired and hearing impaired would also be increased by 6 per cent.;

  (iii) the spot salaries for Heads and Deputies should be increased by 7·5 per cent. with effect from 1 April 1989 (paragraph 4.21);

  (iv) the rates of the London area allowances should be increased by 5·6 per cent. with effect from 1 July 1988 (paragraph 5.16);

  (v) the value of each of the incentive allowances should be increased by 7 per cent. with effect from 1 April 1989 (paragraph 4.34);

  (vi) the planned number of incentive allowances should be expanded from September 1989 by 9,500 (5,000 extra A allowances; 2,500 B allowances; 1,500 C allowances and 500 D allowances): (paragraphs 4.31 and 4.32). There will need to be some consequential revisions to the limits relating to incentive allowances in Annex A to Appendix I of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1988 (paragraph 4.33).

  3. The Committee makes a number of other recommendations which would require amendments to the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1988 (the 1988 Document):

  a. that teachers returning to regular full-time or part-time teaching should be paid on re-entry at no lower point on the mainscale than when last employed as a regular full-time or part-time teacher (paragraph 5.21);

  b. that, contingent upon the introduction of the proposed licensed teacher arrangements, there should be discretion for local authorities or governors, as appropriate, to pay licensed teachers at either qualified or unqualified rates (paragraph 5.26);

  c. that local authorities (and, at the appropriate point, governors of schools with delegated budgets) should be given discretion to accelerate a teacher's progression to the top of the main scale (paragraph 5.29);

  d. that once the necessary regulations under Section 218 of the Education Reform Act have been made, a teacher who is awarded Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) retrospectively should be entitled to receive back pay from any authority he/she has worked for from the date from which his/her qualification runs, to make good any difference between what he/she was actually paid

  321
  up to the point when QTS was awarded and what he/she would have been entitled to as a qualified teacher (paragraph 5.41);

  e. that the discretions over pay and conditions currently exercised by local education authorities set out in Appendix I of the report should be transferred to governing bodies of schools with budgets delegated under Chapter III of Part I of the Education Reform Act 1988 (paragraph 7.24) and that the decision on whether it is "reasonably practicable to provide a supply teacher" should transfer to the governors in those schools where the governing body have been made responsible, under the relevant LMS scheme, for managing the arrangements for providing supply teachers (paragraph 7.26);

  f. that the functions, both mandatory and discretionary, currently allocated to LEAs under the 1988 Document should be allocated to governing bodies of grant maintained (GM) schools (paragraph 7.28);

  g. that where a GM school was formerly a voluntary school, a head teacher should carry out his-her professional duties in accordance with any trust deed applying to the school (paragraph 7.29);

  h. that salary safeguarding on a discretionary basis and discretionary safeguarding on London allowance and social priority allowance should apply in both directions between a GM school and its former maintaining authority (paragraph 7.31);

  i. that the provision in relation to cover at sub paragraph 35(9)(b)(ii) of the 1988 Document should be amended in the direction of wording suggested by the Professional Association of Teachers (paragraph 8.9);

  j. that the reference to payment for midday supervision at paragraph 23 of the 1988 Document should be deleted (paragraph 8.14);

  k. that the reference to education legislation in the "overriding requirements" section of head teachers' conditions of employment—paragraph 27(i) of the 1988 Document—should be updated to include the Education Reform Act 1988 (paragraph 8.24);

  l. that specific reference should be made in both head teachers' and school teachers' conditions of service to the Basic (including National) Curriculum, and, in the case of head teachers, to the collective worship requirements of the Education Reform Act (paragraph 8.25).

  Percentage

  Part of relevant income to which specified percentage applies

  One assisted pupil

  Each of two assisted pupils

  Each of three assisted pupils

  That part which exceeds £7,418 but does not exceed £8,066

  9

  6·75

  5·25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,066 but does not exceed £8,725

  12

  9·00

  7·00

  That part (if any) which exceeds £8,725 but does not exceed £10,032

  15

  11·25

  8·75

  That part (if any) which exceeds £10,032 but does not exceed £12,043

  21

  15·75

  12·25

  That part (if any) which exceeds £12,043 but does not exceed £14,668

  24

  18·00

  14·00

  That part (if any) which exceeds £14,668

  33

  24·75

  19·25

  Clinical Academic Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether additional funds will be provided for the universities in 1989–90 in respect of pay for clinical academic staff.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the relevant Estimate, an additional £2·8 million will be provided in grant to the Universities Funding Council in 1989–90 in respect of pay for clinical academic staff. This increase takes account of the increase in funding for the hospital and community health service in respect of the recommendations of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. It will be charged to the Reserve and so will not add to the public expenditure planning total.
  322
  I propose to accept all these recommendations.

  4.The Order I propose to make to give effect to all of the above would do so by bringing into effect a new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. The Committee's remaining recommendations do not require changes to the 1988 Document: I do not therefore propose to change the Document in response to those recommendations. Nor is it intended to revise the RSG settlements for 1989–90 on account of the proposals set out in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. The cost will be offset in part by the greater than expected reduction in the employers' contributions to the Teachers' Superannuation Scheme which I announced on 10 February.

  5. Any comments on the proposals set out above and on any other matters raised in the report are invited by 10 March. If you would like to express your views in a meeting would you let my office know of this as soon as possible so that any meetings can take place before Easter.

  6. Following these consultations a new School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document will be prepared. There will then be opportunity to comment on the precise wording of the amendments prior to the publication of the new Document and the laying before Parliament of an Order which will give effect to its provisions.

  7. The Interim Advisory Committee say that they hope it will be possible for a copy of the report to be seen by teachers in every maintained school. Enough copies of the report are being sent to each local education authority for a copy to be circulated in each school.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the level of parental contributions to the fees of pupils in the assisted places scheme in 1989–90.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  Subject to the usual consultations and to parliamentary approval, the parental contribution scales will be adjusted upwards for the school year 1989–90 as set out below. In addition the allowance against parental income in respect of each dependent child other than the assisted place holder is to be increased to £1,000.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many prosecutions have been taken out as a result of investigations by education welfare officers in each year since 1973 for alleged offences in connection with the employment of children; how many employers have been so prosecuted; with what result; and what was(a) the highest, (b) the average and (c) the lowest penalty imposed following a conviction.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information about alleged offences in connection with the employment of children does not separately identify prosecutions taken out as a result of investigations by education welfare officers.

  The available figures relating to prosecutions and fines for all forms of employment are as follows:
  323
  Industrial Undertakings

  Prosecutions by the Health and Safety Executive under

  Fines Imposed (£)

  Year

  Employers Prosecuted

  Information Laid

  Convictions

  Highest

  Lowest

  Average per conviction

  1981

  3

  4

  4

  150

  50

  75

  1982

  3

  4

  4

  480

  15

  178

  1983

  3

  3

  3

  400

  100

  200

  1984

  2

  6

  6

  600

  50

  233

  1985

  4

  8

  6

  1,000

  10

  242

  1986 (January to March)

  2

  4

  4

  150

  100

  138

  1986–87 (April to March)

  3

  11

  9

  300

  25

  208

  1987–88 (April to March)

  2

  12

  22

  300

  3—

  150

  1 Fines imposed as the result of information laid.

  2 Provisional.

  3 Guilty but absolute discharge.

  Agricultural Undertakings

  Information laid by Her Majesty's agricultural inspectorate

  Fines imposed (£)

  Year

  Informations laid

  Convictions

  Highest

  Lowest

  Average per conviction

  1981

  52

  47

  300

  15

  60

  1982

  31

  26

  400

  15

  116

  1983

  18

  17

  200

  35

  73

  1984

  16

  14

  500

  30

  118

  1985

  27

  26

  1,000

  25

  177

  1986

  25

  21

  400

  10

  85

  1987

  18

  16

  250

  50

  78

  1988

  3

  3

  25

  25

  25

  (January-March)

  Note: Figures from 1973 are not available

  Non-industrial under takings

  Figures notified to the Home Office for proceedings under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933:

  Fine (£)

  Year

  Proceedings

  Highest

  Lowest

  Average

  1979

  23

  50

  5

  16

  1980

  26

  50

  3

  12

  1981

  24

  100

  5

  22

  1982

  17

  20

  3

  14

  1983

  11

  50

  10

  24

  1984

  12

  50

  20

  26

  1985

  11

  50

  10

  35

  1986

  2

  100

  40

  70

  1987

  8

  500

  10

  154

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC (Deaths)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the RUC and RUCR were killed as a result of road traffic accidents during (i) 1986 and (ii) 1987; how many were killed by terrorists in the same period; and of those killed during 1986, 1987 and 1988, how many were killed whilst on duty.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information is as follows:
  324
  Section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 and concerning the illegal employment of children.

  against persons at work who put at risk children under the age of 16 by the contravention of legislation applicable to agricultural activities

  Road traffic accidents

  Terrorism

  Total

  On duty

  Total

  On duty

  1986

  8

  2

  12

  8

  1987

  3

  nil

  16

  10

  1988

  11

  1

  6

  4

  Extradition
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has made extradition applications for terrorist or other offences; and how often, by whom and for what reasons such requests have been rejected.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Information about extradition applications under the backing of warrants procedure with the Republic of Ireland is contained in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on 13 December Official Report, column 516. In addition, five requests for extradition to the Republic of Ireland were made during 1988, of which one was granted and the remainder are pending.

  Information on extradition applications to other countries is not held centrally and would be available only at disproportionate cost. The number is likely to be small.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Stockpile
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for
  325
  Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on nuclear weapons, the level of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's nuclear stockpile referred to therein is defined by (a) total explosive capacity, (b) collective lethality based on explosive capacity and accuracy or (c) number of deliverable warheads.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The nuclear stockpile referred to in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) on 30 January at column 31 is defined in terms of the number of nuclear warheads stockpiled in Europe.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all areas, objects, settlements, buildings and installations in the Workington constituency which pilots of low-flying military aircraft are currently advised to avoid, giving in each case the horizontal and vertical limits of avoidance.

  Mr. Neubert
  The whole of the United Kingdom is open for low flying except for major conurbations, danger areas and certain areas such as civil and military air traffic zones, airports, glider sites, high obstacles, and nuclear power stations. It is not our practice to release details of the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the additional restrictions on night low flying introduced following the Tornado mid-air collision in Cumbria on 9 August 1988;

  (2) if a review of night low flying regulations is being conducted following the collision between two Tornados over Cumbria on 9 August 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what additional flow control measures are currently in force for low flying at night, over and above those currently in force for daylight low flying.

  Mr. Neubert
  Although there was no evidence to suggest that there was anything wrong with the night low flying system itself, following the mid-air collision near Penrith in August 1988, a six-month trial of a revised night low level flying system was introduced with the aim of increasing the co-ordination of activity at night and improving deconfliction procedures. In this system, areas of the United Kingdom are allocated to commands on a nightly basis and commands are responsible for deconflicting their own aircraft. General flow of traffic from sector to sector in each area is in a clockwise direction around the country. Within these sectors aircraft are allowed to fly in any direction except where specifically prevented from doing so. At the end of the trial its effectiveness will be examined and any appropriate changes made.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when flow control was first introduced for low-flying aircraft in the Keswick area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  As an interim measure, following the mid-air collision near Keswick on 17 June 1987, an unidirectional traffic flow system was introduced in the whole of the Lake District. As a result of subsequent work a revised procedure came into operation on 1 September 326
  1987 which provided separation between aircraft flying along the valley of the A591 between the Grasmere arid Bassenthwaite lakes in a north westerly direction only, arid others overflying on various routes at higher levels.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what use is made by RAF Spadeadam of radar information from the national air traffic services radar stations located on(a)Green Lowther, Strathclyde and (b) Knock Fell, Cumbria;

  (2) what is the capacity of the radar equipment at RAF Spadeadam to monitor and control low-flying aircraft movements in low flying area 13.

  Mr. Neubert
  The arrangements for monitoring arid controlling aircraft using Spadeadam range (low-flying area 13) are entirely adequate. Information from the unmanned radar stations at Green Lowther and Knock Fell is not fed directly to RAF Spadeadam.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent the low flying avoidances marked on military low flying charts are mandatory; arid what sanctions are used to enforce adherence to there restrictions.

  Mr. Neubert
  Aircrew are instructed not to fly low in avoidance areas unless prior approval has been granted by the Ministry of Defence. The RAF police conducts covert surveys from time to time throughout the United Kingdom in order to establish whether height and other rules are being observed and action is taken, where appropriate, against aircrew found to have infringed regulations.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice is given to military pilots concerning low flying over or in the immediate vicinity of the town of Keswick.

  Mr. Neubert
  As the hon. Member is aware, pilots are instructed to avoid overflying the centres of major conurbations and built up areas such as Keswick at low level. Although we cannot guarantee to avoid overflying the outskirts of major towns and smaller communities, pilots will make every effort to avoid populated areas wherever possible.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many foreign aircrew have infringed the regulations governing the United Kingdom low flying system since 1971.

  Mr. Neubert
  A record of the number of invesigations revealing infringements of the United Kingdom low flying system regulations by foreign aircrews since 1971 is not held centrally and could not be provided without disproportionate effort.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of all public meetings on low flying held by(a) the Royal Air Force and (b) his Department over the last five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  According to available records, the Ministry of Defence has held the following public meetings on low flying over the last five years:

  Date and location

  1984

  23 January—Newton Abbot, Devon

  327

  15 February—Stamford Bridge, Humberside

  13 March—Church Stretton, Shropshire

  16 October—Leominster, Hereford and Worcester

  31 October—Great Doddington, Northamptonshire

  12 November—Clifton Campville, Hereford and Worcester

  14 November—Hereford, Hereford and Worcester

  1985

  14 March—Marden, Hereford and Worcester

  5 June—Jedburgh, Borders

  6 June—Kelso, Borders

  6 June—Duns, Borders

  28 June—Rugby, Warwickshire

  24 September—Gedney Drove End, Lincolnshire

  22 October—Barnard Castle, Durham

  1986

  24 January—Alcester, Warwickshire

  1 May—RAF Spadeadam, Cumbria

  25 July—Scunthorpe, Humberside

  30 September—Hereford, Hereford and Worcester

  6 October—Wilmcote, Warwickshire

  9 October—Postbridge, Devon

  15 October—Raglan, Gwent

  18 November—Wilberfoss, Humberside

  1987

  30 January—Ashford, Kent

  20 March—Bedgebury School, Cranbrook, Kent

  30 April—Redditch, Hereford and Worcester

  30 June—Galashiels, Borders

  1 July—Penrith, Cumbria

  2 July—Morpeth, Northumberland

  27 July—Aberedw, Powys

  1988

  14 January—Tenbury Wells, Hereford and Worcester

  11 May—Braunston, Northamptonshire

  27 May—Dolgellau, Gwynedd

  15 June—Perth, Tayside

  22 June—Farndon, Nottinghamshire

  30 June—Crediton, Devon

  13 July—Stone, Staffordshire

  27 July—Kidwelly, Dyfed

  28 July—Tumble, Dyfed

  5 October—Morpeth, Northumberland

  Section

  Year

  Number of cases

  Rank

  Sentence

  Section 49

  1972

  1

  Flight Lieutenant

  Dismissed the Service

  Section 49

  1974

  1

  Aircraftman

  Dismissed the Service

  Section 49

  1983

  2

  Flight Lieutenant (tried together)

  Both awarded Severe Reprimands

  Section 51 and 52

  1985

  1 (charged under both sections)

  Flight Lieutenant

  £300 fine and Severe Reprimand

  Records are not kept centrally of any cases where disciplinary action is commenced but not proceeded with.

  Air Misses
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the total number of air misses involving military aircraft in United Kingdom airspace in each year since 1979; and how many of these were assessed as having(a) definite risk of collision, (b) possible risk of collision and (c) no risk of collision;

  (2) if the Civil Aviation Authority's new policy of publishing details of air misses in United Kingdom airspace applies to those involving military aircraft; and what consultations took place between his Department and the Civil Aviation Authority before the decision on the new information policy.

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Category1 A

  4

  8

  10

  15

  7

  12

  11

  15

  16

  n.a.

  Category1 B

  49

  41

  49

  38

  36

  37

  33

  36

  36

  n.a.

  328

  12 October—Halesworth, Suffolk

  18 October1—Malton, North Yorkshire

  1 RAF Presentation Team plus official from MOD Low Flying Presentation Team.

  On numerous occasions in the past the Directors of Public Relations (RAF) have additionally lectured to public audiences in various parts of the country but no records are held detailing those occasions.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when flow control was first introduced in the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  Unidirectional traffic flows have been in use since before introduction of the current low flying system in 1979.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of aircraft permitted to operate at any one time within low flying area 17(a) during daylight hours and (b) at night; and whether any alteration to these figures has been instituted in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to release such detailed information relating to the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Air Force Act 1955
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1971 on which proceedings have been instituted against Royal Air Force personnel under sections(a) 49(b) 51 and (c) 52 of the Air Force Act 1955; and what were the outcome of the proceedings in each case.

  Mr. Neubert
  The table provides the details of Royal Air Force personnel who have been convicted by court martial under the sections mentioned.

  Mr. Neubert
  In his statement on 3 March, columns 654–56 of the Official Report my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport set out the special reasons for making public the findings of the joint airmiss working group in relation to airmiss reports involving commercial air transport aircraft in United Kingdom airspace. This policy was introduced after discussions with the Ministry of Defence and applies to all such instances, including those where military aircraft are involved. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the airmiss investigation system, however, I will not publish any detailed information relating to other airmiss reports involving military aircraft. The relevant statistics on airmiss reports involving military aircraft in United Kingdom airspace are as follows:
  329

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Total risk bearing (A and B)

  53

  49

  59

  53

  43

  49

  44

  51

  52

  n.a.

  Category1 C

  75

  89

  84

  61

  61

  57

  46

  69

  58

  n.a.

  Risk not assessable

  2

  2

  2

  4

  1

  1

  2

  0

  1

  n.a.

  Total

  130

  140

  145

  118

  105

  107

  92

  120

  111

  133

  1A. Definite risk.

  B. Possible risk.

  C. No risk.

  Note A breakdown of the 1988 total is not yet available.

  Aircraft Accidents
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access his Department has to the reports of aircraft accident inquiries relating to foreign military aircraft accidents in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Arrangements exist whereby appropriate information on foreign aircraft accidents in the United Kingdom can be made available to the Ministry of Defence, particularly where there are flight safety implications for our services.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if details of the circumstances and causes of accidents to foreign military aircraft occurring in the United Kingdom are recorded on the aircraft accident data computer in the Royal Air Force inspectorate of flight safety.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Education
  Mr. Thorne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to adopt a common syllabus for all British forces education service schools so that when parents move on military posting children should be able to continue their education with the least disruption.

  Mr. Neubert
  Currently, at the secondary level, service children's education authority schools largely follow the syllabi of the Southern examining group. Moreover, all service children's schools will introduce the national curriculum in accordance with the provisions of the Education Report Act 1988, and the timetable specified by the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  DROPS
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature of the trials carried out on the medium mobility DROPS vehicles delivered in October 1988; and if he will make a statement on the results in respect of their duration and mileage in road-running and in cross-country applications, and as to the conclusions drawn therefrom.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Two vehicles were delivered to Germany in October 1988 to take part in user trials, which lasted for two months. In the course of the trials, they took part in a major Army exercise, Iron Hammer, and overall convered distances in excess of 7,500 km each. The majority of the running was under realistic exercise conditions with about 10 per cent. Cross-country, 10 per cent. Off-road and the remainder on German roads and highways. The vehicles performed very satisfactorily, as expected, and confirmed their ability to meet the operational requirement for DROPS.
  330
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the military implications of the reduction in the performance objectives for the medium mobility DROPS.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No; the Leyland-DAF medium mobility load carriers meet the operational requirement for DROPS.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments have been made to Leyland-DAF, additional to contract sums, to enable improvements to be made to DROPS vehicles.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Individual payments to contractors are commercial-in-confidence, but as forecast in my reply to my right hon. Friend on 22 January 1988 column 903 the modification costs were not substantial and were within the approved programme limits.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assurances have been given to Leyland-DAF with respect to the ordering of long lead-time items for DROPS vehicles.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  None.

  Director of Projects
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the posting of the director of projects.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I presume that my right hon. Friend is referring to the director of projects formerly concerned with DROPS. His move was a routine career posting, the timing of which was related to the availability of a successor.

  SDI
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence: if he will list the agencies, companies and institutions in. Britain which have benefited from the strategic defence initiative research programmes under arrangements directly under the supervision of the Ministry of Defence, directly contracted to the United States of America, or subcontracted to the United States of America via third parties.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The British agencies, companies and institutions which have been awarded contracts by the Ministry of Defence, which were initiated through United States-funded SDI contractual arrangements made on a Government to Government basis, are as follows:

  1. Aerobee Defence Technology

  2. Admiral Computing

  3. Barr and Stroud

  4. British Aerospace

  331

  5. BMARC

  6. CAP Scientific

  7. Cranfield Institute of Technology

  8. Culham Laboratory

  9. EASAMS

  10. Ferranti

  11. Fluid Gravity

  12. GEC-Marconi

  13. Hunting Engineering

  14. Logica

  15. NEI-IRD

  16. Optical Coatings Ltd

  17. Plessey

  18. PA Defence Services

  19. Philips Components

  20. Racal

  21. Rolls-Royce

  22. Royal Ordnance

  23. Rutherford Appleton Laboratory

  24. Scicon

  25. Shorts

  26. Software Sciences

  27. Thorn EMI

  28. Theta Analysis

  The detail associated with SDI research contracts placed on United Kingdom entities by United States Government agencies or companies is a matter for the parties concerned.

  Contracts
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his practice to answer parliamentary questions asking for information on the details and value of individual contracts with outside firms.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. However, information regarding the overall level of MOD business with a particular contractor is made available.

  Aldermaston and Burghfield (Programme Audit)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his reply of 18 January,Official Report, column 199, what was the nature of the information that was discussed at the eight meetings between his officials and the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. team carrying out the programme audit at Aldermaston and Burghfield.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  MOD management information on the scope and overall objectives of the capital construction programme and the status at that time of the four major projects under review.

  Royal Ordnance (Site Sales)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the outline planning applications submitted by Royal Ordnance in respect of its Waltham Abbey and Enfield, North sites had been determined before the sale of Royal Ordnance to British Aerospace.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  No. The applications were submitted in January 1987 and had not been determined when the sale took place in April 1987. The applications were rejected in June 1987. One is now the subject of an appeal.

  Accountants and Cost Estimators
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many qualified accountants and technical cost estimators, whose principal tasks are to assist and advise 332
  in the pricing and post-costing of non-competitive contracts, are employed by his Department; and what is their average salary.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Procurement Executive employs 122 qualified accountants and 513 technical cost officers to assist in the pricing and post costing of non-competitive contracts. The main working grades within each group are on national salary scales with maxima of £18,245 and £14,558 respectively. The majority of these staff are located outside the London area; however those based in the inner London weighting area receive an additional £1,750.

  Soldiers (Family Compensation)
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the size of the offers of compensation to families of the six soldiers killed in Lisburn; and what means are available to him to ensure that compensation goes beyond the concept of financial loss arising from death.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Under the criminal injuries legislation in Northern Ireland, a soldier's family will be compensated for any financial loss or expenses resulting from his death. Compensation is paid as a tax-free lump sum representing the value of past and capitalised future loss and is assessed broadly on the basis of common law practice. The general objective of the statutory scheme is to ensure that the victim or, if he has died, his dependants, do not suffer financial hardship. It is not and could not be designed to put an arbitrary assessment on the value of a life lost to bereaved members of the dead person's family. Such a loss is beyond price.

  Nevertheless, in recognition of the immediate problems which may be faced upon bereavement by the closest members of the family, amending legislation (which came into force on 1 July 1988) provides for the payment of a bereavement award of £3,500 but, as in common law, it is payable only to the spouse of a victim or the parents of an unmarried minor. These same principles are followed by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board in Great Britain, but exceptionally in Northern Ireland there is no upper limit on financial loss compensation where the death was caused by a terrorist act.

  Offers of compensation have been made to the parents of the three single soldiers killed at Lisburn and to the widow of a fourth who was married. Compensation will be assessed in the two remaining cases when outstanding information on the widow's financial loss is received. In the case of the single soldiers, the offers were based on the financial contributions each made to his parents and the length of time the contributions might reasonably have been expected to continue; this is the common law practice. The offer made to the widow of the married soldier took account of the deceased's earnings and his promotion prospects, projected to the normal date of retirement. Any applicant who is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation determined has a statutory right of appeal to the courts.

  In addition to statutory compensation, payments are made by the Government under the armed forces pensions scheme and the war pensions scheme. Under the former, financial support in the form of a pension and a tax-free lump sum is provided for widows and dependent children

  333
  and in the case of a single soldier whose death is attributable to service a tax-free lump sum is paid to his estate. The minimum lump sum paid to the estate of an unmarried soldier below the rank of corporal is £8,792 and the estates of single corporals and sergeants receive at least £11,336 and £12,498 respectively.

  The widow of a soldier whose death is attributable to service is entitled, for a period of six months, to a short-term pension under the armed forces pensions scheme based on her husband's daily rate of pay, and thereafter to an attributable family pension for herself and any children. A tax-free lump sum is also payable. The annual pension for the widow of a soldier below the rank of corporal amounts to £3,312 plus £879 per child and for the widows of corporals and sergeants to £4,457 plus £1,134 per child and £4,980 plus £1,250 per child respectively. For the same ranks the minimum lump sum entitlements are £13,188, £17,004 and £18,747.

  Under the latter the widow of a soldier with a rank up to and including sergeant would, if under 40 and without dependent children, be entitled to an average pension of £12·40 per week. Otherwise she would be entitled to an average weekly pension of £53·55 and £12 for each dependant child. Allowances for age (for widows over age 65), rent and the education of dependant children may also be paid.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Families (Benefits)
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures showing the number of (i) family income supplement claimants in 1987 and (ii) family credit claimants at the latest date available broken down into one and two earner families.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  At April 1987, the latest date for which information is available, 209,000 families with one earner and 11,000 families with two earners were in receipt of family income supplement. Equivalent information for family credit is not available.

  Social Fund
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report, the text of his Department's circular reference RD LO 113.88 on the social fund.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The document to which the hon. Member refers is, in fact, an internal management communication which is not normally intended to be in the public domain. Its purpose is to give information to local office managers.

  The text of the document is as follows:
  "You will be aware that the take up of Community Care Grants (CCGs) nationally has been lower than anticipated. Both statistical information and a significant level of feedback from regions and local offices indicate a variety of reasons for this but three in particular stand out. They are:

  a lack of co-operation from statutory and voluntary agencies;

  instances of rigid interpretation of the guidance which itself gives an impression of rigidity by its phraseology; insufficient publicity.

  I am now writing to seek your co-operation and help in taking action to encourage take up of CCGs. Clearly the situation varies from office to office and it is for you to decide
  334
  what action needs to be taken locally. The information and guidance in the following paragraphs is designed to assist you in that task.
  Despite the widely publicised controversy which has surrounded the Social Fund it is evident that many statutory and voluntary agencies remain unclear as to the potential of the CCG scheme for helping their clients. It is also the case that attitudes towards the Social Fund within Social Services and Social Work Departments are changing or show signs of doing so.
  With these points in mind your local liaison arrangements should be reviewed to see where existing contacts might be strengthened or expanded or links established with new groups or those who have rejected previous approaches. Liaison must be an ongoing exercise.
  The scope for launching further initiatives aimed specifically at other organisations should also be explored. These could include the Home Help Service, Health Visitors, Age Concern, Housing Associations involved in resettlement work as well as other agencies which represent people in Community Care Priority Groups. Such initiatives might include talks by LINOs1, SFOs2 or local management. Alternatively, approaches might include letters outlining the Social Fund to the range of local organisations. Visitiing officers should also be aware of the potential help available from the Social Fund.
  Recent HEO3SF seminars have emphasised the need for flexibility in interpreting guidance rather than rigid adherence to it as a set of rules. Clearly a consistent approach to decision making is required but within the parameters of that consistency, flexibility in the interpretation should be applied to individual cases where this is justified on the particular circumstances. Work is currently under way to clarify the guidance in Part 6 of the SFM4 and an amendment is likely to be published early in 1989 which will reflect the required approach.
  The revision of Part 6 will also provide further guidance on the intention behind Direction 4(a)(ii) that a CCG may be awarded to help prevent people going into institutional care rather than simply an immediate threat of entering care. This is in line with the principal aim of the CCG scheme of helping applicants to enable them to live as independent a life as possible in the community. I would be grateful if you could ensure that SFOs and HEOs are made aware of this clarification to the guidance.
  You will wish to know that HQ are currently examining the adequacy of present publicity arrangements and considering what additional measures might be taken to advertise the availability of CCGs and so encourage take-up.'

  1 Local Information Officers.

  2 Social Fund Officers.

  3 Higher Executive Officer.

  4 Social Fund Manual.

  Family Credit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims for family credit have been made for each month since April 1988; how many claims have been paid during the same periods; and what has been the average income of claimants and the average housing costs showing rent separately, of claimants during this period.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of family credit claims and awards is as follows:

  Claims received

  Awards made

  April

  96,505

  40,213

  May

  41,721

  June

  52,293

  36,145

  July

  46,100

  37,912

  August

  46,376

  40,249

  September

  47,759

  24,158

  October

  56,373

  44,944

  November

  57,850

  46,234

  335

  Claims received

  Awards made

  December

  44,834

  35,797

  January

  63,638

  42,712

  No information is available about the average income or housing costs of claimants.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children there are in families claiming family credit; and what is the number of children in families entitled to family credit.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In December 1988, the latest date for which information is available, there were approximately 520,000 children in families receiving family credit. An estimate of the number of children in families eligible for family credit cannot be made until information from the 1988 family expenditure survey is available.

  Staff Dispersal
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the number of employees to be taken on by the Department of Social Security in Glasgow, Wigan and Belfast as a result of the dispersal of jobs presently located in London which was announced on 16 January;

  (2) how many of the posts created by the dispersal announced on 16 January he expects to be filled (i) by transfer of existing staff from local Department of Social Security offices in the areas involved, (ii) by transfer for existing staff from London, and (iii) by hiring of new staff;

  (3) what is the planned reduction in staff numbers in the Department of Social Security local offices in those areas gaining new posts as a result of the dispersal announced on 16 January.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As a direct result of the movement of work from 21 London offices announced on 16 January, we shall be creating around 450 jobs in Glasgow, 350 in Belfast and 260 in Wigan. Detailed recruitment plans will be a matter for the manager of each social security centre (SSC), but staff who wish to move from London or from local offices in the area of the SSC will have the opportunity to do so. We shall not be able to estimate the numbers involved until we have sought the views of staff affected. Current calculations show that, over the year 1989–90, there will be staff savings of about 310 for offices within daily travelling distance of the Glasgow SSC and about 280 for Wigan. Staff savings in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Pensions
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list in the Official Report, for each constituency in Scotland, the number of males and females in receipt of the state retirement pension.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information is not collected about the number of retirement pension recipients in any particular locality. However, at 30 September 1988 there were 788,380 retirement pension recipients in Scotland as a whole, of whom 256,850 were men and 531,530 women. These figures exclude those receiving graduated pension only.
  336
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will institute a system of age priority when reviewing claims or hearings for war pensions or disablement pensions whereby age will be a factor in determining the degree of priority accorded to new claims.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are grateful for the suggestion. However, war pension claimants are predominately elderly, and relating priority to age would lengthen the processing of most claims. Priority is already given to claimants identified as having a short life expectancy.

  Agency Benefits Unit
  Ms. Richardson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average time taken by the agency benefits unit to process forms AG1 submitted by practitioners; and whether he will take steps to speed up the process.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  In the period 12 December 1988 to 3 February 1989 forms AG1 were cleared on average within 6·6 working days of receipt. This average masks a wide variation in clearance times due to the need to seek further information in some cases, and a more representative measure is that, in the same period, 61·2 per cent. of forms were cleared within five working days and 80·8 per cent. within 10 workings days.

  The number of staff in the agency benefits unit was increased in December 1988. We are also looking at the design of form AG1 in the light of experience, with a view to improving its effectiveness and reducing the need for follow-up inquiries.

  Benefits (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why Miss A., a constituent of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, referred to in the letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Fareham dated 11 November reference PO(35)2487/23, is required to apply for jobs regularly despite being unable to obtain employment because of her son's disabilities; and why she cannot be issued with a permanent order book.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Social security legislation requires that an able-bodied adult should be available and looking for work as a condition of receiving benefit. However, for some people this rule would be inappropriate and so there are exceptions to it. One of these exemptions applies to a person who is looking after a person in receipt of attendance allowance, and Miss A comes into this category during the school holidays when she cares for her 19-year-old son. The payment of benefit by order book is not possible when Miss A is required to register for work, and becomes so only for the holiday periods when she cares for her son.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security why Miss A., reference PO(35)2487/23, received no order book over the Christmas holidays, although she had previously notified the social security office in advance of the dates of her handicapped son's holiday.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Over the Christmas period Miss A. continued to receive her full entitlement to benefit from the unemployment benefit office because she continued to register as available for work.
  337
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, in making a decision over Miss A., reference PO(35)2487/23, he took account of the fact that the school holidays of her handicapped son are significantly different from those in Leicestershire.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. The relative lengths of school holidays are not relevant when considering the question of Miss A.'s entitlement to benefit, although they could affect the method of payment adopted by the local office.

  All recipients of mobility allowance: average extra expenditure on travel1

  Severity category2

  1–2

  3–4

  5–6

  7–8

  9–10

  1–10

  (Standard deviation)

  A. Average weekly extra expenditure on travel

  Pensioners (£)

  1—

  1·70

  2·80

  2·80

  1·80

  2·40

  (3·80)

  Non pensioners (£)

  2·30

  3·40

  3·60

  3·70

  2·30

  3·20

  (5·30)

  All disabled adults (£)

  2·60

  2·90

  3·40

  3·40

  2·20

  3·00

  (4·90)

  B. Proportion with extra expenditure on travel

  Pensioners (per cent)

  1—

  43

  53

  52

  37

  46

  Non-pensioners (per cent.)

  45

  60

  50

  50

  36

  48

  All disabled adults (per cent.)

  43

  54

  51

  50

  36

  47

  C. Base: Sample numbers of mobility allowance recipients

  Pensioners

  21

  40

  43

  50

  41

  196

  Non-pensioners

  53

  87

  111

  121

  101

  473

  All disabled adults

  74

  127

  154

  172

  142

  669

  1 Base too small to show statistics.

  2 Overall measure of severity constructed by OPCS to classify people with different numbers and types of disability (category 1 least severe, category 10 most severe)

  Part A of the table shows extra expenditure averaged over all recipients of the relevant benefit, irrespective of whether they actually reported extra expenditure: sample numbers are too small to compute a reliable average confined to those who reported extra expenditure. Part B shows the proportion of those who reported extra expenditure.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report tables relating receipt of attendance allowance at each rate to the amount of extra expenditure on home services, classified according to severity of disability from the data

  All recipients of higher rate attendance allowance: average extra expenditure on home services1

  Severity category2

  1–2

  3–4

  5–6

  7–8

  9–10

  1–10

  (Standard deviation)

  A. Average weekly extra expenditure on home services

  Pensioners (£)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1·70

  1·70

  1·60

  (6·10)

  Non-pensioners (£)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  2·00

  1·50

  (7·10)

  All disabled adults (£)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  1·40

  1·80

  1·60

  (6·40)

  B. Proportion with expenditure on home services

  Pensioners (per cent.)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  29

  17

  22

  Non-pensioners (per cent.)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  9

  12

  All disabled adults (per cent.)

  3—

  3—

  3—

  27

  15

  19

  C. Base: Sample numbers of higher rate AA recipients

  Pensioners

  2

  3

  16

  58

  135

  213

  Non·pensioners

  1

  3

  10

  25

  64

  105

  AH disabled adults

  3

  5

  26

  83

  199

  317

  1Source: OPCS surveys of disability 1985–88.

  2 Overall measure of severity constructed by OPCS to classify people with different numbers and types of disability (category 1 least severe, category 10 most severe)

  3 Bases too small to show statistics.

  Mobility Allowance
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report tables relating receipt of mobility allowance to the amount of extra expenditure on travel, classified according to severity of disability from the data in the survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households; and if he will tabulate separately pensioners and non-pensioners.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  in the survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on the financial circumstances of disabled adults living in private households; and if he will tabulate separately pensioners and non-pensioners.

  Mr.Scott
  [holding answer 23 January]: The information requested is as follows:
  339
  Part A of the table shows extra expenditure averaged over all recipients of the relevant benefit, irrespective of whether they actually reported extra expenditure: sample numbers are too small to compute a reliable average

  All recipients of lower rale attendance allowance: Average extra expenditure on home services1

  Severity category2

  1–2

  3–4

  5–6

  7–8

  9–10

  1–10

  (Standard deviation)

  A. Average weekly extra expenditure on home services

  Pensioners (£)

  3—

  3—

  9·00

  2·10

  5·80

  4·50

  (22·40)

  Non-pensioners (£)

  3—

  3—

  0·20

  0·30

  0·50

  0·30

  (1·70)

  All disabled adults (£)

  3—

  3—

  5·00

  1·70

  4·30

  3·20

  (18·60)

  B. Proportion with extra expenditure on home services

  Pensioners (per cent.)

  3—

  3—

  30

  22

  24

  23

  Non-pensioners (per cent.)

  3—

  3—

  8

  5

  7

  7

  All disabled adults (per cent.)

  3—

  3—

  20

  18

  19

  18

  C. Base: Sample number of lower rate AA recipients

  Pensioners

  4

  16

  43

  120

  139

  322

  Non-pensioners

  5

  12

  37

  40

  56

  149

  All disabled adults

  9

  28

  80

  160

  195

  472

  1Source: OPCS surveys of disability 1985–88.

  2 Overall measure of severity constructed by OPCS classify people with different numbers and types of disability (category 1 lest severe,category 10 most severe).

  3 Bases too small to show statistics.

  Part A of the table shows extra expenditure averaged over all recipients of the relevant benefit, irrespective of whether they actually reported extra expenditure: sample numbers are too small to compute a reliable average confined to those who reported extra expenditure. Part B shows the proportion of those who reported extra expenditure.

HEALTH

  Health Hazards
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that consumers are advised promptly and effectively when health hazards related to foodstuffs become known to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Action on health hazards related to foodstuffs depends on the nature and seriousness of the hazard. We do ensure that consumers are warned of hazards as quickly as possible.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will state for the 10 district health authorities with the longest waiting lists in the latest available returns(a) the length of wait and (b) the type of procedure or surgery to which the wait applies.

  Mr. Freeman
  Waiting information about individual districts is published in "Hospital Waiting Lists—Regional and District Summaries", copies of which are available in the Library. The summaries provide a percentage breakdown by time waited and by surgical specialty. We do not collect waiting information centrally by type of operation.

  The 10 district health authorities with the largest waiting lists at 31 March 1988 were:

  Bloomsbury

  Sheffield

  340
  confined to those who reported extra expenditure. Part B shows the proportion of those who reported extra expenditure.

  Norwich

  Leicestershire

  North Staffordshire

  Liverpool

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood

  Bristol and Weston

  Newcastle

  Shropshire

  Halton General Hospital
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future development of Halton general hospital.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Mersey regional health authority has established a sub-committee to look into the future development of Halton district general hospital. The sub-committee is due to report back to the RHA sometime in the spring.

  Abortion
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he now expects to publish the findings of the study commissioned by his Department in 1976 into post-abortion syndrome.

  Mr. Freeman
  I understand that the results of this study should be written up later this year and that the researchers then expect to submit it to a learned journal for publication.

  Nursing Homes
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing home places are available in Staffordshire; and if he will give the location and number of beds and cost per place of each.

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest information held centrally is that on 31 December 1986 there were 659 beds in establishments in Staffordshire registered with health authorities as nursing homes. I understand that the
  341
  number is likely to have increased substantially since then. Information on location and cost per place is not held centrally. The hon. Member may wish to write to the chairman of the Staffordshire health authorities for further information.

  Cervical Smears
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any information about the frequency of availability of cervical smears in other western European and north American countries and the mortality rates from cancer of the cervix.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no detailed information on the frequency of availability of cervical smear testing in these countries. Mortality rates for western European and north American countries are given in the 1988 "World Health Statistics Annual", published by the World Health Organisation, a copy of which is in the Library. In England and Wales the death rate from cervical cancer fell by 14 per cent. between 1976 and 1986.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he gives about the age at which cervical smears should be made available.

  Mr. Freeman
  Guidance to health authorities on cervical cancer screening is contained in health circular HC(88)1, which was issued in January 1988 and has been placed in the Library. We have asked health authorities to invite all women aged 20 to 64 for routine screening by March 1993, unless their GP has indicated that they should be excluded. Women aged 65 and over who have not had two consecutive negative smears in the last 10 years should also be screened. Smears should also be taken at any age if clinically necessary.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give details of those district health authorities which make provision for cervical smears more frequently than on a three yearly basis.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not currently available centrally. Regional health authorities have been asked to provide it in their outturn reports for 1988–89.

  Census
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether it is his intention to include questions on(a) ethnic origin and (b) disability in the 1991 census.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Government's proposals for the 1991 census in Great Britain were published in a White Paper (Cm. 430) on 19 July 1988.

  A question on disability is not included in the proposals. The census will, however, include a question on long-term illness in which each person will be asked whether he or she has any long-term illness, health problem or handicap which limits his or her daily activities.

  A question on ethnic group is to be included in the census test in April 1989 and the results studied by the Government before deciding whether to include such a question in the final plans for the 1991 census.

  Aluminium (Baby Milk)
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he has any plans to ban the sale of those baby milks which have been identified as containing high levels of aluminium;

  (2) if he will issue guidelines on risks to babies from drinking milks which have been identified as containing high levels of aluminium.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my replies to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) on 6 February at columns 491 and 501 respectively.

  Listeria
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has received any data on whether the use of microwave ovens for reheating cook-chill meals will eliminate listeria.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The research projects listed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his reply to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 9 February 1989 at columns 780–81 include one on microwave ovens. The information obtained from these studies will be made available to my Department.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the safe threshold of listeria in food consumed by a pregnant women.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The 1988 World Health Organisation working group indicated that virtually nothing is known about the infectious dose of listeria monocytogenes in man, although it may be related to host susceptibility. Advice was given to pregnant women and other vulnerable groups last week about certain soft cheeses and other foods which may present a risk.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the relationship between the increase in listeriosis and the consumption of cheeses over the most recent convenient period.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Although it is most likely that listeriosis is a foodborne disease, the cause of most cases is as yet unknown. However, high numbers of listeria have been found in several varieties of soft cheeses, and a number of cases of listeriosis—both in this country and abroad—have been associated with eating heavily contaminated soft cheese. For this reason, the Government's chief medical officer has advised pregnant women and people recovering from serious illness to avoid eating soft cheese.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received any report from the public health laboratory service on the incidence of listeria in pre-cooked chickens.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  At my Department's request, the public health laboratory service recently carried out a survey of the prevalence of listeria monocytogenes contamination in certain cooked chilled foods. This showed that 12 per cent. of the pre-cooked ready-to-eat poultry purchased from retail outlets contained listeria. monocytogenes. Adequate reheating will destroy the organism.
  343
  This was the basis of the advice given to pregnant women and other vulnerable groups on Friday 10 February that they should thoroughly reheat such foods. The recent survey was fully taken into account when that advice was issued. The latest survey does not indicate a degree of risk which would justify dietary advice to healthy adults who would be very unlikely to suffer adverse effects from the levels of contamination detected.

  I will be laying regulations under the Food Act to ensure better temperature controls in retail refrigerated units. We have been engaged in talks with the Ministry of Agriculture, manufacturers, retailers and caterers aimed at developing a code of practice and improving procedures in the handling of retail cooked poultry and chilled meals.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been identified in the past 10 years of meningitis caused as a result of consuming United Kingdom-produced listeria-infected cheese.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  There has been one case of listeria meningitis in the past 10 years which was microbiologically associated with a United Kingdom-produced cheese. The cause of most cases of listeriosis remains unknown, although it is most likely that it is foodborne.

  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of listeria in the United Kingdom have been identified in the past 10 years as having been caused by cheese made from unpasteurised milk products produced(a) within the United Kingdom, (b) in France and (c) in any other country; and if he will publish the scientific evidence available to him on the risk presented by such cheese.

  Mr. Kenneth Clark
  Two reported cases of listeriosis have been directly attributed to the consumption of cheese made from unpasteurised milk, one produced in the United Kingdom and one in France.

  There has been a variety of published evidence indicating the risk associated with both unpasteurised and pasteurised soft cheeses. In particular, the "Report of the WHO Informal Working Group on Foodborne Listeriosis", Geneva 15–19 February 1988 and "Occurrence in the UK of Listeria specis in Raw Chicken and Soft Cheeses" published in the International Journal of Food Microbiology 1988 Vol. 6. However, as he indicated in his public statement on 10 February 1989, the Government's chief medical officer has recently been taking further expert advice on the risks.

  Lead Pollution
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health
  (1) what evidence he has available of levels of lead pollution in the air in Cardiff over the last 10 years; what trends have been reflected in measurements taken during the period; what are the figures for other cities in the United Kingdom; and what steps is he taking to reduce lead pollution in the atmosphere in Cardiff and elsewhere in England and Wales;

  (2) what information he has on the level of lead in the atmosphere which is considered acceptable in the urban environment and the level which is considered to be detrimental to the health of pedestrians and of the public at large.
  344
  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment.

  Cheese
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance and control he has given during the last 12 months to assist port health authorities in their inspection of cheese imports for listeria contamination.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  In February 1988, port health authorities were asked to direct their monitoring of imported soft cheeses to those in which a problem had previously been identified.

  Private Dental Treatment
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether income tax relief for those over 60 years will apply to payments made to private dental capitation schemes for dental patients.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I have been asked to reply. The precise treatments that will be covered and the conditions which will apply are under consideration.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for
  Health (1) if he has any evidence of the incidence of(a) salmonella enteritidis and (b) any other strain of salmonella in (i) farmed salmon and (ii) other farmed fish;

  (2) what is the procedure for monitoring the produce of salmon farms to ensure its safety for human consumption.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 23 January 1989]We are not aware of any evidence which shows that salmonella enteritidis, or any other strain of salmonella, has been isolated from farmed salmon or other farmed fish.

SCOTLAND

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the effect of interest rate levels on Scottish farmers.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the concerns of Scottish farmers about interest rates. We estimate that interest payments by Scottish farmers in 1988 were only slightly higher than in 1987. What happens in 1989 will depend upon the course of interest rates and the level of farmers' indebtedness.

  The Government believe that, despite problems caused by short-term movements in interest rates, keeping inflation under control must remain our top priority since farming stands to benefit as much as other sectors of the economy from low inflation.

  Egg Production
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any recent representations from the National Farmers' Union of Scotland about egg production; and if he will make a statement.
  345
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland have met representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland to discuss what further action might be taken to tackle the problem of salmonella in eggs. The union generally welcomed the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 18 January at columns 214–15.

  Hunterston A Power Station
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the breach of safety licence by the South of Scotland electricity board at its Hunterston A Magnox nuclear plants on 25 August 1988.

  Mr. Lang
  On 25 August 1988, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate was informed that fuel supply valves in the Hunterston A diesel generator system had been found in a closed position. No release of radioactivity had occurred and there was no immediate danger to the public or staff. However, in view of the alleged breach of a key operating rule requiring that sufficient diesel generating plant be kept ready for use in an emergency the South of Scotland electricity board was prosecuted and a fine of £1,500 was subsequently imposed by the Kilmarnock sheriff court on 6 February 1989.

  The open way in which the South of Scotland electricity board reported the incident to the nuclear installations inspectorate and the thoroughness of the investigations carried out by both parties are indicative of the determination of both the Government and the South of Scotland electricity board to maintain stringent nuclear safety standards. I am confident that the operators and the nuclear installations inspectorate take very seriously their responsibility in this regard, and that they will continue to do so after privatisation of the electricity industry.

  Extradition
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions since 1979 his Department has made extradition applications for terrorist or other offences; and how often, by whom and for what reasons such requests have been rejected.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Information in respect of requests made to foreign and Commonwealth Governments is not available centrally and cannot be obtained except at disproportionate cost. In relation to the Republic of Ireland, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on 8 December 1988.

  Highlands (Adverse Weather)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further consultations are planned and by what methods, with the following involved in or affected by the recent adverse weather conditions in the Scottish Highlands(a) Highland regional council, Inverness district council, Ross and Cromarty district council, (b) riparian landowners and tenant farmers in the Conon valley and residents in Conon Bridge, (c) the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board and (d) the British Waterways Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Minister of State visited areas affected by flooding on 346
  Wednesday 8 February, and met a number of local representatives at that time. Reports have been requested from the North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board, Highland regional council and Inverness district council and we are in touch with the British Waterways Board. We are preparing a report on the River Conon floodbank arrangements and will be discussing proposals with those affected. Further consultations will be undertaken with interested parties as and when appropriate.

  River Conon (Flooding)
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to set up an inquiry into the recent flooding of the River Conon, Ross-shire, to include consideration of(a) the role of the hydro board with regard to water control, flow and release in and from nearby dams, (b) the question of suitability of previous embankment repairs on a limited basis, (c) the recommendations for comprehensive flood protection schemes as outlined in earlier consultants' reports; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The North of Scotland Hydro Electric Board has been asked for a report on its releases of water prior to and during the recent flooding. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland is preparing a report on the damage sustained by floodbanks. Until these reports have been studied it is too early to make any statement either on the suitability of the present arrangements or on a comprehesive flood protection scheme such as that outlined in the earlier consultants' report.

  Mental Handicap Nurses
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will list, for each health board, the number of mental handicap nurses from each of the old grades who have been assimilated to each of the new grades.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not held centrally and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Structural Funds
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the Official Report full details of the programmes which his Department intends to submit to the European Economic Community Commission in Brussels for support under objective 5b of the reformed Community structural funds.

  Mr. Lang
  It would be premature to speculate on programmes before the areas eligible for assistance under objective 5b are known.

  House Buyers
  Mr. Andrew Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the financial incentives available for first-time housebuyers since 1979, showing any changes n the amounts offered; and whether any further measures are planned.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government introduced the right to buy for public sector tenants in 1980 as a major means of promoting owner-occupation.
  347
  Since then discount levels have been increased, and we have introduced a number of other improvements to the scheme to make it easier for tenants to purchase their homes. We have also introduced provisions to enable local authorities to offer grants to assist their tenants to obtain accommodation other than as a tenant of the local authority. Also, we have retained tax relief on mortgage interest which gives substantial help to most housebuyers in Scotland, and the limit on qualifying loans was increased from £25,000 to £30,000 in April 1983.

  Under the Homeloan scheme, first-time buyers who are registered and have saved with an approved institution for at least two years can apply for a bonus on their savings of up to £110 and a loan of £600, interest free, for up to five years. The house price limits in the Homeloan scheme are kept under review. On 9 February the Government laid an order which proposes increases in the limits in all areas in Great Britain. However, the Homeloan scheme has been ineffective, and the Local Government and Housing Bill introduced on 1 February, includes powers for bringing the scheme to an end in Great Britain.

  The operation of right to buy, and mortgage tax relief, are kept constantly under review.

  Tourism
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what value of section 4 grants have been made for each of the past five years in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The level of grants and approvals under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of approvals

  Value of assistance (£ million)

  1984–85

  92

  2·3

  1985–86

  158

  3·8

  1986–87

  136

  2·9

  1987–88

  125

  5·2

  1988–891

  75

  4·5

  1 Estimate.

  Newbattle Abbey College
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his reply of 1 February,Official Report, column 306, what response he has now made regarding the approach made to him concerning Newbattle Abbey college, Dalkeith.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be able to respond shortly.

  NHS Video
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of the video recording concerning the Government's proposals for the National Health Service that is being shown to National Health Service staff in Scotland; whether any bodies or indviduals independent of the Government were given an opportunity to contribute to this public information exercise; how much staff time will be taken up in viewing this material; and if he will provide facilities for alternative comments on the future of the National Health Service to be projected to National Health Service employees.
  348
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As regards costs, I refer the hon. Member to my reply of today to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The video recording includes contributions from several people in the Health Service as well as members of the Government. I hope that all those who work in the Scottish Health Service will have the opportunity to see the 15-minute video presentation, which explains the Government's proposals set out in the White Paper "Working for Patients". Since these proposals will affect everyone concerned with the delivery of health care in future, it is in keeping with the best practice of responsible management to ensure that the proposal are clearly explained. That does not apply to the variety of comments that may arise from other sources.

  Rates
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) rates per household and (b) rates per adult for 1988–89 for each district and region in Scotland.

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

  Rates per household 1988–89 £

  Average rale bill per adult 1988–89 £

  Borders

  360

  211

  Central

  478

  249

  Dumfries and Galloway

  385

  212

  Fife

  475

  258

  Grampian

  394

  215

  Highland

  363

  209

  Lothian

  582

  314

  Strathclyde

  533

  279

  Tayside

  466

  263

  Berwickshire

  355

  214

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  358

  205

  Roxburgh

  356

  209

  Tweeddale

  379

  224

  Clackmannan

  450

  237

  Falkirk

  427

  226

  Stirling

  585

  297

  Annandale and Eskdale

  382

  210

  Nithsdale

  398

  210

  Stewartry

  399

  235

  Wigtown

  355

  199

  Dunfermline

  465

  244

  Kirkcaldy

  459

  254

  North East Fife

  525

  292

  Aberdeen City

  432

  231

  Banff and Buchan

  346

  192

  Gordon

  393

  221

  Kincardine and Deeside

  398

  224

  Moray

  337

  182

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  381

  243

  Caithness

  313

  174

  Inverness

  428

  230

  Lochaber

  359

  213

  Nairn

  423

  234

  Ross and Cromarty

  365

  213

  Skye and Lochalsh

  253

  165

  Sutherland

  248

  164

  East Lothian

  595

  317

  Edinburgh City

  603

  333

  Midlothian

  557

  275

  West Lothian

  514

  271

  Argyll and Bute

  446

  277

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  887

  423

  Clydebank

  468

  241

  Clydesdale

  507

  257

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  546

  271

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  431

  221

  Cunninghame

  514

  283

  349

  Rates per household 1988–89 £

  Average rate bill per adult 1988–89 £

  Dumbarton

  584

  309

  East Kilbride

  570

  280

  Eastwood

  791

  399

  Glasgow City

  506

  274

  Hamilton

  553

  280

  Inverclyde

  515

  263

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  485

  259

  Kyle and Carrick

  579

  303

  Monklands

  523

  255

  Motherwell

  502

  251

  Renfrew

  541

  284

  Strathkelvin

  607

  280

  Angus

  426

  242

  Dundee City

  486

  278

  Perth and Kinross

  465

  255

  Edinburgh Western General Hospital
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Lothian health board's proposals to close the paediatric unit and the evening accident and emergency unit at Edinburgh Western general hospital.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Lothian health board is considering the responses received to a consultative document issued on 25 November about changes to paediatric services in its area. The board proposes to open a purpose-built medical paediatric ward at the new district general hospital at Livingston and to provide the accident and emergency services and the medical paediatric in-patient services for the remainder of its area at the Royal hospital for sick children, Edinburgh. Outpatient medical paediatric services will continue at the Western general hospital, Edinburgh and the surgical paediatric workload there will increase following other recent changes to paediatric services in Edinburgh.

  "Working for Patients"
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on publicity in relation to the White Paper, "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: A total of £36,384·13. We spent £21,177·50 plus £3,176·63 VAT on the production and duplication of video cassettes, and £12,030 on copies of an explanatory leaflet, the better to explain the White Paper's proposals to the 150,000 people working in the Health Service in Scotland, and to a number of other interested groups.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Institution of Professional Civil Servants
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet representatives of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants; and what matter he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend has no current plans to meet representatives of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants. However, my noble Friend the 350
  Parliamentary Secretary has recently attended the annual delegate conference of the AFRC branch of the IPCS al its invitation.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission; and what matters they discussed.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I last met the chairman of the Forestry Commission on 3 October 1988 when we discussed progress in the task of clearing and replanting woodlands damaged by the previous October's storm in south-east England.

  Farmers (South Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to meet farmers in south Wiltshire to discuss the outlook for farmers in 1989.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have no specific plans to do so at present, though my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary, Baroness Trumpington, will be meeting the South Wiltshire branch of the NFU on 10 March to discuss various agricultural matters.

  Sheepmeat
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the reform of the European sheepmeat regime.

  Mr. MacGregor
  There have been some preliminary discussions on the Commission proposals for reform of the sheepmeat regime, with some member states insisting that the revised voluntary restraint agreement with New Zealand should be concluded first. I do not anticipate rapid progress.

  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he next meets the Council of Ministers, if he will discuss the sheepmeat variable premium scheme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A proposal to phase out the sheep variable premium scheme forms part of the European Commission's proposals for a review of the sheep regime. It will be discussed on the next occasion that these proposals are placed before the Council of Ministers.

  Food and Farming Year
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to ensure that the Food and Farming Year celebrations highlight the success of British agriculture.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The main purpose of Food and Farming Year is to make the success of British agriculture and the food industry more widely understood. A wide-ranging programme of events both national and regional has been put together by a Committee representing all parts of the industry. And with full support from the Ministry.

  58. Mr. Harris: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who will be funding events in celebration of British Food and Farming Year.
  351
  Mr. MacGregor
  The funding of British Food and Farming Year has been undertaken by the industry itself. The viability of the national events such as the festival in May in Hyde park, the travelling exhibition and the teachers' resource pack has been assured by generous sponsorship from major companies. The many local activities are being similarly supported by local organisations and farmers. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has provided funds for an educational pack illustrating certain current agricultural issues and is linking its own centenary exhibition with the Hyde park festival. The Crown Estate and the Countryside Commission have also given assistance.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps have been taken to improve the welfare of horses, ponies and other equines since 1979; what further measures he proposes to take and when; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Horses and other equines have always been protected by the general legislation on animal welfare. Since 1979 they have benefited from the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act and the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act. My Department hopes this year to finalise a draft order and code of practice giving horses statutory protection in markets for the first time, and we are also preparing new measures on welfare at slaughter.

  Agricultural Valuers
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met representatives of agricultural valuers and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I met representatives of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors on 9 November 1988. My right hon. Friend the Member of Suffolk Coastal (Mr. Gummer), then Minister of State, met the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers on 10 June 1988, when he spoke at their AGM. I have been hoping to meet the CAAV for some time and will do so as soon as a mutually convenient date can be found.

  Food Policy
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he plans to meet the National Consumer Council to discuss his Ministry's food policy.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. MacGregor) last met the chairman of the council on 8 November to discuss the council's report on consumers and the common agricultural policy. I also met the council on 7 December when we discussed a wide range of topics. I firmly believe that close liaison between my Department and consumer groups is essential and I, my ministerial colleagues and officials, have regular contact with the council on matters of mutual interest and concern.

  Salmon
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received concerning the present circumstances surrounding the north-east salmon fishery.

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

  Mr. Leadbitter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the prohibition of the use of T nets in the southern area of the Northumbrian water authority area.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We have received a number of representations about the salmon net fisheries off the north-east coast of England. A recent report to Ministers of a public inquiry into a proposed byelaw has been published and we shall be reviewing the fishery, and salmon net fisheries in eastern Scotland, presenting a report to Parliament, as required by the Salmon Act 1986.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet trades unions to discuss research and development.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have arranged for the trade union side in my Department to be kept fully informed of developments in the normal way. My noble Friend Baroness Trumpington attended the annual delegate conference of the AFRC branch of the IPCS on 9 February.

  Flood Protection
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's present estimate of costs in long-term flood protection.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following a comprehensive review of flood prevention requirements undertaken with the assistance of drainage authorities, the Government identified the need for an increased long-term programme of work, and have made additional funding available for both local and water authority schemes. Government funding for flood prevention work undertaken by these authorities and internal drainage boards will be £21 million, £24 million and £30 million for the next three years on capital programmes of £57 million, £66 million and £81 million respectively.

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

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

  Woodlands
  Mr. Lord
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the planting and regeneration of lowland woodlands in England; and if he will make a statement.
  353
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures on the number of farmers applying to join the farm woodland scheme.

  Mr. MacGregor
  By 31 January 1989, some 650 farmers throughout the United Kingdom had applied to plant a total of about 4,600 hectares of woodland under the farm woodland scheme. This is an encouraging start. A substantial proportion of the proposed planting will be with broadleaves. Although final figures are not yet available applications to the Ministry indicate that broadleaved planting may account for around 75 per cent. of the area planted across the country as a whole.

  Most applications already submitted should be approved in time for planting to go ahead this season. Although it is unlikely that any further applications received from now on will obtain approval for planting this spring, I would encourage any interested farmers to start making plans and preparing applications for next year.

  More generally, we are seeing the success of our broadleaves policy with broadleaved trees being incrasingly used for the creation of new woods and the regeneration of older woodland. Most new planting in England will be in the lowlands in future.

  Fisheries (Research and Development)
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of fisheries research and development.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  We consider that the Government should focus their resources on basic and strategic science and research of a public good nature and necessary to carry out its responsibilities. Against that background we have reviewed publicly funded fisheries research and development and are now discussing with industry organisations the extent to which they are ready to fund certain research at Torry research station which is primarily concerned with the development of new products and processes.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the new co-ordinator of fisheries research and development for Great Britain is to be based in London or Edinburgh.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Since 1972 this appointment has been made alternately for three-year periods by my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland. My director of fisheries research, based in Lowestoft, became co-ordinator in January 1989.

  Whaling
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he was last in touch with the International Whaling Commission; and what issues were raised.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Reflecting our serious concern on whaling issues, I have recently authorised the United Kingdom commissioner to propose a resolution to the International Whaling Commission dealing with the current whaling operating being undertaken by Japan for scientific research studies. If adopted, the resolution will 354
  formally call upon Japan to cease her research plans until the major concerns identified by the International Whaling Commission scientific committee have been addressed and resolved.

  Torry Research Establishment
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on future funding of his Department's research establishment at Torry, Aberdeen.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Research needed in support of the Government policies for food safety and quality and related underpining work will continue to be publicly funded. Other research primarily concerned with the development of new products and processes is more appropriate for industry funding; and we are discussing with industry organisations the extent to which they will be ready to fund such work at Torry, in addition to the services which Torry research station already provides on a repayment basis.

  Fishing Ports
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects to visit fishing ports in the north of England.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have recently visited a number of fishing ports in the north of England and I will do so again.

  Animal Diseases
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy for controlling animal diseases.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Government's policy is to maintain this country's freedom, through stringent domestic and import control measures, from serious animal diseases such as foot and mouth disease. For other, less serious diseases, which do occur, the policy may be one of eradication, control or the provision of advice. In determining what action is appropriate an essential, consideration is the need to safeguard the public from those animal diseases which can be transmitted to man.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Bray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being undertaken into the cause, method of transmission and prevention of bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Research studies revealed that the most likely cause of bovine spongiform encephalopathy was the feeding of ruminant-based material to cattle. This practice was banned from 18 July last year. Various other research projects are being undertaken, including a study to determine whether cattle-to-cattle transmission can take place. There is no evidence that the disease can be transmitted to humans.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to make public the report of the Southwood committee on the human health implications of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement.
  355
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I and the Secretary of State for Health have just received the report of the Southwood working party. It is being considered urgently and will be published soon.

  Deer (Tuberculosis)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he proposes to take to contain the spread of tuberculosis in farmed and wild deer.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I announced my proposals for the control of tuberculosis in farmed deer on 15 December 1988 Official Report, columns 674–75. Urgent consideration is now being given to the comments made on the proposals by interested organisations. I have no plans to introduce measures for wild deer.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in each of the last five years how many cases of tuberculosis have been confirmed in persons engaged in working with farmed deer in the United Kingdom; and whether any such cases have been confirmed as originating from deer.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I have been asked to reply. Under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985, employers are required to report cases of tuberculosis among their employees if the employees in question work with persons or animals or with human or animal remains or with any other material which might be a source of infection. Since the regulations came into operation in April 1986 one case of tuberculosis in a person working with farmed deer has recently been 356
  reported, but this case has not been confirmed. I regret that comparable information for previous years is not available.

  Poultry Feed
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he intends to amend the ingredients regulations relating to poultry feedstuffs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Officials of my Department are currently engaged on discussions in Brussels on a proposal which would require suppliers of feeding-stuffs, including mixed poultry feeds, to declare the ingredients or categories of ingredients which have been used. This would supplement the detailed information already required for such products.

  In addition, further controls are to be introduced on the processing and importation of animal protein, and codes of practice are being drawn up which will cover the handling, storage and manufacture of poultry feeding-stuffs and their components.

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

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 13 February to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) at column 88.

  Beef Support
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the livestock industry following the announcement of revised support arrangements for beef.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend and I have had representations from various sectors of the industry. These have been concerned in particular with the rate of suckler cow premium and the method of operation of the new special premium for beef and we are currently considering these issues.

  Sheep
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the state of the sheep sector.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The sheep sector remains buoyant. Returns are good and exports are encouraging.

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

  Mr. Ryder
  I last met the president of the Country Landowners Association on 6 December 1988 when we discussed environmentally sensitive areas and national parks. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also met the president yesterday to discuss landlord-tenant matters.

  Food Prices
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the rates of increase in food prices(a) in the 1970s and (b) in the 1980s; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information is as follows:

  (a) Rate of increase in Rate of increase in food prices in the 1970s

  Rate of increase in food in the prices in the 1980s

  Year

  per cent. per annum

  Year

  per cent. per annum

  1970

  7·0

  1980

  12·1

  1971

  11·1

  1981

  8·4

  1972

  8·8

  1982

  7·9

  1973

  15·0

  1983

  3·2

  1974

  18·0

  1984

  5·6

  1975

  25·6

  1985

  31

  1976

  20·0

  1986

  3·3

  1977

  19 ·0

  1987

  3·1

  1978

  7·1

  1988

  3·5

  1979

  12·0

  —

  —

  Source Retail Price Index

  Between May 1979 and December 1988, the average annual rate of increase in food prices was 5·6 per cent. These figures reflect the success of the Government's food policies and can be compared with the rate of increase in food prices of 165·7 per cent. per annum between October 1974 and May 1979, the period in office of the last Labour Administration.

  European Ministers
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next hopes to meet his counterparts in the European Community; and what matters he hopes to discuss.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I will next meet my counterparts in the European Community at the Agriculture Council scheduled for 6 and 7 March when I expect the main agenda item to involve continued discussions on the Commission's price proposals for 1989–90 and related issues.

  Food Additives
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking in accordance with the provisions of section 4(2) of the Food Act 1984 to restrict, as far as practical, the use of substances of no nutritional value in foods.

  Mr. Ryder
  Before making regulations on the composition of food under the Food Act 1984 Ministers seek the advice of independent expert advisory committees including where appropriate advice on need and safety. In making their recommendations the committees are required by Ministers to take account of section 4(2) of the Act.

  Agriculture Act 1947
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has any plans to seek to amend the Agriculture Act 1947.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  EC Intervention Stores
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest estimate of the total cost of European Economic Community intervention stores in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The estimated total cost of intervention storage and related expenditure in 1988–89 is £50·466 million.

  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission; and what they discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend and I maintain regular contacts with the chairman of the Meat and Livestock Commission to discuss matters of mutual interest.

  Food Advisory Committee
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Food Advisory Committee; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  I met the retiring chairman of the Food Advisory Committee and his successor on 7 December 1988.
  359
  Agendas of the committee's meetings are publicly available.

  Intensive Farming
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he is undertaking into the effects on the food chain of intensive animal farming.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My Department undertakes and commissions a great deal of research into food safety, including animal diseases transmissible to man through the food chain. Research into animal diseases takes full account of animal husbandry methods. In addition the steering group on food surveillance ensures that the safety of food supplies are effectively monitored.

  Salmonella
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the current level of salmonella enteritidis in poultry flocks.

  Mr. Ryder
  Since salmonella enteritidis does not cause overt clinical disease in adult poultry it is not possible to give precise figures of the extent of the infection without extensive testing, which in the absence of a simple, rapid and sensitive test for salmonella enteritidis, is not possible. However, the Zoonoses Order 1975 requires isolations of salmonella to be reported. As indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson) in a written reply yesterday, provisional figures indicate that 370 isolations of salmonella enteritidis in 1988 were reported.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date he received the information on eggborne salmonellosis, contained in the joint report of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of Health and BEIC working group; and if he will list the actions he has taken since then to advise the public about any risks and to promote the reduction of salmonella contamination in laying flocks.

  Mr. MacGregor
  [holding answer 14 February 1989] :I received the report of the MAFF, Doll and BEIC working group on salmonella and eggs on 10 January this year. As I informed my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on 6 February Official Report columns 570–72 I have placed a copy of that report in the Library of the House and I am distributing copies to members of the public who request it.

  On 18 January I set out, in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord) Official Report columns 214–15, the range of measures we had already been taking and were proposing to take to tackle the salmonella problem at each point along the chain from poultry feedingstuffs, through the breeding flocks and hatcheries to the commercial egg producers.

  I subsequently announced on 10 February, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) Official Report column 831 that we should shortly be taking powers to provide where necessary for the compulsory slaughter of laying flocks in which salmonella has been confirmed. This announcement was a logical follow-up to the one made by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 27 January, in a written answer to a question from my hon. Friend the hon.
  360
  Member for Daventry Official Report columm 806 that notices are being issued under the Zoonoses Order 1975 to egg producers with flocks known to be or suspected of being infected with salmonella enteritidis or other similar types of salmonella, to prevent the producers concerned from selling eggs in a raw state for direct human consumption.

  Other announcements were made by the Government before 10 January and further ones will be made as appropriate.

  Nitrates
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department have taken to investigate the use of nitrates in intensive farming; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  My Department supports a wide range of research into the efficient use of both organic and inorganic fertiliser, and ways of reducing nitrate leaching. This indicates that the process of nitrate leaching is complex and that the use of nitrogen fertilisers is one of a number of factors affecting it.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's response to the recent European community directive on agriculture practices and nitrates in water.

  Mr. Ryder
  The European Community directive referred to is only a proposal at this stage and the Government are still examining it. Our general view on how the nitrate problem should be tackled was, however, explained in my right hon. Friend's written reply of 24 November.

  Agricultural Fraud
  Mr. Sean Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to detect and take legal proceedings on instances of agricultural fraud.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 13 February 1989, at columns 87–88.

  Food Safety
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve standards of food safety.

  Mr. Ryder
  I shall maintain my Department's comprehensive food surveillance programme and ensure its future development in line with changing circumstances in the food production industry.

  I shall remain ready to take action wherever the results of our surveillance work show this to be necessary.

  "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988"
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the farming industry, in the light of "Agriculture in the United Kingdom 1988", and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. MacGregor
  The Government appreciate that the necessary transition of the CAP to a greater market
  361
  orientation will cause difficult problems of adjustment for many farmers. However, without reforms the CAP risked collapsing under its own weight and this would not be in the interests of the industry. Public expenditure for agriculture remains high and indeed over the period from 1979 to 1988–89 there was an increase of 7½ per cent. In real terms. The Government introduced a range of policies aimed at helping farmers through this period of adjustment.

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

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister and I have regular contacts with the chairman of the Milk Marketing Board to discuss various issues affecting the dairy industry.

  Sea Fish Industry Authority
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  On 26 January when we discussed the Sea Fish Industry Authority's request for an increase in levy. The possibility of industry funding for research and development work undertaken by Torry research station on behalf of the industry was also discussed.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the progress of the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) on 13 February 1989 at column 88.

  Food Legislation
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about his consultation procedure on updating the legislation on food.

  Mr. Ryder
  I and my right hon. Friends consult widely with all interested parties when proposing new or updated food legislation, in accordance with our obligations under the Food Act 1984.

  Agriculture and Food Research Council
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received concerning possible redundancies in the Agriculture and Food Research Council.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has any plans to meet representatives of those working for the Agriculture and Food Research Council to discuss the future of research and development.
  362
  Mr. Ryder
  My Department has received a number of letters about the closure of particular facilities which have been drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science. On 9 February my noble Friend the Baroness Trumpington attended the annual delegate conference of the Agriculture and Food Research Council branch of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants where similar concerns were expressed to her.

  Bees
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to deal with the outbreak of European foul brood disease amongst the bee population of Great Britain.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In connection with the upsurge of European foul brood in Dorset I am taking the action authorised by the Bee Diseases Control Order 1982. This makes European foul brood a notifiable disease and empowers me to have affected colonies destroyed or treated, depending on the extent of infection, and to impose standstill notices on diseased colonies and on neighbouring colonies where this is considered necessary.

  Agriculture Extensification
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will raise with the Council of Ministers the policy of agriculture extensification.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell).

  Strawberries
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to prevent the spread of colletotrichum and Acutatum commonly known as black spot in strawberry plants in the United Kingdom; and what discussions he has had with his European colleagues to prevent the further importation of the disease from the mainland of Europe.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have taken a number of measures, in consultation with the National Farmers Union and representatives of the strawberry nuclear stock growers, to prevent strawberry black spot spreading in the United Kingdom. Where outbreaks occur, these measures require the control of movement of plants, compulsory spraying regimes and destruction of infected plants at the end of the cropping programme, followed by various hygiene measures. In addition, samples of all known imports of strawberry plants will be subject to inspection and where necessary laboratory tests to establish freedom from infection.

  Detailed discussions have taken place between my officials and the Netherlands plant protection authorities about preventing infected plants from the Netherlands being exported to the United Kingdom. The Netherlands authorities have undertaken to consider further action, and we are in close touch with them.

  Potato Marketing Board
  Mr. Haynes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now make a statement on the future of the Potato Marketing Board.
  363
  Mr. MacGregor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 14 February at column 161.

  Poultry
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current state of the poultry industry.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The market for poultry meat is less buoyant than it was throughout 1988 although wholesale prices remain relatively stable. Egg sales still appear to be significantly below normal levels, but packer to producer prices have shown improvement after falling sharply in December last year.

  Baby Milk
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name those brands of baby milk on which he has information that they contain high levels of aluminium; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The Department of Health's independent expert medical and scientific advisory committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment recently considered the results of analyses by my Department of the aluminium content of infant formulae. The committee advised that in the light of these results there was no need for action to reduce the aluminium intakes from these products.

  It is not my practice to disclose information on the brands of goods monitored as part of food surveillance.

  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines have been issued by his Department on the safety of baby milk; and if his Department has any plans to instruct manufacturers of certain brands to withdraw them from sale.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the right hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on 6 February at column 491.

  Milk
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of liquid milk consumed in 1987 in England and Wales was not heat treated.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  It is difficult to establish a precise figure, but in the light of information published by the Federation of United Kingdom Milk Marketing boards in the 1988 edition of "Dairy Facts and Figures" I estimate that 2 to 3 per cent. of milk sold for liquid consumption in England and Wales in 1987–88 was not heat treated.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list(a) the number of milk bottling plants which currently produce green top milk, (b) what proportion of milk production this represents, and (c) what proportion of unpasteurised milk it represents.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Green top milk must be bottled on the farm. It follows that there are no milk bottling plants handling green top milk.
  364
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will give the total level of milk production in 1988; and if he will give proportions accounted for by(a) green top bottled milk, (b) other bottled milk, (c) pasteurised milk for other than liquid consumption, and (d) unpasteurised milk for other than liquid consumption;

  (2) if he will estimate the level of United Kingdom consumption of unpasteurised milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I have given today to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Further information is set out in the 1988 edition of "United Kingdom Dairy Facts and Figures". There is a copy in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many inspections have been held of on-farm dairies producing for direct sale green top milk which have revealed listeria contamination during each of the last three years;

  (2) what steps he has taken during the last two years to improve the hygiene of on-farm dairies;

  (3) what steps he has taken during the last two years to improve the quality of unpasteurised milk sold direct to the public.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The production and processing of all milk is subject to strict controls under the Milk and Dairies Regulations. Producers who hold a licence to sell unpasteurised milk for liquid consumption under the special designation "untreated" are visited regularly by dairy husbandry advisers who check that the physical condition of the premises and the methods of production are in compliance with the regulations. In addition, samples of milk are taken for testing, but the milk is not tested for specific pathogens.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the sale by county of(a) pasteurised and (b) unpasteurised milk in the latest available year.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations he proposes to hold with consumer organisations before banning the sale of unpasteurised milk; and what representations he has received from them asking for such a ban.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The consultation exercise that my right hon. Friend announced on 3 February will range widely and will include consumer organisations. I have already received various representations arguing that a ban would be in the best interests of consumers.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will publish the scientific and medical advice on the basis on which he proposes to ban the sale of unpasteurised milk.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have been mainly influenced by information on outbreaks of food poisoning associated with consumption of untreated milk. Figures for the years 1982–88 were provided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health in response to a question from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is funding concerning the toxicity of pesticides approved for slug control on(a) hedgehogs and other wild mammals, (b) birds and (c) amphibians.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Before pesticides are approved their effects must be researched by manufacturing companies and data submitted in support of the application. These are evaluated by independent experts before any approvals for use are granted by Ministers. Research conducted by my own Department at Boxworth is aimed at comparing the relative effects on wildlife of broadcasting and of drilling slug pellets. My Department also operates a scheme for investigating suspected wildlife poisonings and slug control products are occasionally implicated in these.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those pesticides approved for use by his Department for slug control known to be toxic to(a) hedgehogs and other wild mammals, (b) birds and (c) amphibians.

  Mr. MacGregor
  All slug control pesticides have been assessed for environmental and wildlife hazards and the labels of approved products carry the relevant precautions to avoid harmful effects to birds and animals.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those pesticides approved by his Department for the destruction of slugs.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Four active ingredients are approved for slug control: aluminium compounds; copper compounds; methaldehyde and methiocarb. Products containing these are listed in HMSO reference book "Pesticides 1988."

  Cheese
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the volume of imports of soft cheese made from unpasteurised milk by country of origin for each of the last two years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The import statistics do not separately identify cheese made from unpasteurised milk.

  Butter
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the replies to the hon. Member for Pembroke on 31 January,Official Report, column 184, and 6 February 1989, Official Report, column 697, what information is available to his Ministry from Eurostat as to the percentage of the United Kingdom packet butter market accounted for by the following countries (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Ireland, (c) France, (d) New Zealand, (e) Denmark, (f) the Netherlands and (g) Belgium and Luxembourg.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Eurostat does not contain information on the United Kingdom packet butter market.

  Hedges
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will lay a report before Parliament on the state of hedges in England and Wales.

  Mr. Ryder
  No representative studies have been undertaken of the condition of hedges in England and Wales because of the difficulties caused by variations between hedgerow types in different locations and serving different purposes.

  My Department is always ready to provide advice to farmers on hedgerow management, and grants are available for hedgerow planting and laying under the new farm and conservation grant scheme which subject to parliamentary approval will operate from next Monday.

  Coastal Waters
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the environmental quality of British coastal waters.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  All marine environmental quality standards, both EC and national, are met in British coastal waters. Levels of contaminants have generally been falling and are low. The quality of our seas is improving and I continue to seek further improvements wherever practicable.

  Waste Dumping
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls are applied to the dumping of waste in British waters.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I impose strict controls on dumping to ensure that no harm is caused to the marine environment. All wastes licensed have been subject to thorough scientific tests. Only very limited categories of waste are authorised. Where disposal on land is practicable sea disposal is not licensed.

  Most of the material which I license for dumping at sea is dredged spoil from harbours and estuaries. We must keep our ports open. This is, of course, also the case in other European countries, some of whom dump much more both in volume terms and contamination terms than we do. All the spoil which I license for dumping meets the relevant international rules to avoid marine pollution

  Of 30 sea dumping licences for liquid industrial waste in 1987 some 20 have been reviewed in detail and either withdrawn or a firm intention to terminate given. The 10 remaining licences for liquid industrial waste are currently under review to investigate whether safe disposal on land is practicable.

  Five licences for marine incineration have already been terminated and alternatives for the remaining eight are being carefully studied.

  In the case of sewage sludge, this material is more than 95 per cent. water. Trace levels of contaminants in sewage sludge have been reduced by more than 60 per cent. since 1980. It was agreed at the North sea conference in 1987 not to increase contaminant levels and I am seeking to reduce them further. I am currently reviewing with the water authorities the availability of alternative methods of disposal for the sludge, including land disposal options.

  Covent Garden Market
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has decided what action he intends to take in respect of the possible privatisation of the Covent Garden market.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I am currently considering the options available on the future of the market, including the possibility of privatisation. As a first step, I have decided to commission an independent commercial feasibility study on the possibilities of privatisation, and will shortly be asking for tenders for this appointment from appropriate organisations.

EMPLOYMENT

  London Jobcentres
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the median time notified vacancies remain at London jobcentres, broken down by classification.

  Mr. Cope
  The table shows the latest available information which is also in the Library. Analysis of median durations is shown in respect of(a) vacancies filled by jobcentres over the period 5 September to 2 December 1988 and (b) the stock vacancies remaining unfilled at jobcentres on 2 December 1988. Median durations are not estimated in respect of the total time that all vacancies, including notifications subsequently cancelled, remain in the jobcentre records.

  Median duration in weeks of filled and unfilled vacancies at jobcentres in Greater London by occupation

  (a)

  (b)

  Occupation

  Filled vacancies1 5 September to 2 December 1988

  Unfilled vacancies2 2 December 1988

  Managerial and professional

  2·4

  4·8

  Clerical

  1·0

  4·0

  Cashiers

  1·9

  3·8

  Secretaries and typists

  2·1

  4·1

  Other non-manual

  1·3

  4·7

  Textile processing crafts

  1·7

  3·0

  Food processing crafts

  2·8

  3·7

  Glass and ceramic crafts

  1·9

  4·8

  Printing and bookbinding crafts

  1·8

  5·4

  Textile and leather working

  3·1

  5·4

  Woodworking crafts

  1·5

  4·1

  Metal making and treating

  1·0

  3·5

  Setters

  2·3

  4·0

  Turners

  3·1

  4·7

  Setter operators

  2·9

  4·9

  Tool makers

  2·0

  7·0

  Fitters and fitter machinists

  2·8

  4·5

  Vehicle making

  2·5

  3·5

  Instrument makers

  2·8

  6·8

  Electrical and electronic

  2·3

  4·6

  Plumbing crafts

  2·3

  3·1

  Constructional metal crafts

  2·1

  5·0

  Painting and coating crafts

  0·3

  3·8

  Construction crafts

  0·7

  3·8

  Mining crafts

  30·1

  31·86

  Electricity power plant operators

  38·7

  34·0

  Craftsmen and foremen N.E.S.

  2·1

  3·3

  General labourers

  0·2

  4·0

  Clerical sales and security

  0·3

  4·3

  Catering and domestic

  0·7

  3·5

  Road sweeping and personal service

  1·3

  3·3

  Farming and fishing etc.

  1·1

  4·9

  Processing making and repairing

  1·5

  4·2

  368

  (a)

  (b)

  Occupation

  Filled vacancies1 5 September to 2 December 1988

  Unfilled vacancies2 2 December 1988

  Assembly packaging

  0·5

  4·2

  Construction

  0·2

  4·3

  Goods driving

  1·4

  3·0

  Other transport operating

  0·3

  3·9

  Storekeeping and materials moving

  0·8

  2·9

  Miscellaneous

  0·2

  3·0

  All occupations

  0·8

  3·9

  1 The time since notification exceeded by 50 per cent. of the vacancies filled by jobcentres.

  2 The time since notification exceeded by 50 per cent. of unfilled vacancies registered at jobcentres.

  3 Medians are likely to be affected by the small number vacancies in these cases.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many vacancies flowed through London jobcentres in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Cope
  The inflow of vacancies notified to jobcentres in Greater London, over the 12 months to December 1988 was 407,800, with a total outflow of 420,100 either filled or cancelled vacancies from the jobcentre records. These totals are based on the monthly seasonally adjusted series. They do not represent the total flow of vacancies in the economy.

  Vacancies (London)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of vacancies London employers notify to jobcentres.

  Mr. Cope
  A survey of employers in Greater London, carried out for the Employment Department by IFF Research Ltd. In June 1988, found that 45 per cent, of vacancies that had been filled during the preceding year had at some stage been notified to a jobcentre. At any one time, though, it is estimated that only 20 to 25 per cent, of available vacancies will have been notified to jobcentres.

  Agriculture (Accidents)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS trainees have suffered reportable accidents while working in the agricultural industry in each of the last five years, for which records are available.

  Mr. Cope
  A new computer system is currently being updated to provide more detailed analysis of YTS incident information. Accident information before 1988 by industry is not available.

  Information for 1988 is as follows:

  1988 Agricultural accidents1

  Fatal

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Total number reported to the Training Agency

  None

  48

  183

  Number which would not have been reported to HSE

  None

  8

  28

  1 Training Agency accident figures for YTS have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed people. However, the agency's figures include a number

  369
  of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 From 1 April 1986 major injuries have been classified according to severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  Horse Racing
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many YTS trainees have suffered reportable accidents while working in the equestrian and horse racing industry, in each of the last five years for which records are available.

  Mr. Cope
  A new computer system is currently being updated to provide more detailed analysis of YTS accident information. Accident information before 1988 by industry is not available.

  Equestrian accidents: 19881

  Fatal

  Major injuries2

  Minor injuries

  Total number reported to the Training Agency

  None

  20

  61

  Number which would not have been reported to HSE

  None

  2

  5

  1 Training Agency accident figures for YTS have been compiled on a similar basis to those prepared by the Health and Safety Executive for employed people. However, the agency's figures include a number of accidents, in particular road traffic accidents during scheme time and accidents to trainees in educational establishments, which may not have been reportable to the executive had the individuals been employed.

  2 From I April 1986 major injuries have been classified according to severity criteria laid down in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrances Regulations 1985 (RIDDOR).

  Child Employees (Accidents)
  Mr. Archer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many notifiable accidents there have been to children in the course of legal employment in each year since 1973, categorised by age of child and severity of accident.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information collected under current regulations is set out in the table. It relates to all young people aged 13 to 15 described as employees in injury reports.

  Injuries to employees aged 13 to 15 reported under RIDDOR1 to all enforcing authorities

  Fatal

  Major

  Over 3 day

  Total

  1986–872

  aged 13

  —

  6

  2

  8

  aged 14

  1

  7

  2

  10

  aged 15

  —

  10

  15

  25

  1987–882 3

  aged 13

  —

  2

  3

  5

  aged 14

  —

  12

  1

  13

  aged 15

  1

  10

  24

  35

  1 Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985.

  2 Year commencing I April: analyses of data by age before 1981 are not available. Between 1981 and 1985 the apparent numbers of employed children being injured in the course of work were inflated by extensive mis-reporting and mis-coding of injuries to non-employed children and reliable figures are therefore not
  370
  available. However, following a careful examination of the narrative reports of injuries to children at work from 1981 to 1984, a note was published in Health and Safety Statistics 1984–85, available in the House of Commons Library.

  3 Provisional.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information the new training and enteprise councils will have to make available in their three year business plans and proposed annual reports; and how much of this information will be publicly available.

  Mr. Cope
  Details of what information training and enterprise councils will need to provide in their three-year business plans and annual reports are under consideration. A council's report will however be a public document, and they will also have to publish a synopsis of their business plans.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the new training and enterprise councils will make publicly available, scheme by scheme, statistics showing the ethnic backgrounds of the YTS and employment training trainees recruited by their local training managers-managing agents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The arrangements under which training and enterprise councils will operate are being developed and these matters are being given consideration. Councils will be required to continue and develop equality of opportunity on YTS and employment training.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information training and enterprise councils will make publicly available on the health and safety performance of the YTS and employment training schemes they are responsible for; and what information will be made publicly available in the case of accidents leading to serious injury or the death of a trainee.

  Mr. Cope
  The detailed arrangements under which training and enterprise councils will operate are being developed and these matters are being given consideration. Councils will be required to promote high standards of health and safety on YTS and employment training.

  YTS
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what monitoring of YTS managing agents will be taking place in 1989–90; if all existing YTS-approved training organisations will be subjected to a full review of their training arrangements on all 10 criteria that make up approved training organisation status; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The key features of the arrangements for 1989–90 are as follows:

  (i) Agreement of development plans and performance targets for training outputs.

  (ii) Review of achievements throughout the year.

  (iii) Selective involvement in development work.

  (iv) Annual review of performance.

  (v) Negotiation of subsequent contract.

  In addition, selective inspections are carried out by the training standards advisory service.

  Compliance with the 10 ATO criteria will be fully reviewed and used in the annual review of performance. In

  371
  addition, a formal re-examination of approved status can be made at any time if evidence from the monitoring arrangements shows this to be necessary.

  Working Population
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the current estimates and

  Estimates and projections of the population of working age

  Thousand

  Men aged 16 to 64 years

  Women aged 16 to 59 years

  Estimates

  Projections

  Estimates

  Projections

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1979

  1983

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  North

  980

  993

  993

  992

  989

  985

  900

  898

  899

  901

  896

  893

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,522

  1,561

  1,573

  1,575

  1,580

  1,579

  1,389

  1,407

  1,423

  1,429

  1,430

  1,430

  East Midlands

  1,197

  1,241

  1,276

  1,285

  1,291

  1,297

  1,083

  1,115

  1,146

  1,157

  1,166

  1,172

  East Anglia

  578

  608

  632

  639

  647

  653

  519

  545

  572

  580

  586

  593

  South East

  5,317

  5,476

  5,587

  5,610

  5,663

  5,682

  4,907

  4,995

  5,118

  5,148

  5,176

  5,193

  Greater London1

  2,183

  2,185

  2,203

  2,203

  2,214

  2,213

  2,040

  2,026

  2,052

  2,056

  2,062

  2,063

  South West

  1,305

  1,369

  1,418

  1,433

  1,440

  1,450

  1,201

  1,243

  1,296

  1,315

  1,317

  1,327

  West Midlands

  1,641

  1,681

  1,696

  1,703

  1,702

  1,701

  1,477

  1,495

  1,510

  1,519

  1,526

  1,528

  North West

  1,991

  2,025

  2,037

  2,039

  2,039

  2,034

  1,839

  1,836

  1,848

  1,855

  1,853

  1,850

  Wales

  863

  879

  890

  896

  892

  891

  790

  798

  806

  813

  810

  810

  Scotland

  1,577

  1,627

  1,648

  1,649

  1,654

  1,655

  1,490

  1,511

  1,523

  1,526

  1,528

  1,526

  1 Included in South East.

  Source: Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and General Register Office for Scotland.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, what safeguards he is taking to ensure the confidentiality of the personal information given to employment training training agents and managers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Personal information held on computer systems of training agents and training managers is already protected by the requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984.

  Training Agency officials are considering whether any further safeguards for the protection of personal information are necessary.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what personal information employment service staff and claimant advisers may obtain on an employment training trainee from the trainee's training manager or training agent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patrick Nicholls
  No information about the personal characteristics or personal circumstances of a trainee should be passed to the employment service by a training agent or training manager.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people who are direct entrants on employment training and not transferred in have left employment training since it began; and how many have left employment training after being transferred in from a constituent part.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To the end of December 1988, the latest date for which information is available, 39,500 people had left employment training. It is estimated that of these about 20,000 had been direct recruits. The remainder had chosen to transfer from other programmes.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what estimates his Department has made as 372
  projections of the population of working age, men and women, by standard region including Greater London, for 1979, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Lee
  The figures requested are given in the table:

  to the number of employees who belong to trade unions under (a) pre-entry closed shop arrangements and (b) post-entry closed shop arrangements.

  Mr. Nicholls
  On the basis of the 1984 workplace industrial relations survey, it was estimated that approximately 500,000 employees worked under pre-entry closed shop arrangements and around 3·1 million under post-entry closed shop arrangements. We expect to be able to update these estimates shortly in the light of our review of the closed shop.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Eadie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when the hon. Member for Midlothian can expect an answer to his letter dated 3 February, written on behalf of the Miners' Parliamentary Group, requesting a meeting with him.

  Mr. Cope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to meet the hon. Member and the meeting has been arranged.

  Tourism
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what value of section 4 grants have been made for each of the past five years in the north Devon area.

  Mr. Lee
  I regret that this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what value of section 4 grants have been made for each of the past five years in the Duchy of Cornwall.

  Mr. Lee
  Under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the English tourist board has offered assistance to projects in Cornwall, during the last five years, as follows:
  373

  Financial Year

  Number of projects

  Total assistance offered £

  1984–85

  41

  572,870

  1985–86

  43

  433,009

  1986–87

  55

  757,556

  1987–88

  36

  568,948

  11988–89

  22

  618,625

  1 To January 1989.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many section 4 grants have been made for each of the past five years in the West Country tourist board area; and what was their total value.

  Mr. Lee
  Offers of assistance made by the English tourist hoard under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 to projects in the West Country tourist board area during the five years up to March 1988 were as follows:

  Year

  Number of projects

  Total value of assistance offered £

  1983–84

  116

  2,760,000

  1984–85

  125

  1,934,000

  1985–86

  156

  2,464,000

  1986–87

  201

  3,519,000

  1987–88

  157

  3,125,000

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will lift his suspension of section 4 grants for the south-west of England to bring their regulations in line with those for Scotland and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  No. The particular scheme of assistance operated in England under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 has been suspended pending consideration of this and a number of other issues arising out of the review of tourism policy.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many section 4 grants have been paid out to firms in Devon during each of the past five years for which statistics are available.

  Mr. Lee
  Under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969, the English tourist board has offered assistance to projects in Devon, during the last five years, as follows:

  Financial Year

  Number of Projects

  1984–85

  43

  1985–86

  73

  1986–87

  83

  1987–88

  78

  1988–891

  47

  1 (to January 1989)

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list all projects financed by section 4 tourism grants in each region during each year since 1979 giving in each case the size of the grant and the percentage of the total expenditure on the project this represented.

  Mr. Lee
  This information can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has as to what was the labour force participation rate for(a) men and (b) women in the age groups (i) 16 to 19 years, (ii) 20 to 24 years, (iii) 25 to 54 years, (iv) 55 to 64 years and (v) 65 to 74 years, in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985 and 1988, for the United Kingdom, France, West Germany, Italy, the United States of America, Japan and Sweden.

  Mr. Lee
  This information is not available for all the countries listed at the detailed level requested. The table below gives the available data common to all countries. More detailed information on European Community countries is included in the Eurostat publication "Labour Force Survey Results", copies of which are kept in the Library.

  Total labour force as a percentage of population aged 15–64

  1970

  1975

  1980

  1985

  1986

  United Kingdom

  Males

  94·4

  92·1

  90·5

  88·9

  88·5

  Females

  50·7

  55·1

  58·3

  60·6

  61·6

  France

  Males

  86·9

  84·3

  81·7

  76·7

  76·3

  Females

  48·5

  51·1

  54·4

  54·9

  55·3

  Germany

  Males

  92·5

  87·0

  83·6

  80·0

  79·8

  Females

  48·1

  49·6

  50·0

  50·3

  51·1

  Italy1

  Males

  86·8

  n/a

  82·8

  79·3

  79·3

  Females

  33·5

  n/a

  39·6

  41·0

  42·3

  United States

  Males

  87·1

  85·4

  84·7

  84·0

  84·4

  Females

  48·9

  53·2

  59·7

  63·8

  64·9

  Japan

  Males

  89·4

  89·7

  89·0

  87·8

  87·6

  Females

  55·4

  51·7

  54·9

  57·2

  57·4

  Sweden

  Males

  88·8

  89·2

  87·8

  84·2

  84·1

  Females

  59·4

  67·6

  74·1

  77·6

  73·3

  Source: "Labour Force Statistics 1966–1986" (OECD) except UK(DE).

  1 Population aged 14–64.

  Single Parents
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many single parents are on each Government training scheme; how many single parents on those schemes take up the child care allowance available; what is the total annual cost of the child care allowances scheme; and what is the estimated cost of providing child care allowance on training schemes for all married women who could potentially enter those schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: Information on lone parents on Government training schemes is available only for employment training, which is the only such scheme under which child care allowances are available.

  Over 2,000 lone parents have already joined employment training. Information on how many of them are claiming for child care payments will not be available until the end of April but, so far, advances of just over £1

  375
  million have been made to training managers in respect of their commitments to child care allowances. The cost of making child care allowances to all married women who could potentially enter Government training schemes is difficult to estimate but would undoubtedly be substantial.

ENVIRONMENT

  Football Clubs
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many football clubs in England and Wales the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) has visited since becoming Minister of Sport; and if he will list the clubs visited.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have visited the following Football League clubs since my appointment as Minister for Sport:

  Charlton Athletic

  3 October 1987

  20 December 1987

  23 January 1988

  23 April 1988

  8 October 1988

  14 January 1989

  28 January 1989

  Derby County

  26 March 1988

  Hartlepool United

  27 February 1988

  Luton Town

  16 January 1988

  Manchester United

  1 January 1988

  Millwall

  19 November 1988

  29 January 1989

  Oxford United

  23 November 1988

  Tottenham Hotspur

  31 October 1987

  West Ham United

  8 January 1989

  Reading

  5 May 1988

  Aston Villa

  19 May 1988

  Arsenal

  9 August 1988

  Liverpool

  16 November 1988

  Housing (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide additional finance for housing in small rural communities.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Member to the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) on 8 February at columns 726–27.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures for families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in England and Wales.

  Mr. Trippier
  Latest estimates of households temporarily placed in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by English local authorities appear in table 4(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the third quarter of 1988. Supplementary Tables", which is available in the Library.

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

  Housing Defects
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any proposals to reform the Housing Defects Act 1984.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have recently consulted on possible changes intended to streamline the housing defects scheme of assistance for house owners; copies of the Department's consultation letter are in the Library. We are considering responses and will reach decisions as soon as we can.

  Isle of Dogs Enterprise Zone
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether firms located in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone at 26 April 1992, when the enterprise zone scheme ceases, will become liable for payment of unified business rates at the full amount.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The consultation document on the arrangements for phasing in the effects of the uniform business rate and the 1990 revaluation issued by the Department yesterday, copies of which are in the Library, proposes that phasing of rate bills should not apply to properties in enterprise zones when those come to an end.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide a breakdown on a year by year basis of the total rate allowance claimed in the Isle of Dogs enterprise zone.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information is as follows:

  £

  1982–83

  1,093,665

  1983–84

  1,509,245

  1984–85

  2,290,567

  1985–86

  2,192,527

  1986–87

  3,192,998

  1987–88

  5,077,452

  1988–89

  11,697,261

  London Docklands
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will give the new address of each firm that has been relocated from the London docklands urban development area with London Docklands development corporation assistance;

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown by economic sector of those firms that have been relocated from the London docklands urban development area with London Docklands development corporation assistance;

  (3) how many firms have been relocated from the London docklands urban development area with London Docklands development corporation assistance; and what was the total cost to the corporation of these relocations.

  Mr. Trippier
  I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide an estimate of the number or proportion of the jobs attracted to the London docklands urban development area that have gone to residents of the London boroughs of Newham, Tower Hamlets and Southwark and the basis for any estimate given.
  377
  Mr. Trippier
  Of the 20,317 jobs attracted to the LDDC area since 1981, some 4,955, approximately one in four, have gone to residents of Newham, Southwark or Tower Hamlets.

  This estimate is based on surveys of employment in the LDDC area in 1985 and 1987 commissioned by LDDC, and relates only to "employing establishments". There are a further 5,668 jobs in "other employments", for example one man businesses and construction sites. An unknown proportion of these jobs will also be held by residents of the three boroughs.

  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 January,Official Report, column 457, if he will provide a breakdown by economic sector of the 41 firms employing 10 or more people that closed between 1981 and 31 March 1988 in the London docklands urban development area.

  Mr. Trippier
  The information requested is as follows

  SIC code

  Number of firms

  1 Energy and water

  1

  2 Extraction of minerals; Manufacture of metals

  3

  3 Metal goods/vehicles industry

  3

  4 Other manufacturing

  8

  5 Construction

  4

  6 Distribution, Hotels, Catering, Repairs

  14

  7 Transport and Communications

  8

  41

  Enterprise Zones
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums have been paid to each local authority in the United Kingdom in lieu of rates forgone from enterprise zones for each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87, and 1987–88, respectively.

  Mr. Trippier
  Payments to local authorities in England in lieu of rate revenue forgone in enterprise zones for the years 1985–86, 1986–87 and 1987–88 are

  Rate revenue foregone in enterprise zones in England

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £

  £

  £

  Allerdale DC

  194,144

  395,657

  223,208

  Burnley BC

  191,357

  298,216

  374,204

  Corby DC

  2,218,820

  2,910,965

  3,525,720

  Dudley MBC

  2,013,690

  3,075,557

  4,140,797

  Gateshead MBC

  2,638,897

  5,033,264

  8,245,316

  Gillingham BC

  328,307

  442,456

  537,537

  Glanford BC

  91,352

  69,187

  84,998

  Gravesham BC

  270,000

  464,379

  405,000

  Hartlepool BC

  416,477

  484,173

  882,353

  Hyndburn BC

  105,716

  172,022

  225,206

  Liverpool City Council

  1,853,441

  1,514,011

  2,279,287

  Middlesbrough BC

  436,244

  599,627

  830,644

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council

  1,396,925

  1,423,770

  1,323,318

  Newham LBC

  140,523

  160,579

  16,398

  Pendle BC

  54,720

  100,113

  125,379

  Rochester Upon Medway City Council

  763,131

  907,536

  1,117,189

  Rossendale BC

  68,711

  143,707

  152,348

  Rotherham MBC

  616,295

  900,000

  1,322,538

  Salford City Council

  1,316,946

  2,402,410

  3,114,988

  Scunthorpe BC

  617,481

  884,015

  1,262,052

  Tower Hamlets LBC

  2,052,004

  3,032,419

  5,061,054

  Trafford MBC

  1,777,069

  2,536,069

  2,761,715

  378

  Local authority

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £

  £

  £

  Wakefield MBC

  871,066

  1,144,653

  1,210,739

  Wellingborough BC

  224,653

  466,823

  2,448,341

  Wrekin DC

  555,602

  1,608,298

  1,804,880

  Note The table shows payments made in each financial year. Claims in respect of any one financial are not always made before the end of that year and may consequently be paid in a following year.

  Grants (London)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the proposed allocations of city partnership and programme authority grants to London boroughs for 1989–90 and for 1988–89.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) on 1 February at columns 215–17 and to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 3 February at columns 428–29.

  Accommodation Agencies
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to conduct a review of the conduct of accommodation agencies.

  Mr. Trippier
  I have no plans to do so.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list his initial housing investment programme allocations to local authorities in(a) inner London, (b) outer London, (c) the south-east outside London, (d) East Anglia, (e) the south-west, (f) the east midlands, (g) the west midlands, (h) Yorkshire and Humberside, (i) the north, (j) the north-west and (k) England as a whole for (1) 1989–90, (2) 1987–88, (3) 1985–86, (4) 1983–84, (5) 1981–82 and (6) 1979–80 at constant 1989–90 prices.

  Mr. Trippier
  A table giving the information requested has been laid in the Library. Since 1981–82 local authorities have been able to supplement their allocations by expenditure financed from capital receipts. Nationally, two thirds of local authorities spending power on housing in 1989–90 is expected to come from capital receipts.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of local authority dwellings let through the national mobility scheme and for London's other schemes(a) in total and (b) to homeless households between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988, in (i) Greater London, (ii) in metropolitan areas, (iii) in non-metropolitan areas in the south-east, (iv) in all non-metropolitan areas and (v) in England as a whole;

  (2) what was (a) the total number of households and (b) the number of homeless households taking up nominations made between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988 by local authorities to secure housing association or new town tenancies in (i) Greater London, (ii) other metropolitan areas, (iii) in non-metropolitan areas in the south-east, (iv) in all non-metropolitan areas and (v) in England as a whole;

  (3) what was (a) the total number of homeless households and (b) the number of homeless households in

  379
  priority need for whom local authorities accepted responsibility between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988, for securing accommodation in (i) Greater London, (ii) in other metropolitan areas, (iii) in non-metropolitan areas in the south-east, (iv) in all non-metropolitan areas and (v) in England as a whole;

  (4) how many local authority dwellings were (a) vacant and available for letting on 1 April 1987 and (b) became available for letting between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988 (i) through new build, (ii) through acquisition, modernisation or conversion, (iii) through other means, including vacation by existing tenants in (a) Greater London, (b) in other metropolitan areas, (c) in non-metropolitan areas in the south-east, (d) in all non-metropolitan areas and (e) England as a whole;

  (5) what is the number of local authority dwellings let to new tenants as secure tenancies (a) in total and (b) to homeless households between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1988 in (i) Greater London, (ii) in metropolitan areas outside London, (iii) in non-metropolitan areas in the south-east, (iv) in all non-metropolitan areas and (v) in England as a whole.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him yesterday.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many nations are sending delegates or observers to the March conference on limitation of the use of chlorofluorocarbons.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Invitations to the "Saving the Ozone Layer" London conference on 5 to 7 March have gone to over 150 countries active within the United Nations environment programme (UNEP). We already expect over 90 to be represented, some 75 at ministerial level. We are receiving further acceptances daily.

  Rating Reform
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what instructions he proposes to give to(a) community charges registration officers, (b) charging authorities, and (c) valuation and community charge tribunals, concerning the provision of material in ethnic minority languages and translation facilities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ridley
  A practice note on the community charge canvass issued last November advised registration officers of the need to provide guidance in languages other than English in some areas. To assist those authorities with substantial ethnic minority populations the Department will make available translations of the model form and notes in Urdu, Bengali, Hindi, Gujarati and Punjabi. Camera-ready copy will be available to registration officer and charging authorities, free of charge, early next month.

  Lead Pollution
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the level of lead in the atmosphere which is considered acceptable in the urban environment and the level which is considered to be detrimental to the health of pedestrians and to the public at large.
  380
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In order to help protect humans against the effect of lead in the environment, the EC directive on lead in air (82/884/EEC) sets a limit value of 2 microgrammes per cubic metre of air (2 mg/m3), expressed as an annual average of measured levels.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will provide detailed information of the locations at which the lead content of air in Cardiff was measured during the past two years; what levels were recorded; and if he will give the dates on which measurements were made, and the methods used.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Lead in air levels have been monitored since 1985 at a site in Waungron road, Cardiff. Monitoring has been continuous, using Warren Spring laboratory's M-type sampler, a method which complies with the requirements of the EC directive of lead in air (82/884/EEC).

  The following results have been recorded:

  Year

  Annual Average Lead Concentrations (mg/m3)

  1985

  1·28

  1986

  0·63

  1987

  0·67

  Results for 1988 are not yet available.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence he has available of levels of lead pollution in the air in Cardiff over the last 10 years; what trends have been reflected in measurements taken during the period; and what steps he is taking to reduce lead pollution in the atmosphere in Cardiff and elsewhere in England and Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Lead in air levels in Cardiff have been continuously monitored since 1985. From 1 January 1986 measured levels have decreased by approximately 50 per cent. following the reduction in the permitted lead content of petrol to 0·15 g per litre. To bring about further reductions in lead in air levels, the Government are continuing vigorously to encourage the wider use of unleaded petrol.

  Drinking Water
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 17 January to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale),Official Report, column 147, on which date he wrote to the South West water authority informing it that an emergency derogation under article 10 of the EC drinking water directive (80/778/EEC) would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Ridley
  No letter was sent to the South West water authority to inform it that an article 10 derogation would not be appropriate. On 24 October 1988 my Department wrote to the authority agreeing to its withdrawal of its application for a derogation.

  Landfill
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will take steps to make funds available for remedial action at the landfill site at Moss lane, Rixton, Warrington, to make the site safe, in the light of the evidence of unauthorised dumping;
  381
  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the dumping of waste designated for incineration at the landfill site at Moss lane, Rixton, Warrington, and as to the nature of the waste and the period over which it was dumped;

  (3) if he will institute a public inquiry into the dumping of toxic waste at the landfill site at Moss land, Rixton, Warrington;

  (4) what information he has as to (a) the source and (b) the nature of the waste designated for incineration which has been dumped at a landfill site at Moss lane, Rixton, Warrington;

  (5) what assessment he has made of the threat to public health of the discovery of waste designated for incineration being dumped at a landfill site at Moss lane, Rixton, Warrington.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State of the Environment what information he has as to clinical waste derived from AIDS patients which are disposed to landfill.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 9 February 1989]: I have asked Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to carry out a full investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deposit of clinical waste at the landfill at Moss lane, Rixton, Cheshire, and particularly what enforcement action WDA is proposing to take. There are no plans to instigate a formal public inquiry.

  Local Councils (Statistics)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will state in tabular form, for(a) Tower Hamlets, (b) Richmond upon Thames, (c) Sutton London borough, (d) Calderdale and (e) Stockport metropolitan district (i) which political party or groups of parties control the council, (ii) what has been the percentage change in spending by the council in each financial year since 1986–87, (iii) what has been the change in staffing levels in whole-time equivalents for each year since 1985 and (iv) what has been the change in the rate poundage, expressed as a percentage for each financial year since 1986–87;

  (2) if he will give in tabular form for (a) Bedfordshire county council, (b) Cambridgeshire county council, (c) Cheshire county council, (d) Cumbria county council (e)

  Table B

  Changes in staffing levels1 since 1985

  Authority

  Total staff (full-time plus part-time)2

  Change at June, compared with a year earlier

  at June 1985

  31986

  1987

  198

  Bedfordshire

  18,441

  +972

  +852

  +191

  Cambridgeshire

  19,182

  +1,732

  +1,082

  +191

  Cheshire

  35,123

  +1,069

  +1,872

  -646

  Cumbria

  19,044

  +9

  +286

  +100

  Devon

  30,930

  +728

  +866

  +138

  Gloucestershire

  16,913

  +175

  +709

  +99

  Humberside

  34,790

  +416

  +1,929

  -146

  Isle of Wight

  4,000

  -51

  +63

  +131

  Lancashire

  51,345

  +148

  +406

  +2,109

  Leicestershire

  32,649

  +510

  -146

  +2,133

  Shropshire

  13,882

  +328

  +524

  -123

  Somerset

  15,031

  +477

  +703

  +704

  Warwickshire

  17,204

  +65

  +959

  +283

  Wiltshire

  19,493

  +142

  +840

  4—

  Tower Hamlets

  4,764

  +1,726

  +374

  4—

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  5,320

  +181

  +146

  +195

  London borough of Sutton

  5,459

  -260

  +449

  -21

  382
  Devon county council, (f) Gloucester county council, (g) Humberside county council, (h) Isle of Wight county council, (i) Lancashire county council, (j) Leicestershire county council, (k) Shropshire county council, (l) Somerset county council, (m) Warwickshire county council, and (n) Wiltshire county council (i) which political party of groups of parties has control of the council, (ii) what has been the percentage change in spending by the council in each financial year since 1986–87, (iii) what has been the change in staffing levels, in whole-time equivalents, for each year since 1985, (iv) what has been the change in the rate poundage expressed, as a percentage, for each financial year since 1986–87, (v) which councils are a nuclear-free Zone and (vi) which councils, acting as a local education authority employ staff to teach peace studies as part of the curriculum.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 13 February 1989]: The information for the authorities listed is as follows:

  Table A

  Percentage change in net current expenditure and local rate poundage

  Percentage change in net current expenditure

  Percentage change in local rate poundage

  1986–87 to 1987–88

  1987–88 to 1988–891

  1986–87 to 1987–88

  1987–88 to 1988–89

  Bedfordshire

  9·1

  9·4

  21·1

  6·1

  Cambridgeshire

  10·0

  12·1

  6·2

  4·9

  Cheshire

  10·0

  13·6

  9·1

  10·0

  Cumbria

  9·4

  5·7

  2·7

  5·5

  Devon

  9·5

  10·3

  7·3

  11·3

  Gloucestershire

  11·6

  8·7

  7·9

  11·9

  Humberside

  8·7

  9·0

  10·7

  20·3

  Isle of Wight

  9·4

  7·7

  10·0

  9·7

  Lancashire

  10·7

  9·1

  7·3

  18·5

  Leicestershire

  9·8

  8·9

  5·0

  11·0

  Shropshire

  10·1

  9·9

  7·6

  8·7

  Somerset

  11·7

  11·5

  7·8

  11·7

  Warwickshire

  12·0

  6·7

  7·9

  15·9

  Wiltshire

  9·4

  12·1

  9·9

  7·8

  Tower Hamlets

  2·6

  1·9

  4·7

  11·6

  Richmond upon Thames

  8·2

  5·9

  12·3

  10·7

  London Borough of Sutton

  11·4

  12·9

  18·9

  9·6

  Calderdale

  6·9

  12·2

  5·1

  18·1

  Stockport

  10·3

  8·4

  8·6

  8·8

  1 Using local authority 1988–89 budgets.

  383

  Authority

  Total staff (full-time plus part-time)2

  Change at June, compared with a year earlier

  at June 1985

  31986

  1987

  198

  Calderdale

  8,827

  +453

  +255

  -4

  Stockport

  11,003

  +260

  +587

  +802

  1 Figures are for general services (ie excluding law and order services).

  2 Full-time equivalent figures are not available at individual authority level.

  3 The abolition of the Greater London council and Metropolitan county councils in April 1986, and the consequent transfer of staff to the London boroughs and Metropolitan districts, will have affected individual authorities differently.

  4 Data not available.

  Only three authorities of those listed—Richmond-upon-Thames, London borough of Sutton and the Isle of Wight—are currently controlled by a single party. In each case SLD has overall control.

  Information is not held centrally on authorities which have declared themselves to be nuclear free zones, or which employ staff to teach peace studies as part of the curriculum.

  Sea Water (Pollution)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give up-to-date figures on the volume of sewage pumped into British coastal waters each day and the percentage of sewage that is untreated.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: Approximately 2 million cu m of sewage are discharged into coastal waters in England and Wales each day. The discharge of sewage into the sea is regulated under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and water authorities have to obtain consents which are legally enforceable from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. In addition, all new long sea outfalls must be designed so as to ensure that the affected bathing waters meet the mandatory requirements of the EC bathing water directive.

  Local Authorities (Funding)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total rate support grant to Cambridgeshire county council in each year from 1983–84 to 1989–90 in(a) cash terms and (b) 1989 prices together with the amount of grant withheld in those years when expenditure exceeded Government targets for the county council.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 14 February 1989]: The table shows the latest figures for total rate support grant payable to Cambridgeshire county council for each year from 1983–84 to 1989–90 in both cash and 1989–90 prices.

  In 1984–85 the grant of Cambridgeshire county council was abated by £4·152 million in cash terms (£5·311 million at 1989–90 prices) because its total expenditure exceeded Government targets.

  Rate Support Grant payable to Cambridgeshire County Council under latest supplementary report and 1989–90 settlement report

  £ million

  Cash prices

  1989–90 prices

  1983–84

  76·567

  102·897

  1984–85

  76·122

  97·373

  1985–86

  72·378

  87·842

  1986–87

  63·220

  74·251

  1987–88

  66·786

  74·507

  1988–89

  61·977

  65·075

  1989–90

  54·807

  54·807

  Water Charges
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in the Official Report (a) the domestic water charges and (b) the industrial metered water charges per cubic metre to be levied by each English and Welsh Water Authority after 1 April 1989; and what charges were levied in the previous financial year.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: Information in the form requested by the hon. Member is not yet available.

  Repairs
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of tenants who have(a) applied for and (b) received payment for repairs carried out under the right to repairs scheme introduced under the Housing and Building Control Act 1984 in (i) 1986, (ii) 1987, and (iii)1988; what is the total cost of payments made under this scheme in each of these years; and what has been the cost to the Government and local authorities in introducing and administering this scheme.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: The number of claims and their total cost in each of these years is shown in the table. The Department has incurred total costs of some £40,000 in informing tenants of the scheme and on training them; administrative costs for the scheme are not identified separately. Information on local authorities' costs other than on meeting claims is not collected by the Department.

  England

  Total number of claims received for payment

  Total number of claims agreed1 for payment

  Total amount agreed1 £

  1986

  46

  42

  4,400

  1987

  24

  22

  1,900

  1988 (Q1) (provisional)

  1

  1

  200

  1 Accepted by landlords as payable.

  Rivers (Derbyshire)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many storm sewage overflows discharge into Derbyshire rivers; how many of these are subject to consent conditions other than volumetric conditions; and how many failed to achieve their consent conditions during the last 12 months for which figures are availble.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: Information on discharge consents is not held by the Department in a form which would allow the identification of discharges in any particular area. Details of consents

  385
  granted are, however, on the public registers maintained by water authorities—in the case of discharges in the Derbyshire area, by the Severn-Trent water authority.

  Conditions normally imposed in consents for storm overflows are of volumetric nature relating to the point at which they commence operation. Non-compliance with any condition other than those does not therefore arise.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many (i) local authority and (ii) authorised private, individual sites under section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 exist in each of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk; and if he will also list those districts within these counties which have(a) applied and (b) been approved for designation under section 12 of the Act as amended by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: My Department holds records of sites provided under section 6 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 with grant aid from the Exchequer. Although this excludes private sites, information collected for the Department's latest six-monthly count reveals the number of caravans on such sites. The details are as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  County

  Number of local authority sites at 1 January 1989

  Number of caravans on local authority sites as at 20 July 1988

  Number of caravans on private sites as at 20 July 1988

  Bedfordshire

  7

  125

  11

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  269

  178

  Essex

  9

  84

  66

  Hertfordshire

  9

  183

  27

  Lincolnshire

  4

  127

  3

  Norfolk

  3

  56

  24

  Suffolk

  2

  74

  80

  Applications for designation under section 12 of the 1968 Act, as amended, are as follows:

  (b) Applications pending

  (b) Applications granted

  Bedfordshire

  —

  All districts

  Cambridgeshire

  East Cambridgeshire

  Huntingdon

  Peterborough

  Essex

  Epping Forest

  —

  Hertfordshire

  —

  Broxbourne

  Watford

  Dacorum1

  Welwyn-Hatfield1

  Lincolnshire

  —

  Boston

  Lincoln CB

  West Lindsey

  Norfolk

  —

  Great Yarmouth

  Suffolk

  —

  Babergh

  Ipswich

  Mid Suffolk

  Suffolk Coastal

  1 Formal order making in progress.

  Cambridgeshire County Council
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the annual changes in (i) total 386
  expenditure and (ii) net expenditure after block grant for Cambridgeshire county council for each year from 1983–84 to 1988–89.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  £ million cash prices

  Annual changes in

  Total expenditure

  Total less block grant

  1983–84—1984–85

  11·274

  11·719

  1984–85—1985–86

  8·392

  12·136

  1985–86—1986–87

  26·739

  35·897

  1986–87—1987–88

  19·609

  16·043

  1987–88—1988–89

  28·781

  33·590

  Structure Plan (North-East Hampshire)
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decisions in respect of alterations to the north-east Hampshire structure plan.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 15 February 1989]: I am considering the report of the examination in public and will send my proposed modifications to Hampshire county council as soon as possible.

  Water (Grants)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funds will be available to water plcs after privatisation to cover schemes presently eligible for European regional development fund grants.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not known what sums will be available for providing grant from the ERDF. Areas eligible for grant and the value of the proportion of the fund they will attract have not yet been finalised by the European Commission.

  Applications for grant will also need to satisfy the criteria laid down in the EC regulations.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums each water authority has received as EC European regional development fund grants in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Chope
  The value of ERDF grants awarded to water authorities for infrastructure schemes in eligible areas in each of the last four years is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  Anglian

  3·876

  —

  —

  —

  North West

  5·351

  40·582

  22·995

  3·305

  Northumbrian

  5·342

  3·546

  18·793

  7·032

  Severn Trent

  3·352

  6·027

  6·886

  0·804

  South West

  0·595

  2·958

  3·747

  10·827

  Yorkshire

  12·865

  0·905

  3·751

  4·873

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums South-West Water received in EC European regional development fund grants in 1987–88.

  Mr. Chope
  In the United Kingdom financial year 1987–88 ERDF grant to the value of £10·829 million was awarded to the South West water authority.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Production Costs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is(a) the annual cost and (b) the nominal average cost per Member of the yearly production of (i) the full Vote bundle, (ii) the Official Report, (iii) written parliamentary questions and (iv) oral parliamentary questions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The annual cost of production for (i) the full Vote bundle and (ii) the House of Commons 388
  Official Report is currently estimated at £5 million and £7·2 million respectively. Written and oral parliamentary questions form part of the above and are not separately identifiable. The annual cost figures quoted are for all copies produced, not just those supplied to Members, and—in the case of the Official Report—cover daily and weekly debates, indexes, bound volumes and Standing Committee debates.

  Based on 1988 volumes and current prices, the annual cost per Member of supplying one copy of (i) the Vote bundle and (ii) the daily Official Report would be £3,235 and £761 respectively.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of Carlisle—Took the Oath.

Air Transport: EC Council
Baroness Burton of Coventry Baroness Burton of Coventry asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make a statement on those air matters discussed at the informal meeting of the European Community Transport Ministers Council held on 13th February, indicating the decisions reached and the items deferred to the formal Council to be held on 14th March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, discussion of air transport matters concentrated on problems in air traffic control. As this was an informal meeting, no decisions were reached. Whether outstanding proposals on air transport matters will come before the March Council will depend upon progress in the official level working group.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I am glad that the Commission's proposals on air traffic control have at least officially, even if informally, reached the Transport Ministers. Can the House be told whether the proposals indicated agreement that ICAO and Eurocontrol should remain in the lead rather than the Commission itself being involved? As the March Transport Ministers Council is not an informal meeting can we hope that some decisions will be reached?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. There was general consensus in the Council that the Community should support the work of those organisations but without duplicating their effort. The proposals which were put forward by the Commission are generally supportive of the role of Eurocontrol but envisage rather greater Community involvement, including Community adherence to the Eurocontrol Convention, the establishment of a consultative committee on air traffic control and Community involvement in air transport infrastructure. I hope that aviation matters will come before the Council in March but, as I said, that depends upon progress at official level.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, 1 am sure that the Minister does his best, but is he aware that there seems to be no sense of urgency either on the part of the Commission or the Community and that the replies which he has to give reflect that lack of urgency? Can the noble Lord do anything to instil urgency into the Commission, or do Ministers just sit still and wait for the next meeting?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we should welcome a sense of urgency on the part of the Commission on this and various other matters in which we are also interested, particularly in the aviation field. As I have said, there was general consensus in the Council that efforts in regard to air traffic control should be concentrated through ICAO and Eurocontrol and that the Commission's role should be limited.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as the noble Lord mentioned other matters, can he say whether progress has been made at the last two or three Council meetings on liberalisation? Are the French and German Governments beginning to give way on liberalisation in respect of competition on air routes and freedom of pricing and fares?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the latest position is that it was agreed that further proposals for liberalisation should be brought forward by the Commission by November of this year to come into effect in June 1990. We are anxious to see what proposals the Commission brings forward in November and we ourselves shall shortly begin to lobby strenuously on that matter.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister lobby extensively on the basis that air traffic control is one of the most serious matters affecting the entire Community? Will he do his best to ensure that we receive an answer instead of the interminable meetings which go on and on?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I have said on several occasions, we believe that Eurocontrol and ICAO should take the lead in this matter. The Commission's involvement should, I believe, be limited. We do not believe that there is a significant role for it. The most valuable contribution which the Commission could make would be in funding research and development through Eurocontrol.
The Commission has also said that Eurocontrol should take responsibility for the Air Traffic Flow Management Unit. We believe that Eurocontrol should take that responsibility, and that decision resulted from a British initiative.

Musical Education in Inner London
3.6 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David asked Her Majesty's Government:
What provision is being made for the future of the Centre for Young Musicians, and for keeping the present courses in being.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the inner London boroughs have agreed that, following the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority. the City of Westminster should administer on their behalf certain centrally-managed provision for musical education in local authority schools in inner London. All those concerned aim to secure the future of provision such as that made by the Centre for Young Musicians.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will the funding be as great as it was when ILEA was in charge? Has there been cross-borough co-operation, and will all of the boroughs align themselves with Westminster so that provision will be as good as it has been in the past?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords. However, funding will be on a different basis. It is expected that the City of Westminster will recoup the direct costs, for example tuition costs, from the other authorities on a per capita basis. Two boroughs have indicated that they do not wish to participate at the moment. That is a decision which the boroughs have to reach for themselves. All the other boroughs acknowledge that administration by Westminster will be in their best interests.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, in view of that very encouraging reply may one assume that other musical activities closely associated with the centre such as the London Schools Symphony Orchestra, instrumental tuition and the Junior Centres for Young Musicians may also be assured of a bright future?
Viscount Davidson: Yes, my Lords, I can give that assurance.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, as I understand it, the Government have made a commitment only for the next few years. Is it not essential for the development of the arts in this country that the Centre for Young Musicians and similar high-grade centres in other parts of the country catering for music, or for dance and drama, should not be put at risk, which many feel that they are at present, but encouraged and maintained? Should not the selection of talented youngsters be on the basis of their ability and not, as is likely to be the case, of their parents' ability to pay? Does the Minister recall that that was the principle which many noble Lords tried to amend in the Education Reform Act?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am optimistic that all the tuition which is offered at present will be available in the future. So far as concerns the London Schools Symphony Orchestra, the Government are commissioning a feasibility study into the possible ambit, funding and organisation of a trust which could be a supplementary source of funds and advice and might be able to support the activities of the LSSO.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will my noble friend name the two boroughs that have declined to contribute to the new plans for the Centre for Young Musicians?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the two boroughs are Hackney and Wandsworth. In the end, they will have to reach that decision for themselves. However, it is acknowledged that the present central provision is first rate, so it seems to us that boroughs should make use of it so far as possible. There is certainly no reason for a borough to feel that it must go it alone just because its children have not participated fully in the central facilities hitherto.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there have been considerable delays in setting up the trust to which he has just referred? I believe that that was first discussed as long ago as nine months. Is he also aware that matters are not entirely as they should be in the city of Westminster? The chief executive, who has been the main officer negotiating the transfer of education from the ILEA, has just been sacked and has not been replaced. Will the Minister reassure the House that if there are to be further delays he will consider transferring responsibility for the Centre for Young Musicians to a more reliable London borough than the City of Westminster?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. The City of Westminster is prefectly reliable in that respect. This will be a matter for the City of Westminster in conjunction with the other inner London boroughs, and those boroughs have agreed that that will be the best arrangement.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that London is now the most important musical centre in the world and that we now have five orchestras and five music colleges compared with New York, which has only one, Paris, which has only one, and Rome, which has none? In view of that state of affairs, will he assure the House that the funding will remain adequate to maintain both the quantity and the quality of music in what is undoubtedly the music capital of the world?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, as a practising musician myself, I shall certainly take a personal interest in the matter.
Lord Peston: My Lords, bearing in mind the stringent conditions in the Education Reform Act regarding the ability to charge, is there any danger that talented young musicians who wish to use the centre will be unable to do so because they will not be able to afford the cost of the musical instruments?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a matter for the inner London boroughs to determine. Under the provisions of the Education Reform Act, local education authorities will be able to decide whether parents should pay for individual instrumental tuition or for group tuition out of school hours. If authorities decide to pass on to parents tuition costs at the Centre for Young Musicians, school governing bodies may decide to remit the charges.

Manufacturing Industry: Productivity
3.13 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
By how much productivity has increased in manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom since 1979.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in the fourth quarter of 1988 output per head in manufacturing

289
industry was at its highest ever level, 52·6 per cent higher than its average in 1979. Hence, manufacturing productivity has grown on average by 4·6 per cent. a year—faster than any of our major international competitors.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, which records a notable transformation. Does he agree that that is a tribute to the British workforce as well as to management?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is a tribute to both the workforce and management and indeed to government policy over the past nine years.
Lord Jay: My Lords, to complete the picture, has the Minister also noticed that the 1978 level of manufacturing output in volume was not recovered after the collapse of the 1980s until last year and that this is the first time since 1945 that manufacturing output has failed for 10 years to exceed its previous peak?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this Question refers to productivity, but manufacturing output has grown strongly by an average of 4 per cent. a year over the past five years while productivity has grown at an average rate of over 5 per cent. over the same period, so the story is not so bleak.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, will the noble Lord acknowledge that, although the improvement in productivity of manufacturing industry in the United Kingdom is undoubtedly welcome, we start from a very low base and still have a long way to go before we can match the productivity levels that some of our major industrial competitors overseas have achieved?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a tricky matter to assess as comparisons of levels across countries are difficult to make. One can certainly say that the United Kingdom's growth in productivity has been faster than that of our competitors, but, even if we are at a lower level, that provides further scope for industry to continue to improve its performance even further.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree with an article in the authoritative current edition of the Bank of England bulletin on the causes of productivity? That article suggests that the main reason for the rise in productivity in the 1980s compared with the 1970s is that, in the 1970s, employers were reluctant to dismiss people whereas they are not reluctant to do so now. If that is so, the high productivity is the consequence of high unemployment.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have been through three stages since 1979. The first stage was recession where there was substantial labour shedding. The second stage, between 1981 and 1983, was economic recovery where output started to recover slowly but employment continued to decline significantly as industry made further efficiency gains. Over the past five years, we have had sustained
290
growth at record levels. There was therefore undoubtedly some labour shedding, but that had to take place as before that time labour was not used efficiently.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: My Lords, will the Minister explain why he measures comparative growth, which is favourable for the Government. with absolute confidence, but says that absolute levels between countries are shrouded in the miasma of obscurity?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said that it was difficult to compare levels of productivity, but one can compare growth relatively easily. One can make comparisons on the basis of figures produced by the OECD, on which the figures that I have quoted are based, but it is all to the good if we have further scope for improvement.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, as further increases in productivity must depend on a high level of industrial investment and as industrial investment is discouraged by high interest rates, exactly when do the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer intend to bring interest rates down sharply?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a very different Question. Interest rates are a subject on their own. I have no doubt that they will not be held high any longer than is necessary to combat inflation, which is by far the worse evil.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I welcome, as I am sure we all do, the increase in these figures. However, having listened to and read yesterday's debate about the training of engineers, does the Minister agree that one of the matters about which we must be careful—I hope that he is aware of this—is that if we do not pursue a good training policy, those figures will not increase?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have not yet had an opportunity to read the report of yesterday's debate, but I am sure that the noble Lord makes a good point. I am glad that he welcomes those figures because, from some of the questions that we receive, we wonder whether they are welcomed throughout the House.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is a pleasure to welcome the rise in manufacturing productivity. It compares quite favourably with the heyday of Keynesian demand management in the 1960s and early 1970s, so the Government are doing quite well to get back to our best days. However, given the Minister's earlier answers, is he aware of the CBI statement only a couple of months ago that, although we have improved, it would take us about 10 years—if we continue to make relatively good progress—to equal the productivity levels of West Germany and France, 20 years to equal the productivity levels of Japan and—to quote the Americans—we may never catch up with them? Does the Minister care to comment on that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is a hypothetical point, but, as I said earlier, I am glad that there is still further scope for industry to improve its performance. The noble Lord referred to the 1960s and 1970s. I shall merely point out that between 1969 and 1979 our productivity growth was the lowest of the G7 countries. Since then it has been the highest, even including Japan and the United States.
Lord Aldington: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that the increase in productivity has been the highest but is he aware that the actual productivity is not the highest? Is he further aware that when my noble friend who asked the Question was Secretary of State for Scotland the increase in productivity in one of those years was 9 per cent. and not the figure that has just been mentioned?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have now attempted to answer the first part of my noble friend's question on three occasions. I do not think that there is any more than I can say on it. It may well be the case that in one of those years—1969 or 1979—productivity was as high as 9 per cent. The fact is that the average annual growth rate over those years was 2·1 per cent. and we were bottom of the league. It is now about 4·5 per cent. and we are at the top.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, in view of the fact—
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, may I—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I think it is for the noble Lord to ask his question. The last question came from this side. We shall hear my noble friend; then let us have the next Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the manufacturing figures are interesting and encouraging. Will the Government give an undertaking that they will now take even stronger measures to reduce more rapidly that sad aspect of our industrial behaviour—the fact we have only just brought below two million the figure of unemployed people? With the good figures for manufacturing productivity is it possible for the Government to assist wherever they can to reduce unemployment even more quickly?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will acknowledge that we have done much to reduce unemployment. I understand that it has today come down to under two million for the first time in a considerable period. We shall continue to pursue the policies which bring that rate even further down.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, can my noble friend try to disabuse the general public of the impression given by the questions in your Lordships' House today that this economy has not been a success? This economy at the moment is about the most successful in Europe. We should be proud of it and not generally carp about its performance.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend. I said earlier that I was glad that these figures were welcome in at least some quarters in your Lordships' House. The fact is that we have had a very remarkable record of economic growth over the past few years. I hope that it can continue.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the supplementary question of the noble Lord, should not the Minister take account of the trade deficit? He has been talking about the record performance of the Government in some areas. Is it not a record performance that the trade deficit stands at an all-time high of £14.3 billion. What will the Government do about that? Is that not a case for reducing interest rates which he mistakenly said stand alone?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, perhaps I was wrong to allow myself to stray from the Question on the Order Paper which was about manufacturing productivity. I have tried to answer a number of questions as best I can. The trade deficit is of course yet another. As I have said, we hope that the trade deficit will reduce. One way of helping with that reduction is of course for manufacturing productivity to increase.

Desulphurisation: Drax Power Station
3.23 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have for fitting desulphurisation units to current fossil fuel power stations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the Central Electricity Generating Board announced earlier this week the award of a major contract to retrofit flue gas desulphurisation equipment to the Drax coal-fired power station in Yorkshire. The contract signals the first of the expected FGD retrofits aimed at helping to meet the United Kingdom's commitment to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions from large combustion plant by 60 per cent. against 1980 levels by the year 2003 in accordance with the European Community large combustion plant directive.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful, as I am sure are many other noble Lords, for the Answer that the Minister has given indicating that progress has been made. Is she aware that I have with me the press release of the CEGB regarding the letting of this contract? It states that tendering for the new FGD plant has been extremely competitive. If it were so competitive is it possible to let a further contract to the next lowest competitor based on this fact? To put forward tenders for these very large contracts is very expensive. Time wasted in putting together estimates for the next contract could well result in a much higher price for that contract than if it were considered now.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, announced that tendering had been very competitive and indeed that the kind of performance-related contractual arrangement involved places greater emphasis on the responsibility of the contractor. That provides a very good precedent. However, in this case it is for the industry to make the arrangements. I have no doubt that it will take note of the points raised by the noble Lord. Such arrangements should be in the best interests of its customers.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Drax contract is based on a licence from Hitachi which is a Japanese company? Are we now to suppose that there is no British technology in this area which is competitive? Are we to suppose that all the future retrofits that the noble Baroness has mentioned will also be based on Japanese technology? Is this a further example of the Government's supply-side miracle?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the award was certainly made to Babcock Energy Limited, part of the FKI Babcock Group. The design is licensed from Hitachi which has constructed a number of plants currently in operation in Japan. It is therefore a proven technology. Nevertheless, I understand that there is an alternative process known as the Wellman Lord regeneration process which can be considered suitable for power stations situated close to bulk chemical plants or oil refineries. There is therefore more than one technology under consideration. However, in its choice for this contract the CEGB has relied on proven technology.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Question relates to current fossil fuel plants. Can we take it for granted that any new fossil fuel plants will need to have adequate desulphurisation processes? And following the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, can we hope for prospects of British processes meeting that need?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, yes. Under the terms of the directive all new stations have to be fitted with modern emission controls. Obviously, technology is improving all the time. We certainly hope that there will be increased British participation in the technology.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House of the cost to the consumer of carrying out the full programme that she has announced up to the year 2003? What will be the rise in price of electricity based on this process?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the total capital cost of the 12 gigawatt retrofit programme is expected to be around £1.8 billion. With regard to the consumer, the full impact of the costs will not be felt until the end of the programme. That is at the turn of the century, some 14 years away. Nevertheless, the CEGB has been quoted as saying that the whole FGD programme may be expected to increase
294
electricity prices to the consumer by about 2 per cent. by the year 2003.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, finally, and very briefly, is the Minister aware that according to the press notices that I have—and I am sure that she has also—the first part will be commissioned by 1993 and final completion will take place in 1996? This seems a rather long timescale although I knew that it is a huge project. Is there any possibility of the timescale being reduced so that we can see some benefits before that date?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as I understand the terms of the contract that has been agreed, there will be advantages to the contracting company if it achieves the desired results before the 1996 deadline. But Drax is the biggest plant in Europe. It is the biggest retrofitting scheme ever in the world and it is the one therefore chosen to have the maximum effect and the longest impact.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Report stage of the Children Bill will he adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 and the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989 will be taken.

Protection of Privacy (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish a right of privacy against the unauthorised use or disclosure of private information, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Stoddart of Swindon.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Report received.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3.33 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

295
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 35 [Discharge and variation etc. of care orders and supervision orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 92B:
Page 29, line 39, leave out ("of") and insert ("for").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor amendment which does not affect the meaning of Clause 35(1) but is merely intended to improve the drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord on his safe return from what must have been a very exciting visit to the United States.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his kind remark.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 29, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Where no appointment is made under subsection (1) the clerk to the justices shall record the reasons for non-appointment and submit these in an annual report to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 93, which adds a provision that may be made by the Secretary of State by regulation under Clause 35(9), may I also by leave speak to Amendments Nos. 98A to 100 and 128A in the grouping as these stand in my name and it could save your Lordships' time. Also in the grouping are Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Faithfull and other noble Lords and Amendment No. 94 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. All these amendments are complementary.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord in the midst of his initial flow, but he mentioned Amendments Nos. 94 and 114 as coming within the present grouping. My list of groupings, which I thought had been approved, shows Amendments Nos. 94 and 114 separately. It is logical that they should be separate.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Lord must have misheard, because I did not mention Amendment No. 114.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned Amendment No. 94 as being included in this grouping. I pointed out that it is separately grouped with Amendment No. 114.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am relieved from referring to Amendment No. 94, but in a sense it is complementary. I am obliged to him.
The key amendment of this group is perhaps Amendment No. 98A in Clause 35, which is repeated in Amendment No. 128A in Clause 73. This key amendment stands in substitution for the provision
296
made under paragraph (b). The object of this group is to establish a new regime for the guardian ad litem service to be introduced by the Secretary of State by regulation under Clause 35(9). Amendment No. 95, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I hope I do not have this wrong—seeks to delete Clause 35(9). I oppose that amendment as wholly inconsistent with the other amendments to which I speak but not at this stage of the proceedings.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, Amendment No. 95 was one of those amendments that were broadly similar to an amendment I moved earlier objecting to waste of space and time in particularising in permissive terms a general power that had already been given. I was not proposing to move Amendment No. 95.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, who is always helpful. That has cleared the yard-arm of Amendments Nos. 94 and 95. Now I can get down to the object of the amendments which stand in my name. I am obliged to all noble Lords.
The object of the amendments to which I speak is to seek to reflect the ethos of the Butler-Sloss Report so as to ensure a measure of co-ordination on a national basis. It is, quite frankly, to avoid children slipping the net of care and to implement the overriding principle of the Bill: the welfare of children.
Each amendment deals with a disparate aspect or facet of this central problem. Each amendment will be moved separately at the appropriate time. Amendment No. 93 is concerned with statistics without which there can be no co-ordination to correct the existing imbalances. Amendments Nos. 98A and 128A are concerned with the co-ordination of funding and the administration of the guardian ad litem service. Amendment No. 100 and Amendment No. 99 (which is a drafting, consequential amendment) are concerned with co-ordination to ensure that there are sufficient people to provide the service to meet the demands wherever such demands arise.
All these amendments, as a package and separately, have the support of many institutions: the British Association of Social Workers, the Independent Representation for Children in Need, the Voice of Children in Care, the Children's Society, the Children's Legal Centre, the Family Rights Group, the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, the National Children's Homes, the National Children's Bureau and the Law Society. Perhaps more important is the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, my noble friend Lady Faithful and the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm.
Amendment No. 93 is designed to meet the need for accurate statistics. They are not presently available. Statistics are required on the use of the provisions and the local exercise of the courts' discretion in appointing guardians ad litem. That is related to the rise in the number of panels which operate waiting lists and the shortage of guardians ad

297
litem. According to my information, that acts as a disincentive to the courts to appoint guardians ad litem.
Without accurate statistics the Secretary of State is wholly unable to take any informed or effective action in order to correct the imbalances which now exist. The imbalance is related to an uneven distribution of enforcements as a result of the present system for the provision of funds.
That brings the House straight to the key amendment, No. 98A, for which I must accept total responsibility in drafting. The key to the package reflects the spirit of the proposed new regime. Recent history has taught us that the funding and administration of this important and crucial service should not lie within the exclusive remit of the local authorities. It should be subject to a measure of specific financial provision under central funding and a measure of central control under the supervisory powers of the Secretary of State.
If the Governemnt would take on board that principle, the machinery of drafting could be left to the experts. The principle stands as a principle and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will acknowledge that it is an area which calls for a philosophical approach.
It is a question of principle, because without specific allocation of central funding, co-ordination on a national basis is not possible and it is wholly requisite. That is especially so because the rates for work vary between £6 and £15 an hour. Human nature being what it is, that inevitably leads to a drift towards the higher-paying authorities. The delays which exist in some local authorities are wholly unacceptable and result from the shortage which is brought about by the drift.
Amendment No. 100 is designed to ensure that there are sufficient number of guardians ad litem on each panel to meet the demand. Amendment No. 99 is consequential drafting. In the result, if your Lordships were to accept the amendments, a relationship between the size of each panel, the population to be served and the local rates of reception into care would be established and maintained. At present there is absolutely no relationship and the situation is largely haphazard.
Furthermore, if the amendments are acceptable, panels, and therefore the guardians ad litem, would be seen to be independent of the local authority. Therefore the courts and the public—and the public aspect is of considerable importance—would have far greater confidence in the independence of the professional advice given.
In conclusion, the hope must be that noble Lords who have heard the argument may believe that we should learn from the lessons of history and listen to the unanimous plea of so many charitable institutions. The hope must also be that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor may be able to welcome aboard the spirit of the amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 93.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendments in the way he has. I should like to concentrate on a simple principle which I believe should be the main issue. I know that he will agree. I should like to leave the detail—not just to be worked out for itself because it must also be covered by the general principle—so that we do not lose sight of the main theme of the amendments.
The main theme was echoed throughout your Lordships' House on Second Reading of the Bill and in Committee. It is that a guardian ad litem is a person who has the solemn responsibility of looking after the best interests of the child. Sometimes the best interests of the child lead to a conflict with parents. Sometimes the best interests of the child lead to a conflict with the local authority. As a principle behind all the amendments one is endeavouring to ensure that the guardians ad litem on the various panels which exist and which will exist are completely independent, especially of the local authority. It is not to the local authority that they ought to look for their appointment. It is not to the local authority that they ought to look for their pay.
In my view, it is the solemn duty of your Lordships' House to ensure that that independence is securely written into the Bill. It is that simple principle which I hope your Lordships will see fit to adopt and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept.
The machinery has been worked out with great care by those who have dealt with this series of amendments. They have done so in order that one cannot throw that principle aside on the basis that it is all very well to have the principle but how will it be carried out in practice. I should like to pay tribute to those who have taken great care to ensure that the amendments include practical proposals such as those outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The principle is sacred: the independence of the guardians ad litem for the sake of the children they will be looking after.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, I do not need to make a long speech having heard the very clear way in which the principles were expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Mishcon. I believe that everybody in this House agrees that the independence of the guardian ad litem is an essential part of the Children Bill. I should like to concentrate on one aspect; namely, the question of finance. I believe that unless it is properly financed, there is no hope that we shall get this off the ground.
I should like to read a very short quotation from the British Association of Social Workers report on guardians ad litem published in July 1986, which stated:
"The first point to emerge is an amazing diversity in the various local arrangements, which has led to a very patchy service. Local authorities were given less than 5 months to liaise wit h the courts, set up the scheme, recruit, appoint and train panel members and establish complicated administrative arrangements.>
Shortages of resources undoubtedly influenced the composition of the panels because administering authorities, with no additional central funding, have been placed under considerable pressure to fulfil their statutory obligations with the minimum posssible outlay. The

299
best interests of the child may be paramount in law but they are certainly not in economics".
Therefore, I believe that we have to give very serious attention to the question of funding. I see no way of doing that other than by having specific allocations through the rate support grant to meet the needs of employing an adequate number of guardians ad litem.
Lord Banks: My Lords, in Committee I moved a series of amendments designed to establish the independence of the panels of guardians ad litem from the local authority. At the end of the discussion I withdrew those amendments after the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explained that it was the Government's intention to develop the panels on a regional basis. It seemed that that would provide an opportunity to distance the panels from any particular local authority.
It seems to me that Amendment No. 98A, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, described as the key amendment, provides a way of following more or less the route which the noble and learned Lord indicated that the Government would take. At the same time it ensures the independence of the panels from the local authority. For that reason, I support the series of amendments and in particular the key Amendment No. 98A.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, the setting up of this service was an imaginative concept on the part of Her Majesty's Government. At the last stage of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, the noble and learned Lord said that the setting up of a regional structure was being considered. It is the question of the structure of the guardian ad litem service on which I should like to comment.
I am rather worried about the regional structure. I believe that it rather depends on how large the regions are. At the moment the service is what one might call a home service. Those who carry the great responsibility of being guardians ad litem need to work with a group of people with whom they can share their worries and consult. When they have to work so much alone, however good they may be I sometimes doubt that they can always give the best service unless they are both supported and helped.
One very much hopes that there will be a structure set up with a proper management team so that each—I shall not say "region" because I am rather worried about how large the regions will be—will be organised to some extent and so that it is possible to know, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, that the service is not patchy, as the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, said. At the moment it is very patchy.
There is the question of the way in which guardians ad litem are appointed. I take note of the way in which the panels of guardians ad litem are appointed in Scotland. I wonder whether we should not have many more guardians ad litem if we advertised for them, laying down exactly what it is that we seek and need. I know many people who would be very glad to be guardians ad litem and would be very suitable but who have not been approached and do not know to whom they should apply. Therefore, I ask for a much more structured service than we have at present.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 93. Clause 35(1), which concerns the provision of guardians ad litem, states:
"For the purpose of any specified proceedings, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem of the child concerned",
and it goes on:
"unless satisfied that it is not necessary to do so in order to safeguard his interests".
That is a very broad exception and limitation on the general provision and might tempt the court dealing with the matter to take a somewhat casual view of the duty to appoint guardians ad litem in appropriate cases. For that reason, the amendment provides:
"Where no appointment is made under subsection (1) the clerk to the justices shall record the reasons for non-appointment and submit these in an annual report to the Secretary of State".
At least that would lead the court to think again before relying on the exception to the admirable general provision of the necessity to appoint a guardian ad litem where the child's interests are concerned.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, the Finer report on one parent families has begged for a comprehensive family court since it reported in 1974. Although that is not proposed in this Bill, there are some very hopeful signs, especially if the noble and learned Lord is prepared to say a little more on how the guardian ad litem service will help the court to decide which cases should be heard in which level of court.
In the Bill at present the function of a guardian ad litem is to investigate the circumstances of a local authority's application for care proceedings. A guardian is appointed by the court to investigate independently and yet is paid by the local authority whose practice he is investigating. That is a clear conflict of interest.
A regional commissioner of children would be able to head the organisation for guardians ad litem and also be in charge of the process for deciding which cases should be heard by which court. That takes the administration of guardians away from local authorities.There is a further concern that after the Bill is passed, the task of deciding which case goes to which court may fall to justices' clerks, some of whom are unqualified.
4 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, these amendments raise matters of considerable importance, as has been plainly indicated already. We discussed this matter to some degree in Committee. The guardian ad litem service is comparatively new, having been set up in about 1984. The Bill seeks to build on what we have and to improve the service in a way that I indicated previously.
However, there are one or two specific matters that I should deal with separately. First is the matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in Amendment No. 93, dealing with the recording of discretionary decisions. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, Clause 35(1) requires the court in care and related proceedings to appoint a guardian ad litem for the child unless it is satisfied that it is not necessary to do so in order to safeguard

301
his interests. In those rare cases where no appointment is made this amendment would require the clerk to the justices to record the court's reasons. It would also require him to submit an annual report of those reasons to the Secretary of State.
I hope to cover the point made by this amendment. First, there will be power to make rules of court covering the appointment of a guardian ad litem. There are already powers in Clause 64 for the Secretary of State to direct the clerk of each court to transmit to him information which relates to children. I agree entirely with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway—that one of the great difficulties in this area is the absence of reliable statistics and information. One of the purposes of the power to which I have referred is to enable us to gather that information. This item would certainly be one such item of information to be gathered. It would not by any means be the only item. I believe that it would be right to have this point covered in the general powers because, apart from anything else, we want to obtain such information not only from magistrates' courts but, for example, from the county court if that was the level at which the case was being dealt with and that court decided not to appoint a guardian ad litem.
The precise scope of all the information we require will need to be considered carefully in relation to the Bill as a whole and that was one of the aspects of implementation to which we referred on Second Reading. There are unlikely to be many decisions not to appoint a guardian ad litem and the information that the Secretary of State requests could certainly include the information covered by Amendment No. 93. I do not think there will be anything between us on the principle of that.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. The combined effect of the amendments would be to include an additional power which would allow regulations to be made for ensuring that the number of guardians ad litem on each panel is sufficient to meet local demand. I believe that the amendments are not necessary as there are already existing powers under Clause 35(7) which allow regulations to be made to require that the number of persons on a panel is sufficient to meet demand for guardians ad litem in a particular area. Indeed, regulations made under existing powers in Section 103 of the Children Act 1975 include a provision which has a similar effect. The precise definition of "local demand" is also a little difficult but I believe that we have that matter covered in the general regulation-making powers.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, taken together, would remove the power to require two or more local authorities to make arrangements to jointly manage a panel and replace it with a power to provide for the appointment of regional commissioners for children. Powers to make provision for the constitution of panels would also be removed. Clause 35(9)(b) would be limited to provision on the administration and procedures of panels. The effect would be to cast doubt on the power to require local authorities to manage panels and to do so jointly. There is also a difficulty in that regional commissioners are not
302
defined. It would appear from the amendment that their function would be to manage the panels of guardians ad litem; though Amendment No. 126, proposing an amendment to Clause 68, indcates that they would also be responsible for allocating cases to particular courts.
I will outline the Government's response to the last part of that proposal when I speak to Amendment No. 126, but I should say that in the Green Paper published by the Lord Chancellor's Department in the summer we envisaged that the child protection office would have some function in this connection. It was felt by the consultees generally that this allocation of cases between courts was in the nature of a judicial function and, therefore, best handled in that way; so I have not gone ahead with that idea but rather to the judicial allocation and supporting arrangements which I shall deal with in some detail when we come to Amendment No. 126.
Amendments Nos. 96 and 97, to which I have just referred, are not particularly well adapted to the purpose that we wish to pursue. The powers presently provided in Clause 35(9)(a) refer to the administration of the family. As I explained in Committee, this would allow a person to be appointed to manage the panel. Indeed, as I explained, it is our firm intention to require panel managers to be appointed to take charge of panels organised on the basis of a combination of local authority areas. For that reason we also wish to resist the proposal to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the constitution of panels and also the proposal to remove the powers to require two or more local authorities to make arrangements for the joint management of panels.
I believe that what we have is the power to require local authorities to come together, but not necessarily on a regional basis. It could be on a sub-regional basis, though the precise size of the unit will depend on the circumstances. The precise objective is to achieve a better management structure than can be achieved at the moment. Many noble Lords will know that the advice issued by the Department of Health to local authorities in connection with the present arrangements gives very strong guidance on the need to have somebody in charge of the management of the panels. As paragraph 2.6 states, there is a need for a clearly identifiable person responsible for the overall management tasks. That would of course be facilitated still further if we could arrange for authorities to be grouped.
One of the purposes of this grouping is precisely to distance the individual members of the panel from the local authorities so that it would be possible to obtain a degree of independence which is not possible under the present arrangements; though I have to say that independence depends essentially on the character of the person appointed and these are individual appointments by the courts. We are seeking to build on these arrangements and improve them in order to achieve the principle to which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in particular, referred. Accordingly, I believe the powers that we have provided are the right powers for the present development and that the direction that we wish to

303
take is in accordance with what your Lordships' are seeking.
I come now to the matter particularly mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and referred to by others; that is, the proposal in Amendments Nos. 98A and 128A to introduce provision for financing the local panels by means of a specific allocation of funds. This proposal would certainly need to be considered very carefully by the Government as a whole in consultation with local authority associations. It is obvious that targeting funds for specific activities reduces the local authorities' discretion to provide services according to local needs and priorities. It could also reduce their ability to respond to the wishes of their electorates. I have said before, and it is worth repeating, that the balance between local and central government control is a fine one which we have to be careful to get right. I have heard arguments on both sides of that matter from different parts of the House on a number of occasions.
There may be a case for the provision of specific government financial support for some aspects of local authority services arising from the Bill. I assure my noble friend and other noble Lords who have supported these amendments that we shall consider further what can be done in that direction. I need not remind your Lordships that the question of local authority financing is an extremely complicated one. I wish to have this matter considered because a number of departments are involved including the local authority associations. I hope that your Lordships are prepared to take it from me that I will take this matter into consideration, but I cannot preempt the result. I cannot say in advance what the result will be as regards this particular mechanism. If I may be given the opportunity to do that, I believe that we shall have a consideration of value.
These amendments also propose that the panels should be administered by an advisory service to the magistrates' courts answerable to a joint regional authority and subject to the supervisory control of the Secretary of State. The administration of the service by an advisory service to the magistrates' court answerable to a joint regional authority in accordance with the amendment leaves the position unclear as these bodies are not defined. I appreciate what is behind it but the precise way in which they will operate is not defined.
At present the Bill provides for regulation of the administration of panels in Clause 35(9). For example, these powers would allow the Secretary of State to require local authorities to establish procedures to manage the panel with advice from representatives from the courts. They would also allow the Secretary of State to require specified local authorities to co-operate in the provision of panels in specified areas. Any system that is established would need to take account of the role of the guardians ad litem not only in the magistrates' courts, as this amendment particularly does, but also in the county courts and maybe in the High Court.
As I said when we last debated the subject, we accept that there have been some difficulties in the
304
way panels have been managed and organised, but I believe that it is wise, when a service has been recently set up, to try to bring about improvements on what we have got rather than go for a wholesale change at this juncture. The present arrangements allow for joint panels but do not require them. There is a single panel in existence for inner North London. The experience of joint panels shows that this is a way to improve the present situation. The Secretary of State having power to require that is a welcome, satisfactory and wise development.
Steps to improve the existing arrangements are already in train. Last summer the department issued a guide on panel administration to which I have already referred briefly. This contains a great deal of advice on the better management of panels with particular reference to first ensuring the professional independence of the guardian ad litem service provided to the courts while improving its effectiveness through management and monitoring. It also encourages the courts to participate in administering this service.
An example of the first point is that advice is given on who should act as panel co-ordinator. I have mentioned that already. The second point is that there should be advisory groups on which the courts are represented. We shall continue to pursue that kind of development. As I have said, in addition we propose to develop more panels covering a number of local authorities, regions or subregions. We know that one of the main difficulties has been that guardians ad litem represent children in cases where the local authority which manages the panel and pays the guardian ad litem is very often the same local authority which appears as applicant to the proceedings.
I understand very well that in some instances this could be seen to lead to a conflict. There have also been difficulties in some areas where the local authority has appointed insufficient panel members to meet the needs arising from the courts in breach of the regulations governing the panels. This has contributed to delays in determining children's cases. Some of these difficulties have undoubtedly been teething problems of the kind frequently associated with the establishment of any new service. We believe that in most areas the service is now considerably improved. That is not to say that we are at all complacent. The proposals in the Bill are intended to deal wherever possible with these difficulties where they exist.
We believe it is important to organise the panels to take in larger groupings of local authorities than is the case in most areas at present, and to appoint panel managers who are clearly responsible for running them. As I said earlier, this approach has been adopted in a number of areas and we wish to build on it. Where the panel manager is more clearly distanced from any one local authority, the possibility of conflict of interest with the applicant to the proceedings should be very substantially reduced and indeed removed. It also allows the panel manager to overcome reservations about his role which can inhibit him from properly taking charge of the arrangements and discharging his function as manager.

305
A panel manager who is clearly responsible for running the panel will be able to improve the support available to guardians ad litem. He will also be able to take appropriate steps to monitor their work and the operational arrangements to ensure that resources are used more effectively and efficiently without loss of quality. He could also have the responsiblity for taking up the point that my noble friend Lady Faithful] made about attracting people who may be available to serve on panels but who do not know of the possibility at the moment.
I hope your Lordships feel that I have explained our approach reasonably fully and that your Lordships agree that this approach is one that should be supported. I said at Second Reading that the Government have put in hand a rolling programme of reform extending step by step to the various aspects of family law and business, including the organisation of the court welfare services and the panels of guardians ad litem. The organisation of the panels is only one part of a much larger picture. It would not be sensible to make fundamental changes in the way panels are managed in advance of that.
Meanwhile, as I have said, Clause 35 gives the Secretary of State power to make very considerable improvements to the current system. I hope that your Lordships will feel that this is a reasonable way to proceed and that in the light of the undertaking I have given to pursue further the question of the allocation of finance, but without any commitment to the result of that further consideration, your Lordships may feel that the purpose of these amendments has been served.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, would he not agree that without a definite commitment to further resources, which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, asked for, there is no certainty that the service will be improved? It is possible that the very uneven service that exists now over a great deal of the country will remain.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the amendment does not deal with the amount of the resources but the manner in which they should be allocated. The question of the amount depends on the total demand. The important point that I have undertaken to consider further is whether this resource should be something that is the subject of a specific grant by central government to the particular authorities or groups of authorities or whether it should remain under the present system. I believe that the amendment seeks to establish a mechanism in the hope that the result will be as the noble Baroness would wish it.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may add one more remark about finance. The report by the British Association of Social Workers said that the lack of specific financing more or less ensured the patchy nature of the whole service. Now that there is strong pressure on local government to spend less, this may be one of the vulnerable sources for saving money—
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, we are on Report.
Noble Lords: Keep going!
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me. My noble friend Lady Macleod has reminded the noble Lord that we are on Report. Technically, the noble Lord is not in order.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not mention them by name. In particular, I should like to thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the consideration he has given to the contributions to this debate from all sides of the House, for the consideration he has undertaken to give in the future and also for the consideration which he has already given to this subject, as is wholly apparent from his mastery of it.
In dealing with the run of the amendments I shall in due course ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 93, accepting wholly my noble and learned friend's good offices and undertakings in this regard. As to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100, having heard what my noble and learned friend has said, I accept that they are largely unnecessary and in those circumstances I shall not move them. I found wholly convincing the arguments of my noble and learned friend on Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 and I am satisfied that there is a determination on the part of the Government to achieve a better management and to foster the principle of independence to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred. Therefore I shall not support those amendments, but it is for my noble friend Lady Faithful] to decide whether or not to move them.
Amendment No. 98A is a key amendment. I am grateful beyond belief for the reception it received at the hands of the noble and learned Lord. He said, and truly said, that funding and any new regime on funding requires careful consideration by government. He also said that there may be a case for it. On administration, he has taken the point that the definition is wide. It is purposely left wide. He has taken the point that consideration will have to be given to funding and to the mechanism of the administration. When consideration is given the hope must be that the noble and learned Lord will give due weight to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who managed nonetheless to make his effective contribution second time round without leave. In those circumstances, as the spirit of the amendment is acceptable to the Government, I shall not dream of moving it when the time comes. I respectfully beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 93.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 30, line 36, at end insert—
("Where appropriate the panel should consist of people with knowledge and experience of the child's religious, social, cultural, linguistic and racial background.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall also speak to Amendment No. 114. I can be brief in my plea to the noble and learned Lord to accept the amendments. The chief interest covered by them is the child refugee. When we were talking before about guardians ad litem we were referring to people who would look after the interests of the child who comes before the court for various reasons. It may be cruelty, it may be because the child is out of control, and so on. The refugee child comes to this country, which has always had a reputation for its graciousness towards refugees, for different reasons—reasons of persecution of families, of parents and of creeds.
A guardian ad litem will have to be appointed for that child who comes here possibly completely unable to speak English and having the very individual problem of whether or not this country will be one of temporary resort and refuge and whether there may be a hoped for return to the country of origin. He may have a different ethnic or religious background. Most of these children—I shall not say all of them—would come to London, the place to which most refugees have come in the past. Therefore when one is setting up regional panels of guardians ad litem it would be good to secure that in appropriate areas there would always be a guardian ad litem—there may have to be more than one—with specialist knowledge of the problems of refugee children.
One hopes that this will be a fairly inconsequential matter in numbers, though not in the sense that every single child in trouble of this kind and with problems of this kind is an important matter for us to consider. The numbers of children who have been admitted into this country as refugees, and unfortunately may have to be admitted as refugees, because of problems of which we are all aware, is quite considerable. Therefore we hope that the amendment can conveniently cover the problem. I beg to move.
Lord McNair: My Lords, my name also appears on the two amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has moved Amendment No. 94 so fully that there is no need for me to say any more about it. However, perhaps I may say a word about Amendment No. 114 in case, when we reach it, it should not be moved.
It would ensure that the admirable principles outlined in Clause 18(5)(c) are also reflected in the regulations set out in Schedule 4. I invite noble Lords to imagine themselves in the position of one of these unaccompanied minor refugee children to whom both the amendments refer. The child may be of either sex, but if I may I shall use the masculine pronoun in order to save time. He has left his family behind, far away. He does not know whether or when he will ever see them again. He is in a strange land, a stranger and afraid in a world he never made. He faces the long and difficult task of completely reorienting his life.
How can he hope to succeed in this daunting endeavour unless he can share his experiences, his hopes and his fears with somebody who can communicate with him in the only language he can speak and understand? It is such a short and simple amendment. Surely it should and could be included in the regulations.
4.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with the subject with which I dealt earlier at some length, although in a rather different context. The wording refers to the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations to provide panels of guardians ad litem and would add that,
"Where appropriate the panel should consist of people with knowledge and experience of the child's religious, social, cultural, linguistic and racial background".
There is an obvious difficulty in the language of the amendment in that one is seeking to appoint people to a panel before one has an actual child; indeed, one is really thinking of a range of children. The amendment focuses on a particular child, but that is a matter which will have to be dealt with. Apart from that, the concern which underlies the amendment is, I think, dealt with. Clause 35(9)(e) makes provision for regulations,
"as to the qualifications for membership of a panel".
Clause 75(2) permits regulations to make different provision for different cases. The powers allow regulations to be made on the employment of people with appropriate skills and qualifications to meet the needs of the cases coming forward from the courts. That would include those with experience and knowledge of particular racial and cultural characteristics of the community, where this is appropriate. Guidance already makes it clear that local authorities should employ the most appropriate mix of staff by experience, background and skills to ensure a balanced panel membership. It refers to the need to have members with experience and knowledge of ethnic minority cultures as well as particular skills in working with certain types of cases; for example, adolescents or drug users.
I think that I can assure noble Lords who have proposed the amendment, and those who have supported it, that the detailed regulations made by the Secretary of State after the Bill is enacted will take account of the matter. Obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, said, some areas of the country may have greater problems in that regard than others. The power to make regulations which affect different areas in different ways may be useful in that connection.
The guidance which we have at present to some extent deals with the matter. Indeed, I believe that it could well be the subject of regulations when the regulation-making powers are available. We shall certainly look to see whether we can make them as general as possible in covering the matters which have been referred to in the amendment. I understand the problems perfectly and believe that this is the best way to deal with them. I am sure that the noble Lord appreciates better than I that the panels must be, so to speak, there and waiting for cases and that we must therefore try to deal with the range of cases which the panels are likely to have to face.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has received the amendment. Knowing him as one does, I would not have expected anything else. As I understand him, he has said that, while the powers may not be quite as specific as one would require at

309
present, very definite consideration will be given to them in the regulations which eventually emerge to ensure that the point raised by the amendment is properly covered. I think that I can ask no more than that. Indeed, I am most grateful for that assurance and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 100 not moved.]
Schedule 3 [Supervision Orders]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 86, line 47, at end insert—
("( ) that he take all reasonable steps to ensure that the supervised child complies with any requirement included in the order under paragraph 4 or 5;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is in response to an undertaking which I gave in Committee to consider a proposal in Amendment No. 192 tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to add to the requirements which may be placed on the responsible person with his consent in a supervision order. It is a matter of adding to paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 the provision that the responsible person, who is defined in paragraph 1 of the schedule, may be required to:
"take all reasonable steps to ensure that the supervised child complies with any requirement included in the order",
in respect of psychiatric and medical examinations and psychiatric and medical treatment. That provision will encourage the responsible person to take an active role when a supervision order is made, but will not affect the ability of the child, where he has sufficient understanding to make an informed decision, to prevent requirements as to examinations and treatment being included in the order. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. If I may say so, this is a useful addition to the Bill.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 36 [Orders for emergency protection of children]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 102.
Page 31, line 26, at end insert ("; or
(c) (i) his parent;
(ii) any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for him; or
(iii) any person with whom the child is living,
has failed to comply with a child assessment order without reasonable cause").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 103 and 104—which is the key amendment, the others all being consequential upon it—and to Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 109. I have tabled these amendments, which are identical to the ones put down in Committee, because subsequent to that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor kindly wrote to me on 2nd February commenting upon the
310
debate which took place on the amendments. He ended his letter by saying that he would be interested to hear, and would certainly consider very carefully, any further arguments on Report. Accordingly I have put forward these amendments primarily to give me an opportunity to produce further arguments and to enable us to move the case on a little further.
In Committee my noble and learned friend suggested that there was no need for a child assessment order as all the situations in which the child might be in need of protection were covered by the emergency protection order, or by the interim supervision order. However, I am advised by the NSPCC that it still feels that there is a strong case for the introduction of a child assessment order.
The first argument in favour of the child assessment order hinges on the grounds for the emergency protection order. The court will only grant an emergency protection order if there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm. The society underlines the word "significant". There was much debate on what the term "significant harm" meant in relation to the grounds for care proceedings.
The Law Society has warned that the term "significant harm" may lead to protracted litigation in care proceedings. Indeed that argument could be extended to emergency protection orders. There are circumstances where the court would be unlikely to grant an emergency protection order because of the "significant harm" test. But the court would grant a child assessment order on the grounds that the child "may be suffering harm" which are the terms expressed in Amendment No. 104.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of a hypothetical case. I have a few of them with me, but one will do in order to make the point. For example, a local authority is informed that a child of the "X" family is continually heard crying and is very rarely seen. A social worker calls on the family but is told that the child is with her grandmother. While in the "X" family home, the social worker notes that there are no toys to be seen and that standards of housekeeping are lax. The social worker returns to the office and contacts the local health visitor. The health visitor reports that she is slightly concerned that when last seen the child "A" had a nasty bruise on her leg which was said to be the resultof a fall. The health visitor also thinks that Mr. and Mrs. "X" find it difficult to maintain basic standards of hygiene although they are obviously trying.
By now the social worker is seriously worried about the child. On two subsequent visits to the home there is no sign of the child, although Mrs. "X" seems friendly and co-operative to the point of admitting that she has, "let things get on top of her". After a fourth visit the social worker arranges for the child to go to the local health clinic. However, the appointment is not kept as Mr. "X" claims that the child had a tummy bug on the day of the appointment.
Many social workers will recognise that type of problem. There are numerous minor ailments and injuries. Mother agrees to go to the clinic and then does not appear. The pattern adds up to a general feeling of concern but with little concrete evidence.

311
Despite being an experienced and skilled practitioner, the social worker has failed to gain access to the child on four occasions. The social worker now has a difficult choice. There are three options. The first is to continue to negotiate for a medical examination of the child, but that does not appear to be feasible. The second is to apply for an emergency protection order or an interim supervision order. They are unlikely to be granted because a supervision order also requires evidence of significant harm. Furthermore, it may result in the traumatic removal of the child from the parents. The third option is to take no further action. None of those options seems right. However, a child assessment order could probably be granted, allowing the children to be medically examined and not being perceived by Mr. and Mrs. X as being overly intrusive into their family life.
A child assessment order fills the gap in an otherwise excellent child protection provision. It would be a useful tool for social workers in those borderline cases where there is serious but not urgent concern for the child, as in the example that I have given. The proposed grounds for the order complement rather than conflict with the grounds for an emergency protection order.
I shall comment briefly upon the arguments against a child assessment order advanced by the Association of Directors of Social Services. I should perhaps explain that the Director of the NSPCC saw representatives of the Association of Directors of Social Services at a meeting kindly organised by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. They had inconclusive discussions because the directors of social services appeared to be determined on that point. It is a great shame. I hope that as time goes on a rather wider section of directors of social services could be invited to give their views on that matter.
Those people argued that the two orders would be confusing for social workers. That argument can be rebutted as follows: first, social workers dealing with child abuse will have to receive training and guidance on the new legislation regardless of any other circumstances. The use of the two orders can be dealt with at that stage. Secondly, the availability of the two orders opens up options which will give the social worker a choice as to how to work with individual cases. The example I gave illustrates the type of case where that choice would be necessary. The association also argued that the child assessment order does not afford the child any protection in the interim period when an examination reveals that the child should be the subject of an emergency protection order. That is true. However, there are circumstances where that applies also to emergency protection orders; for example, where a social worker calls at a home and finds that the child needs protection. The social worker will have to leave that child until the emergency protection order can be obtained.
If an examination reveals serious injuries or other forms of extreme damage to the child, the police can take the child immediately into police protection. That can occur in either of the two cases if there has to be a gap. The Association of Directors of Social
312
Services ignores the benefits of a child assessment order. It can be obtained where there is serious but not urgent concern for the child. Further, parents are likely to be much more co-operative in circumstances where a child assessment order has been used; and, finally, it gives social workers a greater freedom of choice when working with families.
I hope that the difference of opinion between the experts can be brought to a conclusion. There is a need for an assessment order within the orders available to cater for children in need. We should try to push the matter on. I shall not press it at this stage. There will be later occasions. We shall have a brief opportunity on Third Reading, but the matter can be pushed on further in another place.
I hope that during the course of the next two or three weeks the Government and the Association of Directors of Social Services will come to see that it is worth providing such an order in the interests of the child. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this is an important series of amendments, especially Amendment No. 104, which seeks to introduce into the Bill what was clearly deliberately left out; that is to say, the child assessment order. If the concept of the child assessment order is not included in the Bill we shall be left with the emergency protection order only to deal with the type of situation that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has described.
As the noble Lord said, the experts have two conflicting but equally respectable points of view. It will be important in the future for those who have to decide whether to grant an emergency protection order that they know why, if it is to be the position, Parliament deliberately omitted the child assessment order. As I understood it, two reasons have been put forward for not including a separate child assessment order in the Bill. The first was the reason put forward in the Cleveland report, to which the noble Lord referred; that is to say, that it would be somehow confusing for those who will have to administer the Bill when it becomes law. The second reason was that advanced by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading—that the child assessment order would come to be seen as the softer option, bringing with it the risk that in circumstances in which a court should be asked to make an emergency protection order it would be tempted to make the lesser order because it seemed the less drastic.
The argument runs that the result will be that the child will be afforded less protection than it needs. The contrary argument is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has advanced; if the emergency protection order is perceived to be too drastic and is not granted in circumstances such as he described, there will be no fallback for the social worker or the court. The risk therefore arises that there will be a serious gap in the legislation. That is a gap which we should now seriously think about filling.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. The child assessment order should not be viewed as an

313
alternative to the emergency protection order but as an order that can be used when the only available alternative may be to do nothing. The court will grant an emergency protection order only if there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm. There has been much debate about the word "significant" in relation to the grounds for care proceedings. Does the noble and learned Lord think that the word should be defined in the Bill? We have all too often seen how fine a line there is between child safety and the child being at possible risk.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I wish to put the other point of view on behalf of the Association of Directors of Social Services and on my own behalf as an ex-director of social services. Suppose we take, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, did, a child or perhaps two children, Jack and Jill. If Jack and Jill have suffered some harm, as was described by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and the health visitor thinks that the children have been bruised, the social worker might be unable to persuade the parents voluntarily to go to a medical centre. I suggest that if a child has not been harmed or damaged by the parents, 90 per cent. of the parents will go voluntarily. Therefore we are talking of only a small number. If they will not go voluntarily, why not? It is either because they do not like the social worker or because they have something to hide.
Both orders, the emergency protection order and the assessment order, need a magistrate's permission. Suppose the magistrate issues a child assessment order and the child arrives at the clinic. The doctor examines the child who has been badly damaged and cruelly hurt. What happens then? Under the child assessment order the child cannot be taken into care or removed from the home. Therefore probably he will have to stay at the clinic, the doctor and the social worker must be present and the social worker must go back to the magistrate in order to obtain permission for the emergency protection order. That is the foundation for suggesting that an emergency protection order is the better of the two, particularly as it does not necessarily activate the removal of the child. That is the second important aspect. If an emergency protection order is granted by magistrates, it can be withdrawn. The order does not necessarily mean that the child is immediately removed from the home and that a permanent order is made. There is a 72-hour limit during which the child can remain at home for further investigations.
Looking at it from the point of the view of the social worker, I imagine myself having a child assessment order, taking the child, with the parents, to the clinic and then finding that the child is badly damaged. What can I do then? I can do nothing but go back to the magistrate. What do I do with the child? I must go to the magistrate; the doctor or the nurse must stay with the child. It might be one, two or three hours before I find the magistrate to take the emergency protection order. The difficulty is in the practicalities of the case.
I entirely agree in principle with my noble friend Lord Mottistone in all that he has said. I think that
314
the NSPCC and the directors of social services are very close. There is just that one practical difficulty. Jack, Jill and the social worker could be sitting in the clinic, the doctor might say, "This child has been badly damaged". One then has to go back to the magistrate and it will be a very disturbing situation for the children. Therefore I hope it will be possible for regulations to be drawn up concerning the emergency protection order for social workers and others.
There is one further point. The case of Kimberly Carlile was mentioned and it was suggested that if there had been a child assessment order that case would not have happened. I dare to suggest to your Lordships' House that there would have been other ways of dealing with that case. I had a similar case in which I invoked Section 40 of the Children and Young Persons Act. There are other ways of dealing with these cases.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone says that he will not press this to a Division today. I very much hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill it will be possible to face all the difficulties of these two cases so that the Association of Directors of Social Services and the NSPCC may come to an understanding. However, I cannot support the amendment as it stands.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, perhaps 1 may ask a question since I am ignorant in this matter. Following the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, I can see the practical difficulty that one may be stuck in the clinic needing the protection order. Would it not be possible that, in issuing the assessment order, the magistrate may also issue a provisional protection order in the event that the assessment proved that the child needed the protection? Then there would be no need, if the assessment went the wrong way, for a return to the magistrate. But if the assessment did not go the wrong way the protection order would not be used. Is there a way of combining the two?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there can be no doubt that this is an extremely important matter and one on which it is possible for informed people to take opposite points of view. I think that that is perhaps not an uncommon situation.
The answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is that in a sense the emergency protection order has a provisional character. Where the social worker is granted an emergency protection order there is no need for him or her to remove the child or to take further steps in relation to the child if on medical assessment it turns out that nothing further is necessary. We have built into the emergency protection order the kind of provisional element that the noble Baroness has mentioned.
There is another point which I think is worth mentioning. Perhaps noble Lords will be kind enough to look at Amendment No. 104 in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Subsection (5) says:
"Where there is a failure to comply with a child assessment order without reasonable cause, the applicant shall immediately apply for an emergency protection order".
That suggests to my mind that my noble friend and those advising him took the view that if there was a

315
refusal to go along to a medical assessment without reasonable ground, the result would be that the court should infer that the child was likely to suffer harm unless some action was taken. Otherwise subsection (5) seems to be rather pointless.
Therefore I believe that the answer to the noble Lord's example is that the court, faced with the kind of concern that the health visitor would have in this case, would conclude that it was suitable for an emergency protection order. Then if the social worker going along to pursue that order discovered that the injury was completely accidental and that the parents were most concerned about it and would do everything possible to prevent injury, no further action would be taken.
I believe that it is important from the point of view of trauma to the household not to have too many different types of order. One needs a single effective mechanism which the social worker can initiate and under which he or she can operate according to the emergency circumstances. The great advantage of the emergency protection order we have proposed is just that. If at any stage no further action is called for, the person holding the order is under an obligation not to take any action. On the other hand if as the situation develops action is called for, the emergency protection order arms the person to whom it has been granted with the authority to proceed.
It is obvious that once it has been discovered that something is going wrong, delay at that stage could be very damaging indeed. As I said, my noble friend's amendment contemplates that something has gone wrong: one cannot carry out the child assessment order, one has to go back and find the magistrate in order to proceed. The inference is that failure to cooperate is pretty good evidence that there is a serious risk to the child if there is some prima facie evidence such as in my noble friend's example that that is so.
I think I have pointed out, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull has said with her experience, that a social worker faced with some refusal to let her see the child has a considerable problem. I think in practically all the cases in which a child has been injured the parents will be only too anxious that the child should be seen by a doctor and a refusal to co-operate in that, in most cases anyway, would be indicative of something rather seriously wrong.
If access is refused therefore we would say, where there is a prima facie indication that something's going wrong, that the proper step is to try and investigate. If you cannot, if you are frustrated in your investigation by action taken by the parents or on their behalf, the next step should be an application for an emergency protection order.
The serious concern that led to the approach to see the child in the first place, combined with the refusal to allow him to be seen, makes action urgent and should, together with the relevant surrounding circumstances, be adequate to meet the grounds for an emergency protection order, contrary possibly to the view expressed by my noble friend and the NSPCC.
If the social worker can see the child and judges that a medical assessment is needed, the social worker should usually be able to negotiate an assessment. As
316
my friend Lady Faithfull pointed out, that is a matter for the negotiating skills of the social worker. If the parent has nothing to hide one would expect that to work. Where the parents refuse to co-operate the social worker will need to be able to show that emergency action is justified. This must be right wherever a court intervention is proposed.
Accordingly I believe that the emergency protection order covers the various situations that have been described, and that the inbuilt provisional nature of the emergency protection order—provisional in the sense that further action need not follow it—is a good feature of it and means that it will fit the cases.
I believe that there is a problem if one has too many options. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked me about "significant harm", and would it be best to define "significant". I could only do that in other words, and every word is open to some form of construction. I believe that the word "significant" in this context will signify for a court the kind of threshold that would be right for intervention by an outside body. A merely small matter that could have no consequences would not be significant. Anything that was likely to produce consequences for the child would be good enough.
I must say that so far we have not thought of a better word to describe that kind of threshold. If any noble Lord at any stage has a suggestion to make we should be glad to hear it. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made a marvellous suggestion at an earlier stage that is now incorporated in the Bill, and I am sure that his imaginative capacities have not been in any way reduced by that success.
The child assessment order would necessarily be a major interference in family life. One can make it as little as one likes but it is a compulsory intervention that is in question, and it would raise the unsettling prospect of further intervention. If one is going to do that one must have a reasonable ground for it. With regard to "may suffer harm", I suppose it is true that anyone may suffer harm. It is not a very definite test. Therefore at the moment I do not feel that we are at the stage where it would be right to include this.
The factors weighing for and against the inclusion of the order have been pretty fully debated and I do not know that it would serve any useful purpose for me to go over them all again. I hope that the experts may come together in the course of the time between now and Third Reading. This is a matter of sufficient importance and difficulty to endure in its consideration as the Bill goes to another place. Therefore I do not really know that we would want to finalise the matter here. I hope that the debate will continue and reach a productive conclusion.
In the meantime I do not think that sufficient has been said for the Government to accept that this new order should be put into the Bill at this stage. My noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, have been eloquent in its support, but there is perhaps matched eloquence the other way, and we feel at the moment that we should best leave matters as they are.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for the full reply that he gave, and I

317
thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, for their support. In so far as there were one or two kind words, I thank my noble friend Lady Faithfull as well.
I have just a couple of points to make before we put this one to bed at this stage. First, with regard to the example that my noble friend Lady Faithfull produced of the two children—I do not know why she doubled up on them; the second one did not seem to be useful—who were going to have their assessment and their medical examination, it turned out that the examination revealed serious injuries. My noble friend asked, "What would they do then?"
I said in my introductory speech something that neither my noble and learned friend nor my noble friend took up. If an examination reveals serious injuries or other forms of extreme damage to a child, the police can immediately take the child into police protection. There is a way out while you wait for the emergency protection order to be sought. I hope that people might have a view about that.
I gave the example of the child who was not there, not able to be seen, and was cause for concern for the health worker when four visits did not produce the child, or the parents did not respond to the arrangement for a medical examination. My noble and learned friend said that he thought that under those circumstances the court would grant an emergency protection order. Now I wonder. It is not for me to question my noble and learned friend but I know one or two magistrates, and there are one or two sitting on the Benches here. It says in Clause 36(1):
"the court may make the order if, but only if"—
it is very firm—
"it is satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer significant harm".
I should have thought that some people might say—ordinary people, like magistrates, and I am not sure that clerks to the justices might not say this—"It is all very well; you have come to me and told me this story about this child who you have not been able to see four times and the parents did not take it to see the doctor when you said they should, but I do not think that that is evidence of significant harm". They might say that, and I do not see why they should think it was significant harm. It depends on how the story is told and the circumstances if we create this particular situation.
If we are to drop this idea of a child assessment order we have to tackle more seriously what is really required to issue an emergency protection order. We have to decide whether we really want to say "significant harm", and if we do whether, as was suggested by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, we need to define "significant harm" in this repect. If we do not we are going to find some people saying, "That is not significant harm. That is not evidence of possible significant harm", when the case may be of the sort that I described earlier.
So I would not be happy we should let this matter drop. I am certainly not happy that one gets perhaps a rather limited view from one committee of the Association of Directors of Social Services, rather
318
than a full comment of a number of them. I would be much happier if we could have points of this type very carefully looked into.
My noble and learned friend knows that I have a second example with which I will not bother your Lordships now, because I have given him a copy of it together with all the remarks that I made. Perhaps he will be able to consider this further pressure against the business of significant harm. That is where the problem arises and that is where—as your Lordships will see if you read the report of what I have had to say—I brought the matter in at the first instance. However, at this stage I do not wish to proceed any further, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 31, line 43, at beginning insert ("shall take and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we have provided in Clause 36(3)(a) that the action which a person who has parental responsibility as a result of an emergency protection order may take should be limited to that which is reasonably required to safeguard or promote the welfare of the child. While I think it is right, in view of the nature and duration of the order, that such a restriction should exist—that is the provisional nature of the order which I was talking about earlier—I believe that the applicant should in addition have a clear duty in respect of the child's welfare. The effect of this amendment is therefore to require the person to take such action as is reasonably required while retaining the limitation that he should do no more than that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
5.15 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 103A:
Page 32, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) A direction under subsection (4)(b) shall not affect any legal right the child had to refuse consent to the medical examination.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I mentioned this amendment last week when we were discussing another similar matter, and the noble and learned Lord was good enough to say that he would think about the matter again. Therefore I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 103A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause
("Emergency Protection Orders: Court procedures.
.—(1) Where the court is satisfied that there are grounds for making an emergency protection order and there is reasonable cause to believe that one or more members of the child's household may be prepared to give undertakings to the court for the protection of the child, such as vacating the home or severing contact with the child, the court may adjourn the hearing in order that the following persons shall attend court as soon as is reasonably practicable—

(a) the child

(b) a parent of his

319

(c) any person who is not a parent but who has parental responsibility for him

(d) any person with whom he was living immediately before the application

(2) In such circumstances the court shall not make an emergency protection order if, on receipt of such undertakings, it is satisfied that the child would be safe.
(3) In the event of breach of such an undertaking the court may make an emergency order.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to provide for the court to accept undertakings as an alternative to making an emergency protection order. At Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord acknowledged the importance of this issue and said that it was an area where the Government were considering making proposals of their own and there was no debate on the issue. No such proposals appear to have emerged, so this amendment is therefore a probing one in order to find out what the Government are now thinking.
The intention behind this amendment is to provide alternatives to the automatic removal of children from home as a means of their protection from abuse. Although applicable to all forms of abuse, it is likely to be most helpful in the area of child sexual abuse. Clearly children must be protected from abuse. However, removal from home is usually a very traumatic and distressing experience for children. It is also well established that continuity of care is extremely important for children, so if there are alternatives to removal from home these should be pursued.
Although Lord Butler-Sloss made no reference to this in the report of the Cleveland inquiry, she subsequently expressed the view at a joint Law Society and National Children's Bureau conference on child sexual abuse in September last year that such alternatives should be explored. Government guidance issued at the same time as the Butler-Sloss report Working Together in paragraph 6.3.c. states:
"It is recognised that sexual abuse does not necessarily call for an immediate emergency response or removal of a child from home. It may be appropriate for arrangements to be made with the carer or parents so that the child may remain at home."
There are some local authorities which have addressed the issue by trying to secure the removal of the abuser from the home in preference to removal of the child. The London boroughs of Islington, Camden and Haringey have policies of working with and supporting the non-abusing parent, usually the mother, to enable her to protect the child in cases of child sexual abuse.
That may involve supporting the mother to take legal action to exclude the abuser from the home, and in some cases the mother and child are removed from the home together to a safe place. Non-abusing parents can obtain injunctions in wardship or family proceedings excluding the abusing parent, although owing to the property element there may be some difficulty in obtaining such injunctions in family proceedings if the matter is contested.
The only remedy for the local authority in applying for an exclusion order against an abusing parent is in wardship proceedings. The High Court has inherent jurisdiction to exclude a parent, if this is in the best interests of the child, by way of order or undertaking
320
but this provision is very rarely used. Given the restrictions in the wardship jurisdiction proposed by this Bill, it is unclear whether the local authority would obtain leave to make such an application under Clause 71(4), and if so whether this could be done in an emergency.
There is no such provision in the juvenile court and this amendment is aimed to remedy the defect. It is not proposed that the juvenile court should have jurisiction to make exclusion orders. Any contested application may take in excess of a day, and the question then arises as to whether it would be safe for the child to remain at home pending the outcome of the hearing.
The acceptance of undertakings is a more realistic option in the juvenile court. The advantage of undertakings given to a court in preference to entirely voluntary arrangements lies in the fact that such undertakings are enforceable. An undertaking constitutes a court order and the provision for the enforcement of court orders in the magistrates' court is contained in Section 63(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. That would be provided in my Amendment No. 134. The provisions in Section 63(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act apply to domestic proceedings in the magistrates' court, including access disputes, and there is no reason why they should not apply to the breach of undertakings if the section is amended as in Amendment No. 134.
The wording of the amendment does not deal with the question of whether the person giving the undertaking accepts responsibility for the abuse or has been found to have perpetrated the abuse. Social workers report that some men voluntarily leave households in order to avoid further trauma for the child, and as in domestic violence cases, many men are prepared to give undertakings if it does not require any admission of culpability.
Concern will no doubt he expressed about whether or not persons giving such undertakings are likely to honour them and thus whether the child will be properly protected in such circumstances. First, a great deal will rely on the social worker's assessment of the man's integrity and the family dynamics before recommending to the court that the hearing should be adjourned. Secondly, close social work monitoring will be needed by unannounced visits following the court hearing. It should also be remembered that breach of the undertaking may attract court penalties which is a deterrent to most people.
In order for the objectives of this amendment to work, guidance will have to be issued to social workers and other professionals about the need to consider alternatives to removal before applying for emergency protection orders. I believe this to be a very constructive proposal, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord can look on it favourably. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I want to say only a brief word in support of this amendment on which I believe I am right in saying I spoke at Committee stage. But whether I did or whether I did not, is not very relevant. Many members of the legal profession, as I think the noble and learned Lord might well

321
know, are in favour of this amendmet. They feel it would be extremely useful if in cases especially of child abuse and matters of that kind where the presence of a certain individual is the one that gives rise to the emergency order there was a clear power for the court to accept an undertaking that the person concerned would vacate the house and therefore relieve the emergency problem. An emergency order is obviously a traumatic experience for all members of the family, not least the child.
It is conceivable that the court would have that right in any event. The High Court may well have the right not to make an emergency order in a particular case provided that an undertaking is given. However, I am advised that that situation is in doubt. It would be preferable for that to be clearly stated on the face of the Bill. The penalties for a breach of an undertaking to the court would be made obvious. Furthermore, there would be the protection that if the undertaking is not observed an emergency order can be made. That is clear in the amendment. In the view not of welfare officers but of lawyers, it is thought that that would be a very useful provision to have in the Bill.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this is an attractive amendment particularly if, as the noble Baroness suggested, it fills one of the gaps left by the curtailment of the wardship jurisdiction.
I have only one slight misgiving about the amendment, which is a drafting matter. We are all familiar with the state of affairs in which the social worker prevails upon a member of the household—usually a boyfriend or stepfather—to promise to leave and obtains a promise from the mother not to allow the man back into the house. It then emerges that the man concerned has not left after all or is popping back for weekends or for meals. There then follows a cat and mouse game with the social worker trying to catch the man out: the social worker coming to the front door, the man hopping out through the back door and the mother trying to hide the extra plate on the table. That is a very familiar state of affairs.
The situation gives rise to concern about the phrase in subsection (2) of the amendment, which provides that:
"the court shall not make an emergency protection order if, on receipt of such undertakings, it is satisfied that the child would be safe".
I should prefer the subsection to include words such as "the court, on being satisfied that the undertaking has been complied with". It is one thing to put the undertaking before the court, it is another for the court to be satisfied that the undertaking has been complied with.
I should also like to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as to the potential sanction for the breach of an undertaking. If such undertakings are to be given and accepted, it must be made absolutely clear at the time to the person being required to give the undertaking that the undertaking has teeth. As the noble Lord said, the potential penalties should be made obvious at the time.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I should like to add one point. The amendment states that:
"the following persons shall attend court as soon as is reasonably practicable".
There are two very sad cases at the moment in which husbands have been excluded from their homes. They have stayed away and honoured their agreement with the local authority but the local authority has done nothing for months. As a result the husbands and their wives have been separated for months. I feel that whether a man is guilty or not—and in some cases he is not guilty—unless cases are dealt with quickly the delay contributes to the break up of families.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, although this amendment was considered in Committee, we did not have an opportunity to debate the matter at any great length. I am glad to have had an opportunity to hear the views of your Lordships today. We shall certainly consider all those views very carefully.
We are, of course, sympathetic to the general aim of protecting the child, not only from abuse but also from the disruption and distress which removal of the child can cause by providing instead for the removal of the alleged abuser.
Undertakings are sometimes used as a common substitute for a court order in county courts and the High Court but are not used formally in magistrates' courts as they cannot be enforced.
The second part of the noble Baroness's amendment addresses that point. If we were to go down that road we should have to make provisions on the lines of the second amendment and perhaps deal expressly with general principles which are understood in the higher courts.
As the noble Baroness referred to the point, perhaps I should say in passing that I do not believe that the restriction on wardships in the Bill would prevent the High Court granting injunctive relief excluding an adult from the house. I shall address that point at greater length when I deal with the amendment to Clause 68.
A key factor in undertakings is that the court has to be sure that the person who gives one fully understands the scope of what he is promising to do and the fact that he may be punished if he fails to keep his promise. It would probably not be sufficient for a local authority simply to tell the court that a person had given an undertaking or signed a document to that effect. The court would insist that he (or at least his lawyer) attend court and have the consequences of disobedience explained to him.
While the consequences of disobedience in the higher courts may be punishment for contempt, magistrates' courts do not have direct powers to commit for contempt, although default can be punished. Amendment No. 134 addresses that situation. In any event, breach of an undertaking has to be proved to the same degree as if it were breach of an injunction. In that regard, an advantage of undertakings over injunctions is that there is no rule insisting on service of the order. There must still be service of notice of the application to commit coupled with the particulars of the breaches alleged. Clearly,

323
therefore, the primary purpose of enforcement would be to punish the breach rather than to ensure future performance of the undertaking, given the short duration of an emergency protection order.
To some extent that point is dealt with in subsection (3) of Amendment No. 105. I have no doubt that it could also be dealt with by the provisional issue of an emergency protection order subject to the undertaking being performed. If there was a breach of the undertaking, in some circumstances it would be right to have an emergency protection order which could be activated immediately.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull has mentioned a point which I think requires consideration; namely, the period of the undertaking. Unless the person concerned applied for the undertaking to be discharged (for which provision would also have to be made) the undertaking would presumably last until the local authority decided whether to bring care proceedings and, if so, the court decided whether an interim care order was justified. In addition, under the interim order a voluntary undertaking to leave the home may avoid the need to remove the child, but that could be negotiated voluntarily by the local authority having care of the child without the intervention of the court.
A possible alternative is compulsory exclusion. The Bill already provides for care applications to be made in the course of domestic violence proceedings in magistrates' or other courts. It could perhaps also provide for a local authority application for an emergency protection order to be made in the course of such proceedings. It would also theoretically be possible to allow a local authority to apply for ouster, non-molestation, personal protection or exclusion orders on a child's behalf. However, that raises serious issues. Many would consider that to permit a local authority to apply for a court order which would have the effect of forcibly separating husband and wife was objectionable in principle. Both in principle and in practice it is likely to be acceptable only if the other party to the relationship agrees both to the application and to the order and is prepared to co-operate in its enforcement. The best guarantee of that is providing, as does the present law, that the wife must make the application herself. In other words, modifying the existing remedies in order to allow local authorities to apply for ouster in the context of emergency protection of children from abuse would present many difficulties.
In further consideration of the position I think that we shall want to look at voluntary leaving, perhaps backed up by an undertaking or a consent order. The Law Commission is looking at compulsory orders in its ongoing review of family law and will no doubt look to see how they might best fit into the sort of situation we are now considering.
I apologise for speaking at such length but the amendment is an important one. It deals with questions which we shall have to consider further. One possibility we are considering is to make it clear that in certain circumstances a local authority can arrange accommodation when a person leaves the family home voluntarily. That can be done already as
324
part of a preventive service under Schedule 2 but it could be specified. Beyond that we need to consider whether court endorsement would add anything useful to such an arrangement. In an emergency, which all these cases are in a sense, I do not think that we should provide for the court to adjourn without making the emergency protection order for which the grounds are met. I mentioned earlier a possible suspension of the emergency protection order provided that the undertaking was complied with.
Anything of this sort may involve some additional court hearings, so there are factors to be taken into account when considering how useful such a provision might be. Your Lordships may take it that we are considering this matter carefully and the comments made here will be very much taken into account. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that moving this amendment has been of use in furthering the debate.
Baroness David: My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has spoken, given support and, indeed, pointed out some of the difficulties and the problems. I should particularly like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his careful response which was not at all too long. I am glad that this matter will be considered further. I do not know whether it is too much to hope that it will have been considered further by Third Reading. There is such a long time before that debate. However, we shall certainly read his comments with great care and perhaps return with a revised amendment on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 [Local authority's duty to investigate]:
[Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 not moved].
[Amendment No. 108 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 40 [Powers to assist in discovery of children who may be in need of emergency protection]:
[Amendment No. 109 not moved.]
Clause 42 [Rules and regulations]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 39, line 22, after ("authority") insert ("and the applicant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend Clause 42(3) which deals with the transfer of responsibilities between local authorities. However, as the clause is drafted, the NSPCC or any other authorised person could find a local authority assuming parental responsibility for the child even where the society was the original applicant for the order. In some circumstances, it would be quite correct—for example, where the society has taken an emergency protection order but there is agreement that the local authority then acts as the "key worker" for the child. However in other circumstances, the transfer of the order without previous discussion could damage the ongoing social work relationship with the child. An emergency protection order is a dramatic event in the child's life. A consistent

325
approach and continuity will be very important to the child who is likely to be distressed and vulnerable.
My amendment could ensure that the local authority and the original applicant for the order were in agreement that the transfer of the order was in the child's best interest. It is quite simple. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept it. It is a development from Amendment No. 205 which we discussed in Committee. I beg to move.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on this amendment. At present, the clause works on the presumption that the applicant and the local authority will both agree that it is in the child's best interests for the order to be transferred. That might not always be so. As the noble Lord said, the amendment has the advantage of making explicit that both the original applicant and the agency seeking to have the order transferred must be in agreement that the proposed transfer would be in the child's best interests.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, we touched briefly on this matter at a late hour in Committee. Clause 36(1) enables the court to make an emergency protection order on application by any person. In the majority of cases this will be the local authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident which will then investigate the circumstances of the case and decide whether to apply for a care order or supervision order or provide services under Part III. Clause 42(3) provides that, where that local authority is not the applicant, it may take over the applicant's responsibilities under the order in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. The amendment would require that both the authority and the applicant be of the opinion that transfer of responsibility under the order would be in the child's best interests. The particular applicant in mind is the NSPCC. The amendment does not, however, provide for failure to agree.
There are three types of case to which these regulations might apply. One is where an emergency protection order is obtained by one local authority in respect of a child who is ordinarily resident in another's area. It will be the second authority (the one in whose area the child is ordinarily resident) which will normally have the general financial responsibility in respect of the child. If a care order were made, the child would be placed in that authority's care and if it considers that it would be in the best interests of the child for the order to be transferred, it is hard to think of any ground on which the other could reasonably withhold agreement to the responsible authority taking over. Requiring the applicant's agreement would in that case be unnecessary.
The second type of case is where the applicant for an emergency protection order is neither the local authority nor a person authorised to initiate care proceedings under Clause 26(8). This person's responsibilities can at most last only as long as the emergency protection order is in force—a maximum
326
of eight days. If the matter is not to run into the sand, the local authority will need to become involved at an early stage. Once again, it is difficult to see in this type of case why the agreement of the applicant to the authority's taking over responsibility for the order should be required. In that case, it would. be a natural development.
I accept that the circumstances would be different in the third type of case—the one about which my noble friend and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, are particularly concerned—where the applicant for the emergency protection order was also authorised to bring care or supervision proceedings under Clause 26(8). Only the NSPCC would at present be in this position. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone argued, it could be difficult for the child or other family members, where they have established a relationship with the NSPCC officer, suddenly to find that the local authority has taken over the case. I would make two points in that connection. First, subsection (3)(c) requires the authority tc have regard to the child's best interests and it should certainly consider whether a transfer of responsibility would have the effect feared by my noble friend. Secondly, as I suggested in Committee, we certainly intend that the regulations will deal specifically with cases involving authorised persons. Requirements could well be placed on the authority designed to promote a co-operative approach, even if we could not go quite as far as the amendment and require the authority and the applicant to agree. We must envisage the possibility, however remote, that they might not agree. However, if at the end of the day there is no agreement the authority, with its wider responsibilities, including the responsibility in Schedule 2 to take steps to reduce the need to bring care proceedings, must be able to determine the matter according to its view of where the best interests of the child lie. Having said that, I think it unlikely that the local authority will always want to take over the benefit of the emergency protection order from an authorised person and thereby, because of Clause 26(6)(c), prevent the latter from initiating care proceedings.
Given the NSPCC's experience and expertise, to which my noble friend has from time to time drawn attention, I should expect the two frequently to cooperate in a proper assessment of the child's circumstances and seek to agree how the case should be handled, including whether the order should be transferred to the authority. It would be reasonable to expect that in some individual cases it would be the NSPCC that takes the lead; in other cases, it might be proper for the local authority to do so. We shall certainly look for ways in the regulations of ensuring that any issues of disagreement are explored particularly carefully and sensitively between the two so that the authority's decision is a fully informed one and the authorised person understands the reasons for it.
For those reasons, I do not think that an amendment which would allow the local authority to be restricted by any applicant for an emergency protection order in carrying out its responsibilities would be wise. I hope that my noble friend and the noble Lady will accept that we shall do what we can

327
in the regulations to promote the co-operation that they have in mind and, on that basis, be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, for her support and my noble and learned friend for so carefully considering this matter. I accept the fact that my amendment as it stands is flawed because of the second example given by my noble and learned friend. His first example of the local authority exchange would fit in with my example of where that would be appropriate to happen. His third example involving the exchange between the NSPCC and the local authority is the example with which we were seeking to deal. However, it is a fact that anyone can be an applicant and to that extent we have gone too wide. I accept my noble and learned friend's undertaking that regulations will deal with this particular situation carefully and tackle any anomalies that may arise. With that undertaking, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 39, line 25, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 28 and insert ("make application to the court for such a transfer.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 111 is put before the House because of a worry that I should like to explain. Clause 42(3) provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations to provide that where (and this is the case at which we are looking),
"an emergency protection order has been made … the applicant for the order was not the local authority within whose area the child is ordinarily resident, and that local authority"—
in whose area the child is ordinarily resident—
"are of the opinion that it would be in the child's best interests for the applicant's responsibilities … to be transferred to them",
without more ado, the local authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident, for the purposes of this Act, can be treated as though it were the original applicant. It does not have to go to the court. It does not have to explain to anybody. It would be an automatic following through of such a regulation.
I shall tell noble Lords of the worry. There are other examples that I could give. Let us take for ganted that a family has been complaining to its local authority about certain situations which it thinks exist in a household with regard to a child. Let us take it for granted that the family or individual—it may be an uncle, or anybody—reporting to the local authority finds that the local authority is doing nothing. It is a lax local authority. Without going through any complaints procedure, or whatever, the uncle manages to arrange that the child is removed to another local authority. That local authority is a very active one. It immediately makes an application. It obtains an emergency order.
Are we to provide that the original local authority in which that child was ordinarily resident can, by a stroke of the pen and without any justification, say, "We do not like that slur upon this local authority. We think it is in the child's best interests that we have the carrying out of the protection order"? In those circumstances, by using the pen, and it being
328
unnecessary to go through any other procedure, the local authority in whose area the child is normally resident becomes the original applicant.
Quite obviously, there are circumstances when it is perfectly proper that that local authority should exercise those powers as though it had been the applicant. In order to protect the position, this amendment provides that there ought to be an application to the court. It can be a quick one. In a formal case one imagines that it would not take two minutes. It would be by consent of all parties. However, in the example that I am considering at this moment it would not be quite that. It may well be in the child's best interests in all the circumstances that the local authority which obtained the order should carry it out and that it should not be transferred to the child's normal resident authority—if I may call it that—by a stroke of a pen. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, Amendment No. 112 has been grouped with this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others have put their names to it. I put the amendment down with a group of others on the ground that even if the clause stands unamended, subsection (4) is unnecessary.
It is a theme that we debated earlier. If I presume to be less than satisfied with the defence of this draftsman's nonsense—if I may say that without disrespect—it does not justify my continuing to raise this matter. This is not a particularly blatant example. It is only a waste of three and a bit lines, whereas most of the examples have gone on for the best part of a page.
However, in dealing with Amendment No. 110 my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack gave a mass of matters that would be covered by the regulations and which are not stated on the face of the Bill. Of course the Secretary of State may make regulations. Among the regulations that he may make are obviously regulations as to the time of transfer. It is entirely unnecessary to have subsection (4). It does not come under the justification of my noble and learned friend that it lets the Houses of Parliament know what the Secretary of State has in mind. Obviously he has a great deal in mind if what my noble and learned friend said on Amendment No. 110 is right, as I have no doubt it is.
As my name stands first on Amendment No. 112—I was not going to move it originally—I think my proper course would now be to follow the action that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes on Amendment No. 111, if that is convenient to him, and commends itself to your Lordships generally.
5.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I sought to explain in relation to Amendment No. 110 how in general terms we would expect transfers of emergency protection orders to operate. Our principal concerns are that the local authority within whose area the child is ordinarily resident (and which will usually be the body best placed to consider the child's needs) is able to take over responsibility for the child and inquire into what further action, if any, is required without unnecessary hindrance to the authority and disturbance to the child.

329
In some, probably very exceptional, cases the applicant for the emergency protection order will be a private individual, say, a doctor or concerned next-door neighbour, who will have neither the resources nor the powers to take matters further and in any case will probably have acted solely with a view to bringing the social services department into the picture. In other cases—and this is the example to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon referred—the applicant will be another local authority in whose area the child has been found, or into which he is placed—the noble Lord's example—but which is only too happy for the authority in whose area the child is ordinarily resident to take over responsibility for the case. Then there is the kind of case we have just discussed, where a person who is also authorised to bring care proceedings is involved, and where the wider responsibilities of the local authority have to be considered.
It is important to notice that we are talking only about transfer of the emergency protection order—nothing else. I have moved an amendment to put a responsibility on the holder of the emergency protection order to take steps that are needed for the protection of the child so that once an emergency protection order is transferred the statutory duty comes on to the person holding the order to take these steps. A return to court on this matter would not contribute to the progress of the case since the issue would simply be that of transfer and the merits of the case for the emergency protection order would not be subject to review at this time. It would mean that the local authority's attention would be diverted from the child's concerns to what would usually be, for the reasons I have given, a formality.
I believe that the main point the noble Lord made about a rather lax local authority in the past not having done anything when a relative wanted the local authority to do so is taken care of by the amendment I moved, which, as a result of the making of the protection order and the transfer regulations applying, would put a statutory duty on that local authority to take action to protect the child so far as was necessary. The ultimate responsiblity for making a care order or for applying for a care order would be on that local authority, because the authority in which the court considers the child is ordinarily resident—this is dealt with in Clause 26(7)(a)—is the local authority to apply for a care order. The point is best dealt with in that way.
I do not believe that a court order in that situation is in any way necessary or would contribute to the expedition of the case. I believe that the concern which has been addressed is dealt with by the amendment I have moved already. Therefore I hope your Lordships will feel that this is not an amendment which should be added to the Bill. The matter is appropriately dealt with otherwise, and to add an unnecessary court hearing, as suggested by the amendment, in every case of transfer would be a negative rather than a positive development.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as always we have had a reasoned reply to the amendment. I know that the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that
330
while I respect the reasoning, I do not accept it. To say that a local authority ought to carry out an order is the obvious. We all know cases where the local authority for one reason or another both at member and at officer level does not come up to the standards what we all expect of local authorities. We all know that and we cannot blink our eyes at it. Unfortunately, there have been many examples in the past where local authorities have been blamed for their lax conduct, as have their employees and their members, in regard to children. We are trying to protect children.
I cited an example of where a child was deliberately taken out of a local authority area in which he was normally resident because it was not thought to be in the best interests of the child to stay for one reason or another. It is possible that the chief social worker in charge rubbed the family and the child up the wrong way; I would not know. But no action was taken. There are other examples that one knows. Deliberately the child is moved to another area and the local authority is given its emergency protection order. There should not be just an automatic procedure by which that child is taken back—it is true that there is a statutory obligation to carry out the terms of the order—to the original local authority from which at least one member of a family or a friend might think it was expedient for tile child to be removed. Nobody can interfere with it.
I am asking for a court to sanction it. I repeat that it would involve just two minutes in an ordinary case. But in the extraordinary case where somebody wants to argue against the transfer, that person ought to be able to do it and not be faced by a provision passed by Parliament, as we are doing now, that the court has no authority and cannot interfere in such a situation and that the local authority in which the child was ordinarily resident has the rights.
Obviously it would not be prudent to press this amendment now. While the noble and learned Lord was speaking, I felt I read between the lines of his reply that he had not had an opportunity to consider the type of case about which 1 was thinking and about which some people are worried. With respect, all I shall ask him to do in the light of this discussion is to consider whether there should not be some procedure so that in the exceptional case somebody can apply against the transfer rather than that it should become an automatic bit of machinery. I shall merely ask him to be good enough to consider what I have said between now and Third Reading to see whether something could not be done to deal with the kind of circumstances I have mentioned, which are not as extraordinary as one might think. If the noble and learned Lord tells me that that consideration can be given, I know what my words automatically will be.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I do not know whether I need to ask leave of the House to speak again, in that Amendment No. 112 has been grouped with Amendment No. 111. If I do need the leave of the House, I crave your Lordships' indulgence to say just one sentence. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said nothing to show why subsection (4) is necessary. Why is it necessary to particularise that the regulations may specify the time of the transfer when

331
anybody looking at the situation would say "Of course the regulations may do that"? It goes without saying. This is a minor matter compared with all the other issues of regulation that my noble and learned friend dealt with on Amendment No. 110. However, having said that, when Amendment No. 111 is called I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, as I said I would, and not move it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, with leave, I shall consider what the noble Lord has said. I still feel rather strongly that it would not be right to make a provision for a court application in this situation. The argument that I advanced is intended to deal fully with the case he made. But I am always in the business of considering what has been said. We are always anxious to be made wiser by doing that. I could not give any possible commitment to bring forward an amendment to deal with this matter, because my impression is fairly strong that we have dealt with the matter properly already.
I misunderstood slightly the course that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale was proposing to take, but I consider that the time question is the important one. There are other matters, but that is the way it appeared to us when the Bill was drafted. I am grateful for the approach he has taken.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I tried to frame my words carefully and I did not call for any commitment from the noble and learned Lord. I knew that I would not be likely to get one. However, I asked for a commitment that in his graciousness he would consider the matter which I regard in all humility as being very important: that of giving the opportunity at least for somebody to go to the court to plead that a transfer should not happen. He has kindly undertaken to consider the matter again without any commitment of any kind. On that basis, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
6 p.m.
Clause 43 [Provision of community homes by local authorities]:
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Management and Conduct Community Homes]:
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Registration and regulation of voluntary homes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 45, line 17, leave out from ("is") to ("but") in line 18, and insert ("carried on by a voluntary organisation").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is intended to make clear that a voluntary home to be registered by the Secretary of State under Part VIII is a home carried on by a voluntary organisation, which is defined in Clause 76
332
as a body (other than a public or local authority) whose activities are not carried on for profit. A home carried on by any other private body, whether or not it is supported by voluntary contributions or endowments, has to register with the local authority as a registered children's home under Part VIII. The present definition of voluntary homes at Clause 49(3) leaves room for confusion as to which part of the bill applies to homes privately run for profit which receive support of this kind.
It is obviously desirable to make clear that definition. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Duties of voluntary organisations]:
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 115A:
Page 45, line 43, leave out ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 115B. These amendments reflect Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 which we considered earlier in Report stage and which will require a local authority to ascertain and give due consideration to the wishes and feelings of any other person, in addition to those already specified, whom it considers to be relevant when making any decision in respect of a child it is looking after. Amendments Nos. 115A and 115B would impose a similar duty on voluntary organisations in respect of any child who is accommodated by them or on their behalf. We shall be making similar amendments to Clause 54(2) which concerns the responsibilities of persons carrying on registered children's homes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 115B:
Page 46, line 2, at end insert ("and
(d) any other person whose wishes and feelings the organisation consider to be relevant,".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52 [Returns of information]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 115C:
Page 47, line 21, leave out Clause 52.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 123A, 123D, 123F, 124A, 124B and 124C. This series of amendments would rearrange certain provisions in the Bill, principally those in Clauses 63 and 64, but they will not actually change the substance of those clauses.
At present Clause 52 provides for returns of information to be transmitted from voluntary organisations to the Secretary of State. Clause 63 provides for the Secretary of State and local authorities to conduct or assist other persons in conducting research, and for the Secretary of State to provide financial support for specified activities

333
including child care training. Clause 64 concerns returns of information from local authorities and from the courts, and the Secretary of State's duty to lay an abstract of information before Parliament each year, and related research.
Partly as a result of considering the most appropriate location for the additional provisions on training, which I shall be moving later, we concluded that a better structure would be to concentrate in Clause 63 the Secretary of State's powers to give financial support and for Clause 64 to contain all provisions regarding the collection and use of information: that is to say, returns of information, research, presentation of information to Parliament and, if Amendment No. 124D to be taken later is accepted, the review of training by the Secretary of State. Further amendments in my name make minor clarifying amendments to the references to child care training in the proposed revised Clause 63.
These immediate amendments are limited to effecting the improvements to the arrangements of these clauses and, as I have said, make no changes of substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Voluntary Homes and Voluntary Organisations]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 116:
Page 99, line 38, leave out paragraph 7(2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to point out for the record that the Marshalled List should read:
"leave out paragraph 7(2)".
Only part of the paragraph is surplus. The amendment is not moved.
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Children not to be cared for and accommodated in unregistered children's homes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 116A:
Page 47, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The register may be kept by means of a computer.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replaces the present subsection (2) of Clause 53 with one allowing local authorities to keep their register of registered children's homes by means of a computer. There is a similar provision in respect of voluntary homes at Clause 49(2). The present subsection (2) adds nothing to subsection (1) which makes clear that no child may be cared for or provided with accommodation in a children's home, whether on behalf of a local authority or placed privately, unless it is registered in accordance with Part VIII. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Welfare of children in children's homes]:
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Persons disqualified from carrying on, or being employed in, registered homes]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 50, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("(2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 119. I have said on previous occasions that we wish to align the various provisions of the Bill wherever possible, and this is a further example. These amendments will therefore make the offence provision at Clause 55(4) and (5) reflect the equivalent provisions at Clause 60(1)(d) and 60(2). These relate, respectively, to offences of employing persons disqualified from caring for children under Clause 58 in a registered children's home, and privately fostering a child while living in the same household as a disqualified person or in one in which such a person is employed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 50, line 9, at end insert—
("(5) Where a person contravenes subsection (2) he shall not be guilty of an offence if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the person whom he was employing was disqualified under section 58.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Registered Children's Homes]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 104, line 23, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prohibiting the use of secure accommodation in registered children's homes.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to prevent private children's homes from using secure accommodation. In the debate in Committee on this issue the noble and learned Lord agreed that the Government had no intention of approving secure accommodation in either voluntary or private registered children's homes. However, he said that the Bill had made provision for this in case at some later time the Government changed their mind on this point. Some noble Lords were mystified by that comment because firm commitments had earlier been made that that would never happen.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell cif Alloway, pointed out, this is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs. If the Government do not wish to exercise these powers now, and do not intend for the foreseeable future to do so, they should wait until they have reached that point and then explain to Parliament why they need the powers.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor also said that he could not see why the mere fact that the organisation is voluntary makes it impossible for the organisation to provide that help to the child—by "help" he meant locking him up in secure accommodation—if it should be necessary. He repeated that observation a number of times.
The amendment leaves aside the question of voluntary organisations and focuses solely on private homes. These are establishments which do not have long and distinguished track records in child care. In fact, they are as yet unregulated so no one knows how many there are or how they are run. More

335
importantly, unlike voluntary organisations, they are run for a profit. I believe that to be an extremely important consideration.
There are very sound reasons why we should not allow profit-making private secure units for children. First, research has shown that the use of secure accommodation is to a significant extent dependent on the number of locked places available within the care system. Where there are secure beds, they are likely to be filled. That makes the secure accommodation issue quite different from the question of privatising prisons. There the growing number of prisoners arises from courts imposing custodial sentences and not from the number of prison places available. However, in the child care system, even with strict approval of privately-run secure units, there would be no way of stopping a flourishing market in privately-run units taking troublesome teenagers off social workers' hands and locking them up. That phenomenon has already been witnessed in the United States and should be resisted in this country.
Secondly, it is abhorrent that profits should be made from locking up children. The noble and learned Lord may wish to dissociate himself from the idea that secure accommodation for children is in any sense a prison or has any connotation of that sort. Unfortunately, secure accommodation, however much the staff within help the children, is indeed a prison in that it locks up children. Certainly the young people within secure units would not agree with him. It does not help the child care system to deal with euphemisms and wish away reality. It is that sort of approach which allows lock-ups which should be used sparingly as a last resort to become a commonplace method of dealing with difficult young people.
Finally, this amendment places on the Secretary of State a mandatory duty which should deal with the objections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, when he said in Committee that he thought the amendment I then moved would have no effect. I hope that has dealt with that problem and I hope he agrees with that.
I believe that this is a very important amendment. I feel strongly about it and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, perhaps I may support this amendment. For something like 10 years or more I was responsible for a children's home. In no circumstances could the atmoshpere have been better as regards home, family, and so on; it was wonderful. If one suddenly puts into a home a child who is to be locked up, then that sort of atmosphere will be absolutely impossible. I believe that it would be madness to allow such a thing to happen in a home as described in the Bill. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will accept this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I recognise the purpose of this amendment; namely, that registered children's homes should not in any circumstances restrict the liberty of their residents; hence the proposed requirement that the Secretary of
336
State must make regulations prohibiting the use of secure accommodation in such homes. I believe that no one could suggest that this amendment does not place a mandatory duty on the Secretary of State.
Noble Lords may recollect that, when we debated a similar amendment at Committee stage, I explained that the reason for the existing regulation-making power dealing with secure accommodation in subparagraph (2)(i) of paragraph 10 of the schedule, which incidentally is unaffected by the amendment under discussion, though clearly is not compatible with it, was that the Secretary of State wished to retain some flexibility to respond to possible future changing circumstances on this issue, if he considered it appropriate to do so. As I said on the previous occasion, at this stage the Secretary of State has no current intention to grant his approval to the use of secure accommodation in private children's homes, and thus the restriction of the liberty of residents will not be legally possible. To that extent, therefore, there is nothing between us.
Where we part company, so to speak, is on the issue of whether this should be an irrevocable state of affairs. The noble Baroness, in moving this amendment, and my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood in supporting it, have made it quite clear that in their/view there is no place for private children's homes using secure accommodation, and that such provision should be confined to establishments provided by central and local government. I do not necessarily subscribe to that view. In principle, there is nothing to suggest that a private children's home could not provide an equivalent standard of care in a secure facility as is found elsewhere in the local authority sector. Such facilities would be required to meet the same standards of physical provision as are imposed on local authorities, to satisfy the same standards of care and treatment, and comply with the same legislative safeguards.
The question is posed: what are the likely changing circumstances which would lead the Secretary of State to consider giving his approval to the provision of secure accommodation in a private children's home? While I cannot forecast what might happen in the future, it may be helpful to bear in mind that secure accommodation within the child care sector is currently provided by local authorities in community homes or directly by the Department of Health in two youth treatment centres. The provision of secure accommodation by local authorities is discretionary. It is entirely up to them whether they provide a unit, or indeed close an existing unit.
Because of the relatively small demand for such accommodation, most units are provided by one authority on behalf of a group of authorities, or a region of the country. If a unit is closed, perhaps against the wishes of the other using authorities, it leaves a potential vacuum which may need to be filled. It may be, and I am speaking hypothetically here, that rather than a local authority meeting the shortfall in accommodation, a registered children's home may offer to make appropriate provision. If that is what the local authorities want, then the Secretary of State would be able to respond to that situation.

337
The noble Baroness referred to my use of the word "help". 1 believe that the only proper use of secure accommodation in the care situation is in the shape of help. I agree that that involves restricting the child's liberty, but that is done in the interests of the child, either to protect the child from injuring himself, having regard to his history of absconding, or to prevent the child from injuring others. I do not believe that it is right—and this is the point which I tried to emphasise by using the word "help"—to think of accommodation in a secure unit as in any sense punishment or anything of that sort. That is not the idea behind it. However, in the provisions of this Bill it is in the nature of a form of protection which unfortunately some children need but which requires to be very carefully controlled. The Secretary of State has power to do that by regulation.
It is possible that the Secretary of State may never wish to give his approval to the provision and use of secure accommodation in private children's homes. But this Bill is intended to establish a long-term framework for the provision of services for children and, as such, we think it is appropriate that it should contain powers for the Secretary of State to respond to changing circumstances in this admittedly difficult area, if he thought it necessary to do so.
Another way to look at this is that when one comes to look at protection in respect of secure accommodation, which we are considering in the light of the amendment moved earlier by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway and which has been mentioned once or twice, it is right that the protection and procedures which have to be followed should be tested hard so that they should be applied appropriately to any form of secure accommodation. I hope that with that further explanation the noble Baroness may feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am not at all satisfied with the reply of the noble and learned Lord. It is totally repugnant to me that private homes, where one pays for children to go, should have the ability to lock up children. I believe it is a matter of principle and I disapprove strongly of it. The noble and learned Lord says that children are not shut up for punishment. I believe that in some cases they may well be. Admittedly that could very often be to save themselves from doing damage to themselves or others. However, I feel very strongly on this matter and I believe it would be simpler to test the opinion of the House.
6.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 120) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 67.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Blyth, L.

Ardwick, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Banks, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Birk, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cottesloe, L.

338

David, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Meston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Mishcon, L.

Foot, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Galpern, L.

Ponsonhy of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Greenway, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Seebohm, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shannon. E.

Hunt, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Somers, L.

Jeger, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Lawrence, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Willis, L.

McNair, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Arran, E. [Teller.]

Malmesbury, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Astor, V.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Mersey, V.

Balfour, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Belstead, L.

Morris, L.

Bessborough, E.

Mostyn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Munster, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Nelson, E.

Carnock, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Orkney, E.

Crathorne, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Erroll, E.

Reay, L.

Ferrers, E.

Renwick, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hesketh, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Hives, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Strange, B.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Kimball, L.

Trafford, L.

Kitchener, E.

Tryon, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:—
("Notification to local authority.
.—(1) Except in circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) no person shall foster a child privately unless he has at least two weeks before the child becomes a privately fostered child given notice in writing of his intention to foster the child privately to the local authority in whose area the child is to live.
(2) The circumstances are that the child becomes a privately fostered child in an emergency, in which event that person shall give notice within 48 hours thereafter.
(3) A local authority may at any time revoke an authority given under subsection (1).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 56 deals with private arrangements for foster children. The amendment provides that:
"Except in circumstances mentioned in subsection (2) no person shall foster a child privately unless he has at least two weeks before

339
the child becomes a privately fostered child given notice in writing of his intention to foster the child privately to the local authority in whose area the child is to live."
There follows subsection (2):
"The circumstances are that the child becomes a privately fostered child in an emergency, in which event that person shall give notice within 48 hours thereafter."
Subsection (3) continues:
"A local authority may at any time revoke an authority given under subsection (1)".
This is an important amendment which was discussed at an earlier stage and the circumstances giving rise to the amendment were dealt with in some detail by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. These amendments, Nos. 121 and 123, are supported by the Save the Children Fund, which has been very much advised in this matter by the African Family Advisory Service. It appears that 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the children who are placed in private foster care in England and Wales are of West African parents. It is estimated that there are about 2,300 West African children in foster homes in England and Wales. Serious difficulties have arisen from the failure of some foster parents to give adequate notice of their intention to receive children into care. The authorities have little or no control over the flow of private foster children into their areas and, as the African Family Advisory Service has expressed it, they are faced with an uphill struggle to keep tabs on the children and to know what is happening to them.
We believe that an effective notification procedure in private fostering has a crucial part to play in affording private foster children a degree of protection. If local authorities are to exercise their powers effectively, at least they should know which homes in their areas are being used for private fostering. In our view, notification of an intention to foster is of crucial importance. That is why we have put down these amendments which are so strongly and authoritatively supported. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards Amendment No. 121, it is our intention to make regulations under the regulation-making power in Schedule 7 and specifically paragraph 7(2)(d). I shall refer to that because it deals with the point expressly. It says:
"The regulations may, in particular … require any person who proposes to foster a child privately to notify the appropriate authority of his proposal",
thus requiring prospective foster parents to give notice of their intention to foster a child privately to local authorities.
It is more appropriate for the detailed requirements suggested in this amendment to appear in those regulations along with any other detailed requirements concerning notice, rather than on the face of the Bill, which should deal with primary provisions. It may seem odd, I suggest, to place obligations on prospective foster parents on the face of the Bill but leave corresponding obligations on the natural parents and third parties to regulations. They should also be involved in notification. We shall certainly want to provide in the regulations for a period of minimum notice and for emergency placements. I am not sure that two weeks is quite
340
sufficient given that authorities will have inquiries to make. The point will be considered carefully when the time comes to make regulations.
The offence provision provided for in Amendment No. 123 is, I imagine, intended to be consequential on Amendment No. 121, but it will also be unnecessary as Clause 60(1)(a) already provides for an offence of failing to give the notice which will be required under regulations within the time specified. The words in subsection (1)(a),
"under any provision made by or under this Part"
cover regulations made under Schedule 7. The noble and learned Lord has drawn attention to the importance of the matter and we certainly regard it so. The power to make regulations is drawn in terms that focus particular attention on this important matter. In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord mentioned Schedule 7, paragraph 7(2)(d), which states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to require any person who proposes to foster a child privately, to notify the appropriate authority".
What happens if he does not? What are the sanctions?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I sought to deal with that by referring to Clause 60(1)(a), which provides for an offence of failing to give the notice required under regulations within the time specified. The words in subsection (1)(a),
"under any provision made by or under this Part,"
cover regulations under Section 7. If there is a breach of the regulations under Section 7 there will be an offence under Clause 60(1)(a). I believe that is the answer.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have a question that probably arises out of my ignorance. When is fostering not fostering? If parents ask a friend to take a child in for a while, do they have to notify that? I recall that when I was on the staff of the London School of Economics we had a number of African Students. They had arrangements among themselves whereby people they knew looked after their children. Does that constitute fostering or is such an arrangement permitted? Quite a lot of it goes on.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I cannot do better than refer to the definition, which states:
56.—(1) In this Part—
(a) "a privately fostered child" means a child who is under the age of sixteen and who is cared for, and provided with accomodation by, someone other than—

(i) a parent of his;

(ii) a person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; or

(iii) a relative of his;".

The other point that should be mentioned is that subsection (2) of the definition clause says:
"A child is not a privately fostered child if the person caring for and accommodating him—

(a) has done so for a period of less than 28 days; and

(b) does not intend to do so for any longer period.".

341
If the arrangement that the noble Baroness has described was with a person who is not in the category of a parent, a person with parental responsibility or a relative and the child was there for longer than 28 days, it will be a fostering arrangement under the Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, in the light of the practical significance and importance of requiring notification and the experiences that have been received as regards these West African children, the requirement for proper notice to be given before the fostering takes place is of immediate significance. It should have been included, not in regulations not yet seen in any detail but on the face of the Bill. This is a familiar theme. I fear that we have not had any success in bringing the matter home to roost. We shall have to give further thought to it. There is yet another stage to come. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57 [Welfare of privately fostered children]:
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Clause 60 [Offences]:
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Clause 63 [Financial support by Secretary of State]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123A:
Page 56, leave out lines 24 to 44.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No. 115C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123B:
Page 57, line 3, after ("undergoing") insert ("approved").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 123C, 123E, 123G and 124D. The most important of these is Amendment No. 124D. These amendments are concerned with the question of child care training. We discussed these matters at some length during the Committee stage. I do not wish to subject your Lordships to a repetition of what I said on that occasion. Amendments Nos. 123B, 123C, 123E and 123G are to some extent consequential on Amendment No. 124D. They concern a change in the definition of child care training which removes the qualification that it must be approved by the Secretary of State. An additional definition of "approved child care training" is, however, introduced.
The Secretary of State will still be empowered to contribute towards costs and expenses incurred by persons providing or undergoing approved child care training, but his duty to review training extends to all child care training. A duty to review would be of limited value if it were restricted to only a part of the general training provision that is available. I believe that Amendment No. 124D, which is the principal amendment, together with other measures, many of
342
which I mentioned on that earlier occasion, will fully meet the concerns expressed by our Lordships.
This amendment will require the Secretary of State to keep under review the adequacy of the provision of child care training. It requires him to consider all manner of child care training, including training for those working in residential and day care settings as well as field social work. Specialised training needs—for example, court work or those skills particularly needed in a multi-disciplinary setting—would be covered, as would be the need to extend and develop post qualifying courses, a task that has already begun through the joint working group with local authority associations, training and professional bodies to which I referred at Committee stage.
A systematic process of review requires that representations from key bodies are taken into account; and that is provided for in the amendment. Key bodies will he involved including representatives of employers and the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work who will be able to provide necessary data, in addition to that obtained through the annual collection of data for report to Parliament. By this means it should be possible to obtain an overview of the sufficiency of training required.
We have listened carefully to the contributions made to the debate in this House and elsewhere. These amendments will provide for the Secretary of State to take a valuable overview of training needs in this area. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, at the previous stage of the Bill I moved an amendment on training for social work. I believe profoundly that the Bill will not succeed unless social workers in all spheres are well trained. I welcome the amendments and I thank the noble and learned Lord and all concerned for the great thought that has been given to them. I am sure that the world of social work will be grateful.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I similarly welcome what has been introduced by the noble and learned Lord. It meets the anxieties that were previously expressed. We are most grateful.
Baroness David: My Lords, we are grateful that there is something about training in the Bill because there was nothing originally. Thanks co the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the Government have thought fit to put something in. That is very good. The amendment states:
"The Secretary of State shall keep under review the adequacy of the provision of child care training … shall receive and consider any information".
But will he have to do anything about it? I do not see anything in the amendment, which may be due to my own stupidity. I should like to have a reassurance that, having considered the adequacy and perhaps finding it inadequate, something will be done about it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to keep under review the adequacy of the provision of child care training. That continuing responsibility is put on him. I do not think

343
the provision specifies in any detail precisely what he would be expected to do about it. That is a matter for the Secretary of State in the first instance and for Parliament in the discharge of his responsibility to Parliament. What is important is that he will have the necessary basis of information which is so vital to proper consideration of the matter.
This is the framework under which the matters can be considered. It would not be appropriate in this Bill to go further than that because, as 1 said at Second Reading, the precise provision depends on the appropriate supply. This amendment does what is wanted in giving the basis for Parliament to consider these matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123C:
Page 57, line 5, at end insert ("approved").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 123B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123D:
Page 57, line 36, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 115C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123E:
Page 57, line 37, leave out ("approved by the Secretary of State and").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 123B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123F:
Page 57, line 41, leave out ("subsection (1)(a)") and insert ("section 64(5)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 115C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 123G:
Page 57, line 46, after ("purposes") insert—
("and "approved child care training" means child care training which is approved by the Secretary of State").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 123B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Seebohm Lord Seebohm had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 124:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause:
("Review of child care training.
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in consultation with such bodies or persons as may appear to him to be appropriate, keep under review the adequacy of child care training approved by him under section 63(8) of this Act, and the sufficiency of the numbers of persons in such training, for affording the due discharge of the duties of employment therein referred to.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament an annual report on the review referred to in subsection (1) above, together with such recommendations as may appear to him to be appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, I shall be dealing with the amendment. It was put down before we knew what form the noble and learned Lord's amendment would take. The noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady David, expressed their gratitude for that amendment and I should like to echo that sentiment. We are delighted with Amendment No. 124D which meets our points very well indeed. Subsection (2) refers to an annual report. Whether the noble and learned Lord thinks that that is necessary, I do not know. Perhaps he will give the matter a little thought and if he wishes to bring that in at a later stage he will do so.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 64 [Returns of information to Parliament]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 124A to 124C:
Page 58, line 4, at beginning insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may conduct, or assist other persons in conducting, research into any matter connected with—

(a) his functions, or the functions of local authorities, under the enactments mentioned in subsection (5);

(b) the adoption of children; or

(c) the accommodation of children in a residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home.

( ) Any local authority may conduct, or assist other persons in conducting, research into any matter connected with—

(a) their functions under the enactments mentioned in subsection (5):

(b) the adoption of children; or

(c) the accommodation of children in a residential care home, nursing home or mental nursing home.").

Page 58, line 14, at end inser—
("(1A) Every voluntary organisation shall, at such times and in such form as the Secretary of State may direct, transmit to him such particulars as he may require with respect to children accommodated by them or on their behalf.").
Page 58, line 21, leave out ("and (2) and under section 52") and insert ("(1 A) and (2)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 115C. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 124D:
Page 58, line 24, at end insert—
("(4A) The Secretary of State shall keep under review the adequacy of the provision of child care training and for that

345
purpose shall receive and consider any information from or representations made by—

(a) the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work;

(b) such representatives of local authorities as appear to him to be appropriate; or

(c) such other persons or organisations as appear to him to be appropriate,

concerning the provision of such training.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 123B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 124E:
Page 58, line 30, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("local authorities").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 124F. These amendments are merely improvements in drafting. In the context of Clause 64, especially as amended, it is more appropriate to refer to "local authorities" in the plural in these instances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 124F:
Page 58, line 32, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("local a uthorities").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 124G:
Before Clause 65, insert the following new clause:
("Cruelty to children under 16.
. Section 1(7) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (which provides that that section shall not affect the right of parents and others to administer punishment) is hereby repealed.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for arresting this rapid progress but I think we should stop at this station to consider the amendment. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 130B. The noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Elliot of Harwood, and I wish to move the amendment because we think that the position was left in an unsatisfactory state in Committee. The amendments were first moved in Committee on 23rd January. We have tabled them again because we believe that the Children Bill is in large part a response to the universal concern about child abuse. In our view the repeal of Section 1(7) of the 1933 Act is an essential and, I would say, moderate part of that response.
Perhaps I may point out the effect of Section 1 of the 1933 Act. That section criminalises cruelty, including assault, ill-treatment and neglect, which is:
"likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury".
Section 1(7) of the Act, which we seek to repeal, states that nothing in the section shall affect parents' and
346
other carers' rights to punish children. We also feel, with the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that in his response to the amendments put forward in Committee he appears to have been quite simply mistaken—if that is not too indelicate a word—in his opinion that the effect of this repeal would be to create, I quote his words, "complete obscurity".
We very much hope that on reflection the noble and learned Lord will be prepared to accept that, far from creating obscurity or confusion, the amendments would clarify the law. Indeed, that certainly is my aim. The amendments would make clear the fact that our society will not tolerate physical punishment which amounts to cruelty; that is, action:
"likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury".
Surely it is uncontroversial, given our heightened awareness and concern about child abuse, that parents must be given a clear message that punishment amounting to cruelty—that is, punishment which is "likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury"—is abuse and should be treated as abuse. I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who unfortunately is not in his seat at present, will wish to join with me in this repeal because surely he would not wish punishment of children to be such as "likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury".
I have discovered from research, kindly carried out by staff in the Library, that Section 1(7) has not been debated in Parliament for a century; that is, since 1889. It is true that it was consolidated in 1894, in 1904 and, again, in 1933. But, on each occasion, it was done without debate.
Surely our standards of treatment of children have changed during this century. Is it not therefore time that we removed from our children's law a provision which suggests to parents that physical punishment, "likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury" is condoned, or even endorsed? That car.not be right and it is for this reason that we seek to remove the provision from the statute book.
The contention that I wish to put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is this. It is the provision contained in Section 1(7) which causes confusion, not its repeal—as the noble and learned Lord sought to suggest in Committee. Therefore it is that proposition which I hope I have persuaded the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the House to accept.
I also hope that the noble and learned Lord and the House will accept that the amendment in no way interferes with parents' long-established rights in common law; that is, to use punishment with restraint and moderation. There has been no need for statutory confirmation of that right in common law. The law on assault, including petty assault—which contains no mention of parents' punishment rights—has always been interpreted as excluding petty assaults by parents in the course of punishment.
In Committee two Members opposed the amendments. One was the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, to whom I have already made reference. The other was the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun of

347
Abernethy, who I see is present in the Chamber. The noble Lady can continue to punish her children with petty assaults, such as cuffing, if the amendment is passed. Indeed she need not have any worries on that score. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, can continue to beat his children, provided that the physical punishment to his children is used with "restraint and moderation". Therefore he can carry on doing that if he so wishes. I think that that should satisfy the objections expressed by him and the noble Lady in Committee.
After the debate in Committee the Children's Legal Centre sought an opinion from an eminent QC, Mr. Stephen Sedley. I am happy to say that a copy of that opinion has been given to the noble and learned Lord and I hope that he has had time to read it since his return from foreign parts. In his conclusion Mr. Sedley said:
"In my respectful opinion … the repeal of Section 1(7) is neither otiose nor a source of doubt. It would unify the law of cruelty so as to make it clear that parents have no special right to be cruel to their children in breach of Section 1(1), but only the well-established right, for which Section 1(7) is not required, to punish with restraint and moderation".
I should have thought that that was clear enough. Mr. Sedley has good reason to be concerned with such matters. As the House may know, he recently had the unenviable task of presiding over a committee of inquiry into the tragic death of a London child—namely, Tyra Henry—following abuse by one of her kin.
As I have said, the principal reason for my returning to the amendment is to remove any confusion that the law condones cruel punishment,
"likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury".
I shall leave to others the task of speaking more generally on the matter. I must say that I share the general aim that we should be moving away from hitting children altogether; that is, in the infliction of pain as a form of punishment by parents, or anyone else.
Long ago our society decided that it was unacceptable to hit wives, servants and apprentices. We have gone on, after long and painful consideration, to end judicial corporal punishment. We have ended corporal punishment in the armed forces and, over the past few years, we have ended corporal punishment in state-supported education. Moreover, we recently received an assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to end—if not all at once—such punishment in all child care institutions.
In Committee on 7th February, this place failed, to my mind regrettably, but only by a narrow margin, to extend the ban on hitting children, other than with restrained and moderation, by foster parents. That adverse vote was due largely to a misunderstanding of the law by this place; and—dare I say it?— a misunderstanding of the law by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The amendments give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor an opportunity to restate the law, I hope in agreement with my submission, and for this place to agree with the amendment without a vote. The amendment also gives the noble and learned Lord an opportunity today to state the
348
Government's attitude towards the punishment of children by their parents in general. If it is too early for him to make such a statement, it would be welcome on Third Reading. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that, despite his amendment, I should still be able to smack my children. I should like to assure him that he explained the amendment so well that, even without his specific permission, I realised that that would be the case.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, this is the third time that I have spoken on this subject. I shall not delay your Lordships for long because you must be rather bored by the sound of my voice.
Noble Lords: Never!
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I wish to support the proposals contained in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady David. As the noble Lord said, the amendment does not trespass on parents' common law rights, but would, I hope, discourage them from inflicting moderate corporal punishment. A simple slap would not be prevented.
I am more and more convinced as I read accounts of child abuse that violence by a child is often the result of the way a child has been treated, which is often with corporal punishment. It makes things worse rather than better. Surely in 1989 we do not wish to stick to the methods that applied 50 years ago, and also, according to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, 100 years ago.
When I originally moved the amendment, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it would interfere with common law rights. I understand that that point has now been made clear and that it does not in any way interfere. I beg the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to accept the amendment as showing that we are a civilised community and not one that uses the methods of 50 and 100 years ago.
Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has made it clear that our main purpose in tabling the amendments again is to remove any confusion about whether the law tolerates cruel punishment likely to cause cruel suffering or injury. We do not seek to tamper with parents' common law rights to use reasonable corporal punishment. We need to emphasise that point again and again.
I too hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will now accept that the amendment will not cause complete obscurity but will remove undesirable confusion. I hope that those noble Lords who persist in defending the use of corporal punishment will feel able to support the amendment, because while not tampering with parent's rights, it helps to draw the line necessary to prevent cruelty even when administered in the name of punishment.
I should like to expand on our other reason for tabling the amendment. It is the desire to discourage the physical punishment of children, although I know

349
that some Members of your Lordships' House will not agree with me. We use a number of comfortable euphemisms to describe hitting children—smacking, spanking, etc. That disguises what in every case amounts to the deliberate infliction of physical pain by a large person on a smaller one. That act is bound to be humiliating and degrading for the child.
Our society has only recently come to accept the frequency and seriousness of child abuse. Lord Justice Butler-Sloss—I believe that I am correct in speaking of her as Lord Butler-Sloss despite what my noble and learned friend says—in her much admired report on the unfortunate events in Cleveland, prefaced her recommendations on children which were given pride of place, with the phrase which has been used many times but which is still worth repeating:
"The child is a person, not an object of concern."
The basic argument against hitting children is that they are people and hitting people is wrong. Surely none of us would argue for a return to the days when our common and statute law endorsed the physical punishment of servants, apprentices and even wives.
Most of us would admit having been hit as children. I was and I resented it. We have varying degrees of remorse for having cuffed our own children. I also plead guilty to that. I always felt ashamed afterwards. That does not mean that as a society we should continue to promote the message that physical punishment is acceptable, even desirable. Occasional smacking is one end of a continuum of violence towards children. At the other end are the tragic cases of children killed at the hands of their parents.
Studies of reported cases of serious child abuse in Finland, the United States and New Zealand have found that between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. of them started as "ordinary" incidents of physical punishment. There are volumes of research findings linking physical punishment in childhood with later violence and with acting-out behaviour and delinquency, as well as with adult depression and alcoholism. We shall only break the cycle of violence against children when we as a society accept that hitting children is wrong, and give parents a clear message that physical punishment is unacceptable.
When the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, including our own Foreign Secretary, considered in 1985 what should be done about family violence, it adopted recommendation No. 85(4) advising all member states:
"to review their legislation on the power to punish children in order to limit or indeed prohibit corporal punishment, even if violation does not necessarily entail a criminal penalty."
The explanatory memorandum states that the Committee felt that corporal punishment was an evil which must at least be discouraged as a first step towards outright prohibition. It is the very assumption that corporal punishment of children is legitimate that opens the way to all kinds of excesses.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will see the amendment as a positive response to that recommendation. In the United Kingdom, the Government appointed Children's Committee in one
350
of its last reports in 1981—I know that the noble Baroness regretted its demise as much as many of the rest of us—recommended that we should:
"embark on a progressive programme, governed by a specific timescale, to eliminate the use of corporal punishment on children and young people."
It is high time that we took the first step towards ending the acceptability of physical punishment of children in our society. That is the serious purpose of the amendment. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will now feel that he can accept it and write it into the Bill. The step that we are asking for is a small one.
Lord Seebohm: My Lords, my name does not appear against the amendment although it appeared against a previous one. For what it is worth, I should like to make it clear that I still strongly support the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may say what a pleasure it is that the amendment so far has the unanimous approval of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, introduced the amendment. He suggested, with the courtesy that one would expect, that I got it wrong on the last occasion, in the sense that I said what the present law is. He referred to an opinion of an eminent senior counsel, and I of course have had the advantage of reading that opinion. The question is: is the amendment intended to remove the right of parents to administer punishment?
Lord Henderson of Brompton: No, my Lords.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is, if I may say so, a very good answer. The proviso that is being repealed, if the amendment is carried, is designed in pursuance of that right. The reason why it is there is because there existed and still exists such a right. I put the question in that way at the beginning because the noble Baroness, Lady David, as she warmed to the subject, particularly towards the end, was looking on this as a move towards the taking away altogether of that right. I shall not express a government view—
Baroness David: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, I think we all made it absolutely clear that the common law right of moderate and reasonable punishment would remain.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree that in certain parts of her speech the noble Baroness said that. However, I also think that on looking at the matter as a whole she was warming to the view that it should no longer be required, exhorting all of us to take that point of view. I shall not—
Baroness David: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me interrupting once again, it is what the amendment says that matters. I myself might prefer to go rather further, but we are now pursuing what the amendment says.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course there is always a possibility in debates like this that the amendment proposed and what is said in support of it do not entirely match one another. As regards this debate, I can well see the point of view that the noble Baroness and others were advocating. At one stage the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was fairly close to suggesting it.
The point I am making is that the common law recognises a right of a parent to administer reasonable chastisement to a child and but for the existence of the parental relationship that would be a physical assault. If one reads it, Section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 says that a reasonable chastisement as allowed by the common law might still amount to a breach of Section 1(1). It is to make clear that it does not, if it is only reasonable punishment, that Section 1(7) is included.
I have of course read Mr. Sedley's opinion with great care and I must say that so far he has not persuaded me, nor has the eloquence of your Lordships who have spoken, that Section 1(7) is not an appropriate provision as long as that right remains. If that right is to be removed—and on that point I am not expressing any government view at the moment—then Section 1(7) would certainly call for repeal. But Section 1(7) is there to make it clear that the all-embracing words of Section 1(1) do not cover a situation where moderate chastisement is being administered.
I believe that that is the position, and that to remove Section 1(7), unless one is going to abolish the right altogether, would be to cause confusion. One must well question whether Section 1(1) did not penalise reasonable punishment because punishment inflicts suffering and the suffering is unnecessary unless it is administered in pursuance of punishment. Therefore it is or it may be unnecessary suffering within the meaning of Section 1(1). The people who put the Act together—although it was 100 years ago—wanted to be sure that Section 1(1) did not transgress that provision.
I have read Mr. Sedley's opinion with great care and 1 have taken time to do that. I regret to say that is seems to me that he has not effectively dealt with the point. Therefore I fear I must adhere to the view that to amend or repeal Section 1(7) without facing up to whether the present right to inflict moderate physical punishment is to remain, is to introduce into the law an unnecessary complication and an ambiguity which is particularly important when we have to consider that Parliament has put up the sentence to quite a high level in respect of the Section 1(1) offence.
Mr. Sedley points out that in consequence recourse is had to this section. I understand the reasons which have been suggested, but I believe that repealing Section 1(7) by itself will do nothing but introduce a complication into the application of Section 1(1) of the Act of 1933.
I am not expressing any approval for the conduct that has been described, the kind of excess which has been referred to. But I believe it is important in this very central provision of our criminal law dealing with children that the law should be clear. If it is to be altered then it should be altered in a principled way
352
and not by this type of amendment. I hope that notwithstanding the view that has prevailed up until now, your Lordships will feel that that is the right course to take and that this amendment should not be agreed to.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made quite plain that he disagrees with the opinion of an eminent senior QC. I think those were his words. It would be quite wrong to put to the vote a dispute between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and an eminent senior QC on a matter as serious as this. I should not dream of asking the House to divide on the subject in view of that division of legal opinion.
I asked the noble and learned Lord whether he would give a view of the Government's attitude towards the corporal punishment of children by parents or guardians. Perhaps he might consider doing that if the matter is raised again on Third Reading. For my part, I consider that the dispute—if that is what it is—on the meaning of the law is so serious that it warrants being raised again on Third Reading. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of attempting to settle a matter like this by way of Division in the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that we can return to it on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that we have reached a good moment at which to break in order to return to the subject in an hour's time. If so, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. I suggest we resume at twenty minutes past eight.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee The Earl of Dundee rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 2nd February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is only about a month since this House debated the statutory instruments which closed our previous farm capital grant scheme, the Agriculture Improvement Scheme, to new applicants. At that time my noble friend Lady Trumpington explained that the new grant scheme, which had been announced by my right honourable friend the Minister in November, was still subject to discussion in Brussels. I am glad to report that these consultations were successfully completed at the end of last month, thus enabling us to lay these new instruments before Parliament for approval.
Your Lordships will be aware that the main thrust of the new scheme will be directed away from encouraging general increases in productive capacity towards more clearly defined targets reflecting our

353
current priorities. These are for measures to combat on-farm pollution; to assist farmers with the costs of conservation; to continue special help to the horticulture industry; and to maintain rather than increase productive capacity in the extensive livestock sector. Given the marked shift in the balance of expenditure under our previous scheme (the Agriculture Improvement Scheme) in favour of the less favoured areas we have also redressed that a little by cutting the differential between less favoured areas and non-less favoured area grant rates. Indeed, in the case of a few items—in particular, pollution control—where the pressures on farmers are as acute in the lowlands as in the less favoured areas we are introducing a uniform rate of grant.
Let me now say a little more about some of the details. My right honourable friend the Minister announced in November that he had secured provision of up to £50 million over the next three years for grants on pollution control. This has enabled us to set a 50 per cent. grant rate for this type if investment. This will be the highest rate of grant ever offered for effluent facilities in the lowlands where, with the predominance of dairy farms, the potential for pollution is particulalry severe. This substantial increase in the lowland grant rate underlines our firm commitment to dealing with the problem of pollution caused by farm operations. Not only have we made a substantial increase in the lowland grant rate, we have also extended the coverage of the grant to include fixed disposal piping and safety fences. In addition, we have lifted a number of the restrictions on grant which previously applied to the intensive livestock sector.
We shall continue under the new scheme to aid investments in conservation, such as hedges, traditional stonewalls, shelter belts, stiles and footbridges. These will attract the new rates of 40 per cent. in the lowlands and 50 per cent. less favoured areas. At the same time we are increasing to these levels the rates for heather burning and bracken control. In addition we are introducing three new conservation grants for the regeneration of heather moors and native woodlands and for repairs to traditional farm buildings. The former will aid farmers for fencing stock out of heather moors and broadleaved woodlands for a period to allow natural regeneration. This should lead in time to better grazing and shelter for stock as well as increased conservation benefits.
Farmers will also be able to claim grants for the repair and reinstatement of buildings made of materials traditional in the locality—what is described in the schedule to the regulations as vernacular buildings—provided they undertake to keep these buildings in agricultural use for a period of 10 years. These grants will not only enhance the landscape and help to prevent dereliction; they will also enable the farmer to use existing assets more profitably.
As will be seen, we are continuing assistance towards agricultural improvements to investments which do not increase surplus production. We do not consider it right any longer to grant aid to new buildings and roads. Grants which maintain the
354
productive capacity of grazing land, such as reseeding and regeneration, fencing, energy-saving facilities, flood protection and replacement of under drainage are, however, being retained. These grants are of particular importance to hill farmers and to the extensive livestock industry. As under the Agriculture Improvement Scheme this category of grants will be available only to farmers who have an approved improvement plan.
Finally, as far as the horticulture sector is concerned, we see a strong case for continuing our programme of grants to assist the industry with the replacement of heated glasshouses and the installation of heating systems. The grants of up to 40 per cent and 35 per cent. for these items will be available from December when those still available under the Agriculture Improvement Scheme come to an end. We are also reintroducing, from the start of the F & CGS, grants for orchard replanting. These will be at 35 per cent. under improvement plans and 25 per cent. outside a plan.
My right honourable friend's earlier announcement about the changes to our system of farm capital grants was warmly welcomed by those who are concerned with the future of agriculture and the countryside. By that I mean not only conservation bodies but also the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association among others. In particular they have welcomed the increased grants for pollution control which will help many small businesses tackle what is a costly problem to remedy but one of pressing importance.
We believe that the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme responds to the current needs of the industry. It shifts the emphasis away from the increased production of unwanted surplus products and towards further help with investments which enhance our countryside. It also continues the well-established principle of offering additional support for the less favoured areas. I commend the draft regulations to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 2nd February be approved [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
7.26 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for explaining the import of the conservation grant scheme and the regulations attaching to it. I spoke in some detail from this side of the House at col. 400 on 19th January about this matter, so I am not proposing to repeat those remarks as the scheme confirms what we were told then and indeed further confirms the Written Answer announcing the prospect of change at col. 249 of the Official Report of 29th November 1988.
We are told—as indeed we knew—that one part of the scheme is backed by Community finance. So it has necessarily had to have the approval of the European Commissioners. That approval having been granted, the question naturally arises as to how much of the scheme now before us is still capable of amendment in the light of anything earth-shattering which may be said here tonight, or indeed may have been said in another place about it. If the answer is

355
that not much of the scheme is capable of change by reason of the Community requirement, if would be interesting to know whether the Minister can say anything about consultation between the Ministry of Agriculture and other interests prior to drawing up the details of the scheme now before us. For example, if there was consultations with organisations can we be told which organisations? Alternatively, if the scheme is entirely devised by the Ministry, then it would be useful to know that.
We give a general welcome to the scheme, in particular to its emphasis on conservation matters and the environment in general. We support the increased rates for effluent disposal, and for hedgerows and shelter belts. We regret the reductions of grant in less favoured areas, except for heather burning and bracken control. Although the Minister has given reasons by way of explaining why these reductions have taken place, I think it would be fair to say that they will not be welcomed in less favoured areas.
The new grant of 35 per cent. for repair and restoration of traditional buildings is welcome, but we wonder whether that percentage will suffice to arrest decay, particularly as traditional building materials are costly. Labour costs in undertaking such work at some distance from the builder's own premises may add to overall costs. The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 is nationally based, targeted at those who spend at least half of their time in agriculture and derive at least half of their income from it.
An object of the grant, as the noble Earl has said, is to help maintain vernacular buildings. I have added to my store of useless knowledge this evening by the use of the word "vernacular" which, for me, has always had a single context. Now it has another. The justification is that these vernacular buildings, if maintained, will make a contribution to maintaining the landscape. Therefore, we wonder whether the grant for their maintenance should not be available to anyone who has responsibility for such buildings and is prepared to maintain them and keep them in agricultural use.
Again, as I have said, these buildings are costly and they are not necessarily suited for modern agricultural use. So we wonder whether this limitation as to eligibility for the grant of half time in agriculture and half income from it should be looked at again in the light of the conservation aspect of this question.
Turning briefly and finally to the interpretation clause at page 2 of the regulations, this has cropped up before in your Lordships' House. I do not think it was answered particularly then, so I raise it again tonight. This refers to the interpretation given to the word "contractor" at page 2 which,
"means any person who enters into an agreement to supply agricultural work or services in connection with agricultural land".
That as a definition can stand by itself quite properly. However, when we come to paragraph 3 on page 8, where the question of eligibility for grants in respect of contractors is spelled out, that states:
"Where a person eligible for grant under paragraph (1) above is a contractor, it shall be a further condition of eligibility that he has
356
entered into a written agreement with the occupier of the land on which the eligible business is carried on which is expressed to continue in force for a period of not less than seven years from the day immediately preceding the day on which the improvement plan is submitted."
If "contractor" means contract farming, then a contract with a duration of seven years probably makes sense. But if it is "contractor" in the sense in which it is interpreted at page 2, I am bound to say that general experience is that there are very few contracts of such long duration in agriculture; that is to say, one does not bring in a man to do contract work and say to him: "If you come in, you can have a contract to do it for seven years."
So we wonder whether this confusion is bound up with the definition or whether, if the definition is to stand, the period of seven years is more of a disqualification than a qualification. With that query and the other points I have made, we welcome the changes which the scheme now before us provides.
7.30 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl for his explanation of these orders. I have to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that they landed on my desk rather late in the day today, but I shall do my best. My chief feeling on reading them was one of sympathy with the farmers who will have to try to understand them. I am afraid that the farmers who will do best out of this rigmarole are those who have access to a very clever accountant, and they are not necessarily the farmers who I would most want to see helped.
Of course we welcome the general tendency towards what one might call the green aspect, the conservation aspect. Perhaps I may make one or two detailed comments. The main question we have to ask is: will these regulations taken as a package help to keep farmers farming viably on the less helpful upland areas, many of which are threatened with depopulation? In particular, I question whether the 25 per cent. support for liming is high enough. Lime, like good honest muck, is one of the things you can put on the land without endangering your downstream neighbours, and I understand that the Ph value of some of our rivers has sunk to a dangerous level.
Lastly, why was it thought necessary to exclude cider apples and perry pears from the grants for replacement of apple and pear orchards? These are beautiful things. Many of them are somewhat superannuated and could well be replanted. I ask: what have the Government against cider and perry?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for introducing the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme and the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations. I welcome the fact that the scheme has been extended to encourage the regeneration of native woodlands and heather moorlands and to assist in the cost of repairs to vernacular buildings. One part of the scheme governed by the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations is backed with EC finance. It therefore has to be targeted to those who spend at least half their time in agriculture and derive at least half their income from it. However, the other part of

357
the scheme governed by the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme 1989 is nationally based.
The Government propose that anyone carrying on an agricultural business should be eligible to apply for a grant under this scheme with one exception. That exception is to be found under the heading "Restrictions on payment of grant" which is Section 4(1)(e) on page 8 and which refers to repairs to vernacular buildings. In this instance alone, applicants will have to demonstrate that they spend at least half their time in agriculture and derive at least half their income from it.
If the object of the grant is to help maintain vernacular buildings because of their contribution to the landscape, then the grant should be available to anyone who has responsibility for a building and is prepared to maintain it and keep it in agricultural use. Vernacular buildings are frequently unsuited to the needs of modern farming. To the extent that they are part of our heritage, their maintenance is likely to benefit the community and to be welcomed by the public at large.
To limit grants in the way proposed is divisive. Why should part-time farmers be treated differently from full-time farmers? It also implies that only those working in agriculture should be eligible for grant aid. This would rule out landlords who have a statutory obligation to repair tenants' buildings from applying for the grant unless they themselves are working farmers. That is inappropriate, as in some cases the tenant would have little interest in maintaining a building, but his landlord who would will be ineligible. Again I ask: why should these landlords be discriminated against in this way?
In the context of the scheme as a whole, it seems illogical that those who are eligible to receive grant aid for the protection of areas of grazed woodland and heather moorland from livestock should be denied grant to maintain vernacular buildings. I might add that there would also be an increase in bureaucracy, as it would require Ministry staff to check applicants' occupations and sources of income. I think the point should be made that conservation grants should be made available to all those who can achieve the functions laid down in the schedule to this scheme and should not be limited to one sector of the agricultural community.
I should like to ask my noble friend whether the proposals in the scheme are now written in stone, and if not whether he would be prepared to bring this problem to the attention of his right honourable friend. If they are so written, will the Minister be prepared to monitor very closely the take-up of the grant for the repair of these particular buildings, to make sure that the discrimination written into the scheme is not affecting the conservation objective proposed, and to review it accordingly?
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, we have had a useful but necessarily short debate on the new scheme. I am grateful to noble Lords for the general welcome they have given to it. I should like to respond to one or two of the points that were made.
358
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, asked whether it would be possible to make changes to these statutory instruments. Statutory instruments cannot be amended as a result of this debate. However, the scheme will be monitored and in the light of experience it could be amended by other statutory instruments if necessary at a later stage. The noble Lord also referred to consultations with other organisations on the preparation of the new scheme. Those consulted included the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council, the Forestry Commission, English Heritage, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, among others. The noble Lord also commented on the position with respect to contractors and mentioned the fact that contracts last for seven years. That covers share-cropping arrangements, but I shall write to the noble Lord on the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, also suggested that the level of grant for vernacular buildings was inadequate. That is a term which he said was new to his vocabulary, and it is certainly new to mine. The 35 per cent. grant is similar to grants of 40 per cent. offered by English Heritage for grade I and grade II buildings. English Heritage grants are discretionary. Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme grants will be available to farmers satisfying the conditions for eligibility even where the buildings are of lesser importance than those qualifying for grants from English Heritage.
Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McNair, I was intrigued by his reference to cider apples and perry pears. Special help has been targeted on dessert apples and pears because that is where foreign competition is keenest.
The noble Lord also touched on the theme of the less favoured areas and suggested that the cuts in grant rates imply that the Government are lessening their commitment to hill farmers. I do not believe that is so. The cuts in less favoured area grant rates are small and still leave a significant level of grant for anti-pollution and conservation work. Farmers in less favoured areas will get 50 per cent. grants which will apply to a wider range of items. For investment in production facilities such as grassland reseeding and regeneration, which are given a lower priority under this scheme, the grant will still be 25 per cent. All grants, except those for effluent facilities and traditional buildings, will be offered at a higher rate in the less favoured areas than in the lowlands. That is despite the fact that the pressures for improved conservation management are, if anything, even greater in the lowlands than in the hills.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater asked whether it is true that grants for traditional buildings will be confined to those spending half their time in agriculture and earning half their income from it, and if so what is the justification for that restriction. It is true that that condition will apply. I think that it is entirely reasonable that it should because this is, after all, a scheme for farmers. Other bodies such as English Heritage have wider responsibilities for the conservation of historic buildings of particular importance. Their grants, which are discretionary, will be available on rather different eligibility terms.

359
Under the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme we are concerned to help farmers to maintain traditional buildings in agricultural use or to restore them to such use. We are not grant-aiding conversions to living accommodation, craft workshops, and so on, or offering assistance for country dwellers in general.
My noble friend also asked how the restrictions on the grant would affect landlords and tenants. We should normally expect a grant application to originate with the tenant and that he would have consulted his landlord before starting work. However, the landlord may well receive the benefit of the enhanced value of a reinstated traditional farm building. It is for landlords and tenants to discuss and agree on the most appropriate grant-aided investment programme for the holding.
I hope that those comments may be of some help to your Lordships. Once again, I commend the draft orders to the House.
Baroness White: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he could enlighten me on one point, which I feel sure is familiar to every other noble Lord in the House. When reference is made to a part of a person's income, what happens to the income of his wife? On most farms the wife works just as hard and for quite as long as her husband.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I hope that I am right in saying that the two would be taken together.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1989
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd February be approved. [8th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.46 to 8.20 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 65 [Care and supervision orders in criminal proceedings]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 124H:
Page 58, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The power of a court to make a care order under section 7(7) of that Act is hereby abolished.
(3) Section 12 of that Act (power to include requirements in supervision orders) shall have effect subject to the amendments made in Schedule 8.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 65, as it currently appears on the face of the Bill, suggests that the new power of the court to attach a "removal from home" requirement to a supervision order in certain circumstances, is a direct replacement for the care order in criminal proceedings, which is to be abolished. That is not our intention. The new power is a disposal in its own right. The grounds for making it are quite different from those which currently apply to the making of a care order in criminal prceedings, and it is not our intention that it should be seen as a direct replacement for the care order. The proposed amendment clarifies our intention. With that short explanation, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Courts having jurisdiction under this Act]:
[Amendments Nos. 125 and 126 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Reporting officers and guardians ad litem for purposes of Adoption Act 1976]:
[Amendments Nos. 127 to I28A not moved.]
Clause 75 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 128B:
Page 64, line 5, beginning insert ("Save for any made under section 15(4) of this Act,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is important in its social implications and even more so in its constitutional implications. Your Lordships will remember that, when in the Report stage we came to Clause 15, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones moved to leave out subsection (4) of that clause. That was on the grounds that that clause gave extraordinary powers to the Secretary of State by regulation to modify, repeal (although that power has almost gone), add to and so on—in fact virtually to rewrite a part of the Act of Parliament—in particular, Part I of Schedule 2—which this Bill will become.
In spite of the great importance of this matter, I propose to deal with it as briefly as possible because my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, when replying to my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, made what I took to be at least mildly encouraging noises regarding the amendment.
The measure deals with the status of the regulations that can be made by the Secretary of State in a legislative capacity, modifying and adding to the statute on which your Lordships are at present engaged. If your Lordships look at Clause 75, you will see that all the regulations under this Bill are subject to the negative resolution procedure. These amendments—I am speaking to both Amendments Nos. 128B and 128C, which are connected—seek to state that the statutory power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 15(4) by regulations to legislate in a way that modifies an Act of Parliament should be by affirmative resolution. Your Lordships will probably consider that that is the very least that can be done. The practical difference is that, by the

361
affirmative procedure, the Minister has to lay the regulation before both Houses and explain what he is doing. Your Lordships will probably think that that is constitutionally the very least that can be expected.
Your Lordships will see that the amendments have wide support. I am sorry that, owing to limitation, the parties above the gangway on the noble Earl's side of the House could not be named. I have had assurances of wide support throughout your Lordships' House.
The appropriateness of negative and affirmative procedures respectively was considerably canvassed on the Legal Aid Bill and an extraordinary consensus emerged. We were greatly guided by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who unfortunately cannot be here this evening owing to a throat infection, by my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones and by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
The consensus was that one should look at each regulatory power and it should be classified as subject to affirmative or negative procedure according, in general, to its importance. If that is the right test—I have the quotation with me—this is the plainest of all possible cases. The subject matter of the regulatory power is most important. There have been a number of attempts, based on its importance, to move the subject matter from the schedule to the main body of the Bill. In addition, my noble friend Lord Henderson, with his authority as a member of the Renton Committee, felt that those provisions in Part I of Schedule 2 stated matters of principle as regards the basis on which the Renton Committee proceeded which quite apart from the social importance should have been in the body of the Bill.
Part I of Schedule 2 imposes important duties on local authorities. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor in his skilful defence of Clause 15(4) said that the law there is developing and it may be necessary to add new powers. So be it. But should they not be justified to Parliament? Should not the powers that are duties on local authorities be explicitly justified, albeit that they are in favour of children.
So much for the subject matter. There is also the constitutional aspect. These are unusual powers. They are powers to legislate statutorily. We are giving power to alter an Act of Parliament to a Minister to exercise by regulation. The Donoughmore Report of 1932—which your Lordships considered at an earlier stage when we were considering Clause 15(4)—found very limited use of those powers.They were all transitional or transitory. They were nevertheless at that time known as "Henry VIII clauses", being based on the power that was given to Henry VIII during the last eight years of his life, as a Statute of proclamations. It would hardly be possible to exaggerate the constitutional import of the regulatory powers with which these amendments are concerned.
However, there is also the question of precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack what recent precedents there were. My noble and learned friend
362
mentioned three. The first was the Health and Safety at Work Act. I am bound to say that I found the regulatory power under that Act almost impenetrable. There was a commission that had regulatory powers. There were two Ministers. Sometimes they had to act jointly, sometimes after consultation with each other, and often after consultation with the commission.
However, the next two Acts to which my noble and learned friend referred delicately by date—in order to remind my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who was in charge of the amendment at the time—were the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. In each of those Acts there was clear discrimination between negative and affirmative procedures. In the case of the Henry VIII clauses, both of those Acts stipulated for the affirmative resolution procedure.
It therefore comes to this. Both on principle and on precedent these amendments ought to be accepted, at least in spirit. I am not wedded to the drafting. The draftsman generally has his own way of setting about these matters, though I cleared them with the highest authority as to their form. But I shall be more than content if my noble and learned friend will accept the amendments in principle and bring forward his own amendments to implement that at Third Reading. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, I should like warmly to support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said. This is a matter that has concerned me and which I have raised before. Everything that he said is of supreme importance not only in relation to this Bill but in the way that we are handling all our legislation at the present time. I was not present when the debate took place on Clause 15 but I read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said in his very erudite speech. I cannot match such erudition but I share his feeling about provisions of this kind.
I noted that it was suggested that it might be possible at some stage to delete the word "repeal". However, the power to amend can be very wide also. It will be within your Lordships' recollection that a number of recent Acts of Parliament have given powers not only to amend but to repeal. I raised this matter on the Local Government Finance Bill on 13th July 1988, at col. 915 of Hansard. My concern then was that so many Bills were coming forward which gave quite extraordinary powers, permitting governments in effect to make new law as they go along.
Perhaps I may refer to what Section 147 in the Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides. Subsection (1) provides:
"The Secretary of State may at any time by order make such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions as appears to him to be necessary or expedient for the general purposes or any particular purposes of this Act or in consequence of any of its provisions or for giving full effect to it".
Subsection (2) states:
"An order under this section may in particular make provision for amending, repealing or revoking (with or without savings) any provision of an Act passed before or in the same session as this Act,

363
or of an instrument made under an Act before the passing of this Act, and for making savings or additional savings from the effect of any amendment or repeal made by this Act".
Subsection (5) states:
"In this section 'Act' includes a private or local Act".
I asked noble Lords to be aware of what they had done. We give these extraordinary powers to amend what is skeletal legislation. I suggested that one of the reasons is that Parliament cannot and does not deal adequately with the legislation that it is supposed to be scrutinising. The truth is that there are not enough draftsmen to go round.
I subsequently put down a Question to my noble friend Lord Belstead asking him how many parliamentary draftsmen are employed in the public service and what their average salary is. I was told that in the United Kingdom as a whole there are 45 full-time and three part-time draftsmen. Their average salary is £34,254 per annum. I suggest that that is why so much of the legislation coming before Parliament at the present time is in skeletal form, often totally incomprehensible, and includes these wide-ranging powers either to repeal or to amend the legislation by orders and regulations.
I suggested then that what we had to do was to monitor rather carefully these orders which were dealt with by negative resolution. However, I understand from the earlier debate that my noble and learned friend Lord Simon said that it is not the practice in this House to consider orders that are dealt with solely by negative resolution. If that is the practice, I think it ought to be amended.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if I may interrupt, I think I was incorrect about that. It is the practice not to divide against them.
Lord Rippon of Hexham: My Lords, perhaps that ought to be the practice with some of them if I may respectfully suggest it.
I noticed that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor (Hansard on 6th February 1989 at col. 1366) said:
"I accept that the scope for revision is not so great in a statutory instrument as it is for an ordinary Bill".
I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it is not possible to amend but only to reject the statutory rule and order. Perhaps it is not wholly correct (if I may say so with respect) simply to say that the opportunities of amendment are not so great. The trouble with so many of these orders and regulations is that when they come forward we are told that it is a matter of urgency. Therefore if it is rejected, some benefit will not be able to be paid and so the pressure is on. The pressure is on not only in terms of letting it go through, but there is also the pressure on parliamentary time.
Reference has been made to the various precedents which are cited. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has referred to some of those. This matter came up again on 14th February in relation to the Companies Bill which contains similar provisions. It was then that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, raised this question. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said:
"Similar order-making powers are contained in Section 449(1 B) of
364
the Companies Act 1985, Section 180(3) of the Financial Services Act 1986 and Section 84(2) of the Banking Act 1987.
"These order making powers are not novel, they are part of the accepted form".—[Official Report, 14/2/1989: col. 113].
I ventured to suggest then that although they were precedents, they were dangerous precedents and we are building up on dangerous precedents. I know from my own experience that Bills have for a long time contained these provisions. One also knows that Lord Justice Fennell was quite right when he said as long ago as 1911 that if ministerial responsibility were more than the shadow of a name, the matter would be of less importance. Ministers are not only shadows, they are shadows that move about very quickly: sometimes up, and sometimes out, as the case may be.
I found myself in an unusual position when as former Secretary of State for the Environment I appeared in court to defend an order which I had made, which was said to be ultra vires. Law officers' opinions are not or should not be widely quoted; but there was some doubt about the matter. What was purported to have been done by me—in fact the order was signed by a junior Minister—was that a hereditament was rated outside the jurisdiction, double rated and rated according to an almost incomprehensible formula. When it reached the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Cairns said to me, "Are you saying to me, Mr. Rippon, that the Secretary of State could rate this hereditament at twice the salary of the chief executive?" I said, "Indeed, my Lord, that is exactly what I am saying. Parliament gave the Secretary of State absolute powers and he exercised them". Of course I won. I had mumbled something about an annual report to Parliament and a negative resolution; but we all know what that means.
I feel that the time has come when we ought to look very carefully at the way these powers are being exercised. It is true that the provision is in a fairly common form, but it is now being attached to Bills which I have said are in a skeletal form. I would hope, if I may say so with respect, that those members of the Cabinet who are responsible for scrutinising legislation before it comes before Parliament should try to ensure that the departments put their Bills in proper form before they bring them forward. I do not now know what is the composition of Cabinet committees, but I recall when in my time the legislation committee was chaired by the Lord Chancellor and the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller (Viscount Dilhorne as he became), was most careful to scrutinise the legislation. Where these powers were slipped in he would ask on every occasion "Why can't you put it in the Bill? That is what you must do so go away and redraft it". I hope that in future we shall not let these clauses pass without a debate of this kind and that we will seize upon an opportunity to debate the whole problem which is arising now in Bill after Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I want to make it quite clear that although there is no name from these Benches against the amendment on the Marshalled List, we are wholeheartedly in support of it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Rippon, we have been increasingly concerned at the extent to which regulation is being

365
used for matters which in our view ought to be embodied in the statute and therefore properly debated by both Houses of Parliament. The powers now existing to make regulations go far beyond what is appropriate in our kind of democracy, particularly where there is no written constitution and therefore no way of having any control over what is put into these regulations. If there have to be regulations, at least they should be affirmative regulations. We do not particularly like that. We would much rather have it written on the face of an Act, but to have negative regulations for matters of this importance is in our view totally improper.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I briefly support my noble and learned friend who has moved the amendment from the Cross-Benches. I need not say much except to repeat what I said in Committee. Part I of Schedule 2 is a most unusual substance to find in a schedule.
"Every local authority shall take steps".
Each of the paragraphs is as important as that on different subjects, except for one where it states:
"Where it appears to a local authority that a child within their area is in need, the authority may".
All the others are imperatives upon the local authority. That is not what one ordinarily expects to find in a schedule. Though I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that a schedule is valid as a clause in the Bill, nevertheless, matter such as this is normally dignified by having the status of a clause.
The kind of material that one expects to find in a schedule one can find by turning to Part II of Schedule 2 where one finds
"Regulations under section 19(2)(a) may, in particular, make provision"
for this, that and the other. That is the kind of detail that one ordinarily expects to be relegated to a schedule.
I floated the idea that these important matters might be translated into a clause instead of a schedule when I was speaking in Committee. I realised that that was rather a hopeless proposition because it would upset the structure of the Bill. On the other hand, I was most happy to say that what would please one the most, if this had to remain in the Bill as a schedule was, first of all, that the matter should not be allowed to be repealed by subordinate legislation. Secondly, I supported the idea that if it was to remain as a schedule, an important matter of this kind should only be altered or moderated, not repealed, by affirmative resolution. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has made out a very powerful case especially in relation to Part I of Schedule 2, and I strongly support him.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I too should like to support the principle of the amendment. I should have preferred to see it as an affirmative procedure for cancellations, deletions—I forget what the phrase is—rather than additions. An addition could be negative procedure in this case. Much more, I should like to support as a matter of principle—I hope he will continue the battle—the general argument of my noble friend Lord Rippon. From time to time,
366
starting from the Benches opposite and particularly from the Benches opposite, we have been grumbling about too much secondary legislation for matters which should not have secondary legislation. BackBenchers from all sides of the House ought collectively to mount a great campaign against that. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Rippon would care to be the band leader. I agree with the amendment in principle and hope that my noble and learned friend will also agree.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House is grateful for the determination, persistence and skill of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for again presenting it with an important parliamentary and constitutional issue.
The increasing habit of governments to by-pass serious consideration of orders and statutory instruments in which more and more legislation is cast is becoming pernicious. It is excellent that we now have an opportunity of being at the foothills of possible change.
As regards Clause 75, I found intriguing the nature of the exceptions to the requirement that everything should be done by way of annulment. I assumed that they must be of tremendous importance for the Government to have excepted them from annulment procedures. However, I discovered that they are Sections 44(2), 46(4)(a) and 47(3), all of which deal with management issues. I realise that it would be most embarrassing to have interruptions and interference with management but it is nothing of gravity. Otherwise everything is to be done by the procedure of annulment.
It is familiar ground. There was a strong energetic debate in our considerations of the famous provisions in Clause 15(4) of the Bill. I make no complaint in saying that we do not yet know the outcome of those discussions. The noble and learned Lord appeared to repel—if that is not too strong a word—the idea of a power to repeal provisions in the Bill by statutory instrument. I shall not press him tonight about where the considerations have reached. He expressed the hope of being able to explain the position before the Third Reading of the Bill. We await with interest to know how far the considerations have gone.
Elimination of repeal does not begin to cope with the anxieties that have been expressed by noble Lords who have spoken tonight. It is a most flagrant example but the amendment can also almost reach a point of repeal. If I may say so without putting it too dramatically, it is a great moment in the history of Parliament, when so much legislation is now passing through, that we should face up to the practice—I shall not call it "conspiracy"—of introducing legislation in skeletal form so that when either House considers it the meat of the matter is not available for inspection. When one considers the pressure which is being exercised tonight in relation to the amendments one realises that they arise at an historic moment.
The proposal has received the approval of the three noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken entrenchantly and powerfully. On the strength of what has been said on this occasion and on the previous occasion when we discussed the famous Clause 15(4)—and I expressed my views

367
somewhat forcefully—I hope that, now time has elapsed giving the noble and learned Lord time to consider the issue, we may receive a positive outcome to this very important part of parliamentary procedure.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, when Clause 15(4) was debated I undertook to delete the word "repeal" and I stand by that undertaking. On that occasion I made remarks which encouraged the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to believe that I would accept the principle of these amendments. I do so—I am prepared to accept the principle of the amendments. The draftsmen wish to have the opportunity of casting them in words which accord with the general style of the Bill but I am certainly prepared to accept the amendments in principle.
However, I should like to say more about the subject than may have been immediately apparent as being necessary. My noble friend Lord Rippon has raised other situations. I should like to make clear the fact that I do not regard the provision as dealing with skeletal statutory provisions. It is not that at all. I am dealing with detailed provisions in Part I of Schedule 2 which are as detailed as we can make them at the present moment. I wish to provide for the distinct possiblity that the practice in this area will develop and that we may be able to improve the provisions still further in the light of those developments. Other situations may arise—and I know that they have done so—in which regulation-making powers are sought for different reasons. The reason which obtains in this respect is the desire to have scope to develop the existing provisions in the light of developing practice.
Therefore I believe that this power is to be distinguished from a number of others that have been considered. It is not my business now to seek to offer a defence of other provisions. For all I know perhaps I shall have occasion to do so; therefore I had better not give too many hostages to fortune. However, for the present I am content to say that this provision is not within the general category to which my noble friend referred.
I am perfectly content that the provision should be by affirmative resolution. They are important matters. Although formally it is true that a regulation once laid is not normally voted on in this House, and it is not competent formally to amend, I believe that in regulations of this kind the Government seek as far as possible to obtain consensus out of consultation. If there was real difficulty about a provision the person who made the orders lost the whole order. Therefore I justify the use of the expression which I used on the last occasion; that the power for amendment is more limited. However, it can be extremely effective. I have seen colleagues placed in a difficult position by putting in regulations a particular provision to which there was strong objection. The danger is that one loses the whole order. Therefore, I believe that parliamentary control of regulation-making powers is an effective instrument, particularly so when the amendment is carried by affirmative resolution.
Clause 75 deals with regulations which will be made with regard to the allocation of individual
368
cases. They proceed by virtue of negative resolutions. If noble Lords permit, it may be of interest if I say a few words about them, although they are not directly raised by the amendment. As regards the allocation of individual cases, the vast majority of proceedings under the Bill will be self-allocating in that by far the largest number of orders about children are and will continue to be made in the course of divorce proceedings. We intend to preserve that position. It would be wasteful and pointless to involve anyone in taking individual decisions about allocations in those cases.
It is also the case that many other private law orders concerning children are made in the course of domestic disputes between parents and similar arguments apply. The result is that the need for an active allocation process in individual cases will arise only in a minority of cases under the Bill, the most significant class of which will be applications by local authorities for care or supervision orders. The Bill proposes that there should be regulations to deal with that matter.
If those regulation-making powers are to be satisfactorily administered, there needs to be an effective machinery that ensures close co-operation, especially between the magistrates' court and the county court. We intend to provide that.
I should like to say that with the agreement of the President of the Family Division—and it is particularly appropriate that I should be saying this in reply to an amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I have asked Her Honour Judge Bracewell QC to be responsible to the president for the judicial administration necessary to ensure the best possible transition to the new procedures. Hereafter, the judge will have responsibility for developing a standard practice for deciding which cases should be heard at which level of court and for overseeing and coordinating judicial aspects of the operation generally, including the transfer and listing of cases.
I see the judge as having a vital role to play in ensuring effective liaison between all those involved in care cases from senior judges to the magistrates and local authorities. She will also provide advice and assistance to the judicial studies board on the training of judicial officers working in this area. More generally the judge will be responsible to the president for monitoring the new arrangements to ensure their effective operation in the future.
Judge Bracewell's appointment will take full effect from October. She will continue to sit judicially from time to time to maintain her first hand contact with the developing law and practice. I have decided that these arrangements will have to operate through two court systems. The success will depend on the cooperation of all concerned. We are not seeking wide powers of compulsion under this Bill. It is perhaps appropriate I should say that, having regard to the matters we have discussed. We rely on the goodwill of all concerned and a common desire to secure effective access to justice for children. Goodwill and the desire to co-operate on their own are not enough. It is necessary to provide a focus.
I believe that the judge, working closely with those operating the system under the direction of the

369
president, will, together with an appropriate committee structure, provide the necessary focus. The committee will operate under the president and will bring together those responsible for the operation of the system both locally and at the centre. The shape and extent of the committee's structure, terms of reference and membership have not been settled but are matters for discussion and consultation with those concerned.
Perhaps I should also take the opportunity, in further elucidation of this matter, to explain the provision in the Bill dealing with the inherent jurisidiction because the regulation—making power does not seek to trench on that. However, it is relevant to the general structure which we are seeking to set up and which I am seeking to describe. There seems to be a misunderstanding about how the Children Bill will affect High Court wardships in cases concerning local authorities. In a nutshell, the purpose of the Bill is to prevent the High Court's inherent powers being invoked as an alternative to orders which are available to local authorities under the Bill and thus to circumvent the statutory protection provided for children and their families against unwarranted state interference. The Bill otherwise leaves intact those powers to provide a safety net for serious cases arising from unforeseen or unlikely circumstances. Perhaps that is not an immediate answer to this particular amendment; but I believe that it is relevant to the general context in which the powers, subject to the amendment, are to be operated. I hope that in the light of the undertaking I have given to my noble and learned friend, he will feel that he has succeeded in the argument and will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to those who have spoken in support of this amendment. Not only that, but the support came from all sides of the House. The speeches were of extraordinary authority. And the unanimity of view on the constitutional and parliamentary issue seems likely to be of permanent value.
I should also like to express my appreciation of what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said. He has not only accepted in principle the amendment. As a most valuable by-product, we have been given further information about matters of judicial administration. I noted with pleasure the hint he gave that your Lordships should not necessarily be bound by a constitutional convention not to divide against statutory instruments. That seems to me a most important intimation.
I noted that my noble and learned friend undertook to bring forward an amendment to leave out the word "repeal" in Clause 15(4), and I took it that that was as good as out. He made a further concession in accepting the affirmative resolution procedure, and for that I am most grateful. I am more than content now, with your Lordships' leave, to withdraw this amendment and leave it to the draftsman to put it into the appropriate form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128C not moved.]
Clause 76 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 65, line 5, at end insert—
(" "ill-treatment" has the same meaning as in section 26(8);").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 65, line 24, leave out ("has") and insert ("and "to foster a child privately" have").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 56 presently defines "privately fostered child" and "to foster a child privately" for the purposes of Part IX. We referred to this matter a little earlier in answer to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. Under Clause 76 only the first of these definitions is currently applied to the whole Bill. This amendment will merely add the definition of "to foster a child privately" in Clause 76. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy Lady Saltoun of Abernethy moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 65, line 35, after ("step-parent") insert ("or first cousin").
The noble Lady said: My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to widen the definition of "relative" to include cousins. In reply the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said (Hansard, 23rd January, col. 572) that the word "cousin" was rather imprecise because it would include cousins of a great variety of degrees. He also said that the definition of "relative" had excluded cousins for over 100 years and that the Government have no evidence to show that that had caused any difficulties.
I have therefore narrowed the proposed definition to first cousins, which I presume would include a first cousin once removed—the first cousin of the parents of the child. That is a more precise definition. I respectfully suggest that the fact that child care law has excluded cousins for over 100 years is not necessarily a valid reason for continuing to do so in view of the fact that social workers nowadays, nurtured on the concept of a nuclear family, with possibly no experience of the wider family, tend to ignore its existence where, in the absence of grandparents, uncles and aunts, the cousins may be the people closest to the child.
I have in mind the definition of "relative" as it applies to Part IX, Clauses 56 and 57 concerning private fostering, paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, and Clause 51. I believe that to keep children, wherever possible, within the background of their own kin is important to their sense of belonging and the need, which is so apparent to me through my experience of the clan system in Scotland, that so many people feel to have roots. The noble and learned Lord will of course be as aware of that as I am.
Many parents will appoint guardians for their children in the event of their own premature demise or any other disaster, but not all parents think of doing that in time and that is the kind of situation I have in mind. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, having probably more first cousins than anyone else in the Chamber—when he died in 1915 my grandfather had 60 living descendants, on one side only—I strongly support the principle of this amendment. I hope that it is technically correct. There is no doubt that cousins can be great fun and I am delighted that my own children have many first cousins who I hope will be of great benefit to them in the event that other relations sadly are not there.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in answer to the amendment tabled by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in Committee I said that the definition of "relative" which we use in the Bill is that which has persisted in child care law for 100 years or more. I do not mean to say that that alone is a reason to maintain the definition—not at al—but merely that apparently there has not been a convincing reason in all that time to change it.
There have been many cousins in that time, and I am sure that many people have had great pleasure in associating with them. I am not so fortunate in the number that my noble friend Lord Mottistone had, but certainly I had great enjoyment from the smaller number that I had.
However, we must look at the context in which this would be done in the Bill. The effect of a widening of the definition of "relative" inevitably will be to reduce the extent of protection that is afforded to children who are living away from their parents. I gave the definition of private fostering earlier, and the accepted categories include the relatives. If one widens the relatives, one thereby reduces those who are privately fostered and under the systematic responsibility of the local authority.
The plainest example is that a first cousin who is caring for and accommodating a child would not under Clause 56(1)(a)(iii) be a private foster parent, and the local authority would as a result have no responsibilities for satisfying itself as to the welfare of the child. This would be a relaxation of present private fostering law. We would be assuming that genealogically more distant first cousins are always suitable persons to be responsible for long-term care for children on a par with grandparents, uncles and aunts. This may or may not be a safe premise. My own view is that it is safer to err on the side of caution and require notification of such placements rather than to exclude them en bloc. There is some burden on those who wish to see a relaxation to convince us that this is desirable. I immediately accept that in many cases if it is a cousin the burden will be very easily discharged. The inquiries may be very small. But there may be other cases, and that is the point.
The other context in which this amendment would have effect is in relation to the authority's duty to take steps to secure that a child privately placed in a voluntary or children's home or who is privately
372
fostered, and about whose welfare it is not satisfied, is looked after by a parent or relative in terms of Clauses 51(4)(a) and 57(5). This duty is not an absolute one. It applies unless the authority considers it would not be in the best interests of the child. It would be wrong to suppose that the exclusion of cousin from the definition of relative excludes them from consideration. In fact, the local authority must also consider whether it should exercise any of its other functions with respect to the child, which includes providing accommodation for the child under Clause 17.
In such a case the child might be placed with a family or other suitable person, which could include a first cousin. The government amendment to Clause I9(2)(a) to insert a specific reference to relatives even though that does not include cousins will not prevent local authorities placing a child with cousins if the cousins are suitable persons. I do not think it is necessary to change the definition of relative either in this place or in order to secure that a suitable cousin would be a proper subject for such a placement.
I hope I have said enough to persuade the noble Lady that the Bill does not prevent placements with first cousins and that in that sense the Bill already accommodates what she wishes. On the other hand, it maintains a degree of responsibility in the local authority where the cousin is the carer to investigate the matter in order to see that the arrangements are satisfactory. Having regard to experience over the years I believe that this is a fair balance and I hope that the noble Lady will feel that is so. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am not at all surprised that the noble and learned Lord does not feel able to accept this amendment. I am very relieved to hear that there is no impediment to cousins being considered. I have a feeling that on a number of occasions they go by default. I wonder whether it will be possible to provide some guidance to social workers to consider the children of the wider family—namely, the children of the great grandparents—before strangers, other things being equal; that is, provided that they are suitable persons. Older children in this situation will be able to say with whom they would like to live. Some will be too young to do so. I do not intend to press this amendment, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord can consider this suggestion.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am content to consider this matter carefully. It will be the Secretary of State who will be responsible for giving guidance. I am sure that he will consider carefully how the guidance should be expressed. As my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, it may be that there are very valuable contacts with first cousins, or remoter relatives. I believe that it would be perfectly reasonable for the guidance to draw attention to that possibility so that it would not go by oversight or default. That may well meet the concern of the noble Lady. I am very happy to undertake further consideration along those lines.
Lady Saltoun of AbernethyMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that assurance. I feel very much happier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 130A:
Page 66, line 6, leave out ("and protection").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 at the Committee stage, I said as regards the grounds for a care order that at Clause 26(2) the term "care" should be taken to include protection. I believe that is part of the ordinary meaning of care in the context of bringing up children in that it would be reasonable to expect a person caring for a child to protect him from unnecessary risk of harm. In the light of that discussion we looked again at Clause 76, which states:
"'upbringing' … includes the care and protection of the child".
While this is not actually wrong it suggests a more limited meaning of care than the ordinary meaning. This amendment seeks to re-establish that care embraces protection. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Minor Amendments]:
[Amendment No. 130B not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 110, line 2, after ("orders),") insert ("where the offender is over the age of 14 years at the time of conviction,").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 133 are inspired by the Association for Juvenile Justice. In Amendment No. 131 we want to emphasise that the removal from home of a child is a serious act and should arise only where a serious offence has been committed and where the child is over the age of 14 and has been sentenced at a Crown Court. This aspect of legislation should not be used on those under the age of 14 as a backdoor means of taking a child into care.
There is already extensive access to local authority care under child care legislation and alternatives to custody for young offenders such as community care orders and stipulated conditions. It is felt that residential requirements should not be used for anything other than very serious offences. It is important to stress that there is already legislation to deal with serious offences committed by juveniles. I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, it will perhaps save the House time if I speak to Amendment No. 132A which is very much on the same lines.
Baroness David: My Lords, Amendment No. 132 comes very much under the same heading and so it would be sensible to discuss the amendments together.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, Amendment No. 132A also stipulates that in imposing on a young offender the new residential requirement created by
374
the Bill the court must be satisfied that the requirement is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence. It is designed to ensure that young people are not removed from home for minor offences. As the Bill stands, the new residential requirement could be used to send some young people inappropriately into residental care.
At present every power which the courts have to remove young people from home is subject to a test relating to the seriousness of the offence. Under Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, before a court can pass a care order in criminal proceedings it must be satisfied that it is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence. Likewise, under Section 22(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, a court can make a residential order only if it is satisfied that it is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence. It must be stressed that in law every minor theft and every act of vandalism, however trivial it may be, is an offence punishable with imprisonment. Since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 and the seriousness of the offence being taken into account, the number of children in care has fallen. We ought to bring this Bill into line with the Criminal Justice Act, which lays down that the seriousness of the offence must be taken into account.
Baroness David: My Lords, Amendment No. 132 attempts to do exactly the same in a different way. It seeks to ensure that removal from home into the care of the local authority is available only as an alternative to a custodial sentence. I think that the noble and learned Lord has a choice of various ways in which to deal with the matter. I hope that he will be sympathetic to the idea behind the amendments because they are all striving to achieve the same aim; namely, keeping young people out of something which vaguely resembles custody. I very much believe that the seriousness of the offence should be taken into account. However, I shall say no more for the moment, because I hope that we shali receive a favourable response.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in convection with Amendment No. 132A. I think that it is now widely agreed that residential care should only be used very sparingly for young offenders. Indeed, the research which has recently been carried out into community homes with education indicates that around 70 per cent. of young people leaving such homes are reconvicted within two years. That rate is very nearly as high as the reconviction rate of juvenile offenders leaving penal establishments. In my view, that is a most important consideration.
I believe that unless this amendment is accepted, or something like it, the Bill will create power to remove young offenders from home for minor offences. Surely that cannot be right. Therefore I hope that the matter can be put right in the Bill by means of such an amendment or, indeed, in the very words contained in Amendment No. 132A.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, perhaps I may take the amendments in order, although they do in a sense deal very much with the same problem. I shall

375
start first with Amendment No. 131. This is the principal amendment we are discussing which was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I think that the amendment is somewhat puzzling in its effect. In the first place, it appears to incorporate a proposed limitation of the use of the "removal from home" requirement, into the preamble to the amendment of Section 12 of the 1969 Act, rather than by a specific addition to the new subsection (1A) to (1I). As such, it has no practical effect. Secondly, it refers to an offender who is "over the age of 14" (that is someone who has attained the age of 15 years or more) rather than using the formula in the 1982 Criminal Justice Act for offenders who are eligible for a custodial sentence, which refers to someone who is "not less than 14 years of age". That is a small point but, nevertheless, it is an important one, because there are many people in that category.
Section 12 of the 1969 Act, which this part of Schedule 8 amends, deals with the powers of the court to make supervision orders on offenders, that is those who have attained the age of criminal responsibilty—10 years or more. The court has quite a wide range of options in dealing with young offenders under Section 12, ranging from a simple supervision order through to a supervision order to which specified activity requirements may be attached under Section 12A, and including those which are imposed as specific alternatives to a custodial disposal under Section 12D. The Government take the view that, subject to the conditions in the new subsection (1A) being met, it is appropriate for the new power of the court to attach a "removal from home" requirement to a supervision order, to be available for all persistent offenders from the age of 10 years.
The effect of limiting the operation of Section 12 to those offenders who have attained the age of 14 or 15 would mean that, certainly for the under-fourteens, the court would have no power to remove a serious offender from home, except for manslaughter or murder, even where all the evidence suggested that such a course of action would be in the young person's best interest. As I have already mentioned, custodial disposals are not generally available for those under the age of 14. For that reason, coupled with the defective nature of the proposed amendment, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Amendment No. 132, which was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady David, is designed to limit the circumstances in which a "removal from home" requirement can be added to a supervision order made in criminal proceedings, to those cases where the offender was not only subject to a supervision order with specified activities attached to it, but that that order had also been made instead of a custodial sentence.
I ask your Lordships to consider two matters in that connection. The first is that supervision orders can be made in criminal proceedings for children who have attained the age of 10 years—the age of criminal responsibility. Children under the age of 14 cannot receive a custodial sentence. The effect of the amendment therefore would be limit the use of the new "removal from home" power to those who have
376
attained the age of 14. Now that care orders are to be abolished under the Billl as a disposal in criminal proceedings, the court would be somewhat limited in the range of options available to it in dealing with what could be very serious persistent offenders under the age of 14, if the amendment were carried.
My second point is a more general one. Under this particular provision, we are trying to tackle those young people who persistently commit offences where, in the view of the court, the underlying problem arises from the circumstances in which he has been living; essentially circumstances where parental responsibility is lacking. That applies equally whether or not the existing supervision order with requirements was made as an alternative to a custodial sentence. But if the amendment were carried, the court would not be able to consider applying a removal from home condition to a new supervision order, even if it formed the view that the child's home circumstances were, to a significant extent, a contributory factor in his behaviour, unless the existing order had been made as an alternative to custody. That seems to us to be too restrictive.
The Government take the view that that new requirement should be used sparingly and appropriately. That is why we have made quite careful provision in subsection (1A) closely to define the circumstances in which it might be applied. If I could remind your Lordships, the grounds are: that the young person must have been found guilty of an offence which would be imprisonable if he were over 21; and that the court is satisfied that the child's behaviour which constituted the offence is due, to a significant extent, to the circumstances in which he has been living, and that he is already subject to a supervision order to which the court has attached specified activity requirements.
In the Government's view those stringent criteria already tightly define the circumstances in which a removal from home requirement may be attached to a fresh supervision order. While I have listened carefully to the points which have been made in the debate, I do not believe, for the reasons that I have already explained, that it would be appropriate to go further than that. To do otherwise would in my view unduly limit the court's ability to deal with persistent offenders.
Amendment No. 132A was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. The effect of the amendment is to add a further qualification to the circumstances in which the new "removal from home" requirement may be added to a supervision order. As the Bill now stands, the conditions which have to be met before the court can add such a requirement are set out in Section 12(1A) (a) to (d). Section 12(1A) says
"the offence of which the child or young person has been found guilty is one which, in the case of an adult, would be punishable with imprisonment".
The amendment proposes that the court should also be of the opinion that the requirement is appropriate
"because of the seriousness of the offence".
Parallels have been drawn between that requirement and the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 dealing with custodial sentences for

377
young offenders. In the latter case, the court is required to be of the opinion that, among other things, the offence was so serious that a non-custodial sentence cannot be justified. It has been argued, and I have a certain sympathy with this view, that—certainly from the perception of the young person himself—there is, in principle, little difference between removing a juvenile from home under the terms of a supervision order, and a custodial sentence. Both deprive the juvenile of his ability to remain at home, and accordingly it is argued similar considerations should apply when consideration is given by the courts to taking this step.
As I have already indicated, I have some sympathy with that view. However, I would ask that two points be considered. The first is to remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which a "removal from home" requirement may be added to a supervision order. Those are that the young offender must, at the time of the further offence, already be subject to a supervision order to which specified activity requirements have been added under Section 12A(3) of the 1969 Act. That existing order may, or may not, have been imposed instead of a custodial sentence; but, whatever the case, the second order with a condition as to residence can stem only from the juvenile being found guilty of an offence which would be imprisonable if he were over 21.
In other words, by the time the court is considering whether it would be appropriate to add a "removal from home" requirement to a supervision order, the juvenile will by definition have an established history of offending. Against that background, I really wonder whether it is necessary, in the circumstances I have described, to add an additional "seriousness" test to the further offence which would trigger the new requirement and which itself must already be one which, in the case of an adult, would be punishable with imprisonment.
Secondly, and I think more important, is the fact that by adding a "seriousness of offence" qualification to the existing offence ground, it tips the balance of grounds for the new requirement too much towards the offence itself. In our view this would be to the detriment of the other important condition in Section 12(1A)(c)—namely, that the behaviour which constituted the offence is due, to a significant extent to the circumstances in which the child has been living. That has to be focused on as an essential part of this provision.
It is intended that the focus of this new "removal from home" requirement should be on children and young people whose offending behaviour is primarily attributable to their home circumstances. The purpose of adding a "removal from home" requirement is to give the social services department a relatively short period, of up to six months, to work through these problems with the young person and his or her family in the hope that the home circumstances leading to his offending behaviour will be ameliorated. I suggest to your Lordships that this form of intervention might be appropriate in all cases where a juvenile has, on a further occasion, been found guilty of an offence which would be imprisonable if he were over 21, and that further
378
qualification of the offence might well preclude the court from responding appropriately to the problems underlying a young person's offending behaviour.
I hope that I have said enough to enable your Lordships to see the grounds on which we have expressed this view. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has moved Amendment No. 133.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we have not moved it yet, but I think it will be very short.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in that, case I shall leave what I have to say until we come to the amendment. I hope that noble Lords proposing Amendments Nos. 132 and 132A as well as those who spoke to them will feel that they should not be pressed.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down. perhaps I might ask him to address his mind to one aspect of Amendment No. 132A to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, has spoken. I know that the noble and learned Lord has sympathy with the purpose behind the amendment. Does he not agree that if the amendment is not accepted there is a risk that some courts could use a new power to remove young people from home for minor offences where they have no power to do so at present? If as I believe is the case, that is so, is it not going against all trends of penal policy as expressed by the Home Office?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand it, this provision is in line with current Home Office policy. That is my understanding of the matter but I am of course willing to be corrected. I understand that the real thrust of the provision which the amendment seeks to address is the persistence of the offending and the connection with the home circumstances. The real focus is that the court comes to the conclusion, in the light of all the information given to it, that it is the home circumstances that are giving rise to the offending. It is true that some of the offences which are imprisonable may be regarded as not being all that serious. On the other hand, if imprisonment is thought by Parliament to be an appropriate punishment, it gives some indication that the offence is serious. Of course, imprisonable offences trigger off a number of other consequences.
However, the real heart of the matter is the persistence of the offending and the connection with the home circumstances. That is the reason why it has been expressed in this way. At present a care order could be made in criminal proceedings. One has to look to see whether one is coping with all the posssible situations that could arise. Certainly my understanding is that that is in accordance with Home Office policy.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall read carefully what the noble and learned Lord said on Amendment No. 131, and in the meantime I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 132:
Page 110, line 14, at end insert—
("and,
(e) the court had made a statement under section 12D of this Act when imposing requirements under paragraph (d) of this subsection.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I was going to say something on Amendment No. 132A. The noble and learned Lord has stressed that the offence must be one punishable with imprisonment. I think it is the case that every minor theft or act of vandalism is punishable with imprisonment, including stealing a pint of milk off the doorstep. Therefore, I do not think that that is much help to us. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will think about this again.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure exactly what position we are at. If we are making a kind of supplementary to the withdrawal of Amendment No. 131, I am content to consider it; but the fact is that if Parliament thinks the offence is one for which imprisonment is possible, Parliament must regard it as sufficiently serious for that to happen, if that is not an argument in a circle.
I sometimes am surprised at what imprisonment can be awarded for. This is giving a power to the court, and one must be careful not to remove the court's power to deal with matters which appear to be dealt with, and repeated offending connected with home circumstances is a matter that requires to be dealt with.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am sorry if I jumped out of line, and I shall not move Amendment No. 132.
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 132A:
Page 110. line 22, at end insert—
("(1CC) A court shall not impose a requirement under subsection (1A) of this section in respect of a child or young person unless it is of opinion that such requirement is appropriate because of the seriousness of the offence.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his explanation, which I understand. I am not sure that I altogether agree with it, but I should like to consider it and bring this back at the next stage. Therefore, I shall not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 132A not moved.]
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 110, line 50, at end insert—
("(1J) Where a Crown Court is dealing with an offender who has been committed for trial by virtue of section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, section 12 shall not apply.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 133 has as its purpose to allow the use of a residential order for a first-time offender where a young person is sentenced at a Crown Court. Bearing in mind the worrying size of the prison population and prison conditions at the present time, and, what is almost equally troubling, the high
380
reoffending rate and the cost of these operations to the community, we submit that it is important that custodial sentencing is only used in exceptional circumstances. The amendment seeks to ensure that the residential order is used rather than the Section 53 order so that young people can be worked with by social workers in the community rather than by prison officers in custody. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as I understand this amendment, its effect is to remove the power of the Crown Court, in certain circumstances, to make a supervision order (with conditions including the new removal from home requirement) under Section 12 of the 1969 Act as opposed to conditions under Section 12A, which latter provisions relate to specified activities.
The circumstances contemplated by Section 24(1)(a) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 are where the magistrates' court has committed a young person who has attained the age of 14 for trial in the Crown Court, with the view of a possible sentence under Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 being imposed. Section 53 of the 1933 Act is the provision under which young people convicted of certain grave crimes may be sentenced to be detained for long periods.
I would remind your Lordships that at that stage the magistrates' court has either to be of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to put him on trial, or it has the power under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1980 to commit him without consideration of the evidence. I believe that that point should be borne in mind when considering the range of sentencing options available to the Crown Court.
The amendment does not remove the power of the Crown Court to make a supervision order to which specified activity requirements are attached—which is in Section 12A, not Section 12, of the 1969 Act—but it preludes the Crown Court from attaching a "removal from home" requirement to a supervision order under this part of the Bill which is inserted into Section 12 of the 1969 Act.
I must confess some difficulty in understanding fully the purpose underlying this amendment. I can appreciate the point that a magistrates' court is only likely to refer a case to the Crown Court under Section 24(1) (a) of the 1980 Magistrates' Courts Act if it considers that the gravity of the offence was such that an appropriate disposal was beyond the powers of the magistrates' court. On the other hand, I take the firm view that in such circumstances the Crown Court should retain the flexibilty after hearing all the evidence to dispose of the case in a manner which it considered most appropriate. To remove the ability to make a supervision order with conditions made pursuant to Section 12 of the 1969 Act seems to me to be an unwarranted restriction on the Crown Court's powers.
There is one further consideration which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention. Removing any non-custodial disposal from the powers of the Crown Court raises the possibility of increasing the likelihood of a custodial sentence. I understood the

381
noble and learned Lord to be very much against that, and I share that view. I am sure that it is not what in moving the amendment he would wish to see happen.
So it may be that this amendment, in the context in which it seeks to innovate on our provisions, might have the effect of increasing rather than diminishing the chance of a custodial sentence. I hope that perhaps, once the noble and learned Lord has had a chance to consider this matter, he may be able to reconsider but that in the meantime he may feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I shall most certainly consider what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, if the effect of the amendment is the exact opposite to what I had in mind in moving it. Now I shall have some words with the Association for Juvenile Justice. In the meantime, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before ten o'clock.

  NUCLEAR FUEL: CONTRACTS
  NUCLEAR FUEL: CONTRACTS
  MOTABILITY INITIATIVE: UNLEADED PETROL
  MOTABILITY INITIATIVE: UNLEADED PETROL
  UDCs AND RBs: CHAIRMEN'S SALARIES
  UDCs AND RBs: CHAIRMEN'S SALARIES
  PRIVATE "SECURE ACCOMMODATION"—YOUNG PEOPLE
  PRIVATE "SECURE ACCOMMODATION"—YOUNG PEOPLE
  SERVICEMEN'S PENSIONS
  SERVICEMEN'S PENSIONS